This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nanjing Massacre article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks.JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Nanjing Massacre was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Not done. That article uses only the spelling with k in bold in its lead and as that was the usual spelling at that time (when the safety zone actually existed), I'd say it makes sense to keep it. Gawaon (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who dilutes to weaken historic lessons of conflict needs to be banned from editing geopolitical topics relating to past and potential conflict
This pretext should be deleted. the perpetrators of war crimes cant have their'reason' for carrying out war crimes be framed as fact (KMT were defending, not an aggressor in their own country. This whole page needs to be carefully reinstated to 2024 version for the safety of all citizens. anyone who has diluted historic lessons needs to be banned from editing geopolitical topics relating to past and potential conflicts.:
As such, please delete this text added in 2025: Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe, who presided over the Second Sino-Japanese War,[1] justified the massacre as retaliation against persistent Kuomintang aggression,[2] and advocated for the regime's destruction in January 1938
Just as whoever thought it clever to hedge down estimates from 300,000 to '100,000 to 200,000' in the first lines, has just treated 100,000 lives as trash, also edited in 2025. We know who and why and you should count yourself in the IDF bot market:
added 2025:
"100,000–200,000 civilians and POWs (newer estimates);[3]<ref>{{Cite book |last=Frank |first=Richard B. |author-link=Richard B. Frank |title=Tower of Skulls: A History of the Asia-Pacific War
This article is littered with dilution since 2024 and yes it will become more obvious every day if this article is not faithfully reinstated with the safety of civilians in mind. ~2026-21170-74 (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I request for where it says "including rape, torture, arson and murder" to be changed to "including rape, torture, arson, and murder" please. ~2026-22434-99 (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hi. I noticed a typo where a publisher for the New York Times, F. Tillman Durdin, is referred to as "born witness," the correct spelling being "borne witness" in the section "The Nanjing Massacre" underneath "death toll." I would like to fix it, or whoever reads this to fix it. Thank you. Haohaozheng (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Following the sentences "To many Japanese scholars, post-war estimations were distorted by "victor's justice", when Japan was condemned as the sole aggressor. They believed the 300,000 toll typified a "Chinese-style exaggeration" with disregard for evidence." I believe a brief explanation of jigyaku-shikan would be helpful to readers interested in the historiography.
Japanese denialists and negationists further criticise historians who write about wartime atrocities through accusations of jigyaku-shikan, meaning "masochistic" or "self-deprecating" views of history. Nationalist historians argue that such interpretations are anti-Japanese and "leftist," and should be replaced with a more positive and patriotic historical narrative. ((cite book |last1=Saaler |first1=Sven |last2=Schwentker |first2=Wolfgang |title=The power of memory in modern Japan |date=Folkestone |publisher=Global Oriental |location=2008 |pages=26, 32))
Madoka Futamura further writes Japanese nationalist historians have deployed jigyaku-shikan in opposition to the Tokyo Trials since the 1990s. ((cite journal |last1=Futamura |first1=Madoka |title=Japanese Societal Attitudes Towards the Tokyo Trial: A Contemporary Perspective |journal=Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus |date=July 19, 2011 |volume=9 |issue=29 |url=https://apjjf.org/2011/9/29/madoka-futamura/3569/article |access-date=30 May 2026))
Vritngh (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I should have formatted this request more clearly. The latter two paragraphs are the text I am proposing to add to the article, immediately following the two sentences quoted in the opening paragraph of my request. Vritngh (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's also something seriously broken going on here, which causes half the text of the page to disappear when there are ref tags in your request comment – which is why I removed them for the time being, instead enclosing the references in ((...). No idea what's wrong there. Gawaon (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Denialist? Negationist? You've taken a kind of a bad sentence and made it worse. Really, unless someone wants to sit down and go over this more carefully, removal would be better at this point. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I apologise for any confusion. This is my first major editing contribution to Wikipedia. 'Denialist' and 'negationist' are used when discussing the historiography surrounding Japanese atrocities like the Nanking massacre in the university settings I've been in. The terms refer to scholars who either deny or minimise the history surrounding atrocities, however I understand they may be inappropriate for Wikipedia.
Based on my edit request yesterday (which I have revised following Deacon Vorbis' suggestions, but will hold off on adding until I receive others’ opinions on whether this topic is suitable for inclusion in the article), I believe that a brief discussion of jigyaku-shikan would provide useful historiographical context for readers of the subsection "Denials of the Massacre in Japan."
The term has been used by some right-wing Japanese historians to criticise what they regard as "masochistic" or "self-deprecating" interpretations of Japanese wartime history, including scholarship focused on Japan's World War II-era atrocities. Vritngh (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest we stick to what reliable sources say. Any historian who explicitly favours a particular interpretation for political reasons, rather than striving for the truth, is disqualified in my view. Gawaon (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I believe there's a miscommunication here. I am not affirming or denying the concept, rather mentioning it as a part of the wider historiographical debate. There is already a section on denial that touches upon this somewhat in the article.
However, I will include it in the separate article on Nanjing massacre historiography instead, as I realise this pertains more to the historical debate rather than the massacre as it was.
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done. That article uses only the spelling with k in bold in its lead and as that was the usual spelling at that time (when the safety zone actually existed), I'd say it makes sense to keep it. Gawaon (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Done. I'm a friend of the Oxford comma too. Gawaon (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)