Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Rape of Nanking (book)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

---

The Rape of Nanking (book)

Article was promoted to GA at the end of July, and a peer review on it just concluded. As far as I can tell, the article doesn't have any major problems. So I'd like to make a push for FA status. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Although the article has improved somewhat, I still feel it is biased in places. For example, Ivan Hall is used as a single source towards the end despite the fact that he is described by the interviewing website as one of the most controversial commentators on Japan. Also I can't see how the source used (here) actually shows that:

revisionist historians in Japan organized a committee of right-wing scholars to condemned the book with repeated appearances at the Foreign Correspondents' Club in Tokyo and throughout Japan. They prevailed on Kashiwa Shobo, the contracted Japanese publisher of the book, to insist that Chang edit the book for "corrections" they wanted made, to delete photographs and alter maps, and also to publish a rebuttal to Chang's book. Chang disagreed with the changes and, as a result, withdrew the Japanese publishing of the book.

• The only reference I found to Nanking was about a radio station. More generally I think that the article lacks detailed discussion of the book itself, generally talking "around it". There needs to be a sizeable section on the book's main points. John Smith's 16:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added that Hall is a "controversial" Japan scholar.[1]
  • The source for the text about right-wing scholars condemning the book came from here - [2] - which is footnoted at the end of the relevant paragraph. But I've now added an extra footnote at the end of the sentence that you quoted.[3]
  • As for a "general discussion" of the content inside the book - as the intro indicates, it is a history book about the Nanjing Massacre. The Massacre itself already has its own article and I didn't feel that a summary of the book's content is necessary. That's sort of like summarising the contents of a book about WW2 - it'll basically be information about WW2 itself. However, if other editors also feel it is necessary for FA, I can certainly add that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If Hall is a controversial scholar, why mention him at all? It would be better if you got a more non-partisan source to mention this given the seriousness of the allegations. John Smith's 17:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • He is necessary to make the section NPOV. If he is taken out, then the section would be biased. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Other editors please note that John Smith's and I have been edit warring, so I have to admit that I have some bad faith reservations about why he is really opposing my nomination here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Assume good faith, Hong. I have a right to criticise as I see fit. Address the points I've made, rather than cry wolf. Besides, it takes two to tango - you can stop edit-warring any time you want. Additionally I remember you opposed the Japan article getting FA status too - does that mean it was down to our disputes at the time? Be careful of what you allege as you may be tarring yourself with the same brush. John Smith's 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah I opposed the FAC on Japan because of our dispute, and our dispute was about the Japan article itself. I felt that there were problems with the article, and you disagreed. On the other hand, we are disputing about something completely unrelated to The Rape of Nanking (book) at the moment. I apologise for assuming bad faith, but seeing that you are the first to vote and voted oppose when we are in the middle of a dispute about something unrelated to this article, this is something that I think should be pointed out for other editors to consider. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • We had other disputes going on at the same time in regards to the "Japan" article as far as I can remember.
      • As to this nomination, it may surprise you but I do not vote according to whether I like people/have or don't have disputes with them, etc. You did well to get a live source for the link that was no longer working. I'm not objecting to FA status under any circumstances for this article. If you talked it over with me, we might get to the point where at least I withdraw my opposition if not actively support it. John Smith's 18:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not quite support just yet

1. Get rid of the 2 red link book titles. Create stubs if you think they are notable enough, or simply remove the wikilinks.
2. Perhaps Response in Japan heading should be subheaded under Acclaim and criticism.
3. I found that Acclaim and criticism is exceptionally well-written for what is probably the most contentious part of this article. Kudos! However, I am sure there are many different reviews, both supportive and otherwise. Perhaps instead of going in-depth into a single criticism/issue (Buress, Hata and Chang's rebuttal) you should use the space to include more reviews from both sides.
4. I feel that in the final bit about Higashinakano, his "pure baloney" comments should be coupled with a statement saying that his view is not currently accepted by the consensus, or something to that effect.

-- Миборовский 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one could cite a claim that those views are not accepted by "consensus", given consensus isn't easy to establish, even if we might agree that his views are not consensus ones. It would be easier, I think, to get a citation to say those opinions are not widely accepted in the historical academic community, or some such. But a citation is needed - maybe the qualifying expression could fit the citation(s). John Smith's 22:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is what I am suggesting, JS. A consensus is the majority of opinions in a group. In this case the majority of opinions does not agree with Higashinakano, and therefore there is a consensus in the academia to that effect. -- Миборовский 22:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute his views ref "baloney" are not consensus. I just expressed a need for a citation and that the phrasing should fit the citation. John Smith's 22:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Miborovsky:
  • I'll be making stub articles for both of those red links.
  • I've made the "Response in Japan" section a subsection.[4]
  • The reason that I added in-depth content on Buress's criticism and Chang's rebuttal is because it was important to include Chang's direct response to the criticism. Unfortunately that was the only one of Chang's rebuttals I was able to find, that's why more attention was paid to that particular exchange. Sources say that Chang argued against her critics, and have appeared in talks and seminars to do so, but I wasn't able to find the actual content of her rebuttals except for that particular one, and the section may become POV if I only present criticism without her response.
  • I'll try to find sources on opinions about Higashinakano's views, but not sure if I'd be able to find anything. And I fear that adding much more on the different views concerning the Nanjing Massacre itself may risk the article becoming a mirror of the Nanking Massacre article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Stub articles for the two red links have been created. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The article seems seems rather hagiographic and unbalanced. Some specific suggestions/examples:
  • The 'Acclaim and criticism' doesn't adequetly cover the book's reception. From my understanding, this book received serious criticism and remains controversial. However, this section is focused on a dispute between Chang and a journalist over how some photos were captioned and Chang's response seems to receive disproportionate coverage. The article would be greatly improved by including the more serious concerns which were raised over the book - for instance, did Fogel, Kelly and Entenmann make any specific points, or did they publish one line reviews/responses in which they made what look like very serious criticisms? - did Chang respond to them?
  • Moreover, are these reviewers (both positive and negative) the best qualified people to quote? - Kelly's review appeared in something called the 'Edogawa Women's Junior College Journal' which hardly seems like a notable source.
  • As a broader point, is there a current consensus on the quality of the book? The article simply quotes positive and negative comments on it without stating whether one school of thought is dominant. The article should try to make it clear whether the book is considered reliable by experts on this and related topics and whether it recieved different receptions from academics and general reviewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dowling (talk • contribs) 11:05, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
  • The 'Research' section should discuss the quality of Chang's research and not just describe what she did and how she discovered some new sources (which doesn't seem a big deal anyway as this is what historians are meant to try to do - especially if they're researching an obscure topic)
  • The 'Public reception' section simply states that 'The book received praise from news media' when the preceeding section states that this wasn't universal and the following section states that it got a poor reception in Japan.
  • What seem like potentially serious criticisms from Japanese academics are burried in the 'Response in Japan' section when this material seems better suited to the 'Acclaim and criticism' section.
  • As a broader comment, I'd suggest that the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the book be integrated into the article rather than placed in seperate sections. For instance, the 'research' section could include the good and bad things which have been said about how Chang researched and wrote the book and the 'Inspiration' section could discuss whether it's accurate to say that the Rape of Nanking was in fact obscure in the west before the book. --Nick Dowling 08:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. Let me try to respond to your points:
    • The "Acclaim and criticism" section is written the way it is for both NPOV and available sources. Articles have said that Chang had defended her work against critics, but her one rebuttal to Burress' article was the only rebuttal that I could actually find. Without the actual content of Chang's or her allies' other rebuttals and defenses to the criticism, I felt the section would become POV to go into in-depth details on other criticism. However, Burress' criticism addresses concerns that from what I can see are shared by other critics, and it specifically cites another of Chang's critics (Ikuhiko Hata - he is mentioned in the article as having been cited by Burress).
    • I believe her praises and criticism come from notable sources, but I understand the concern on "why do their opinions matter"? That's why I've made sure to mention the credentials of the people that are named, and footnoted sources for what their credentials are. Readers can decide for themselves whether these people's opinions are worthy. Specifically concerning Kelly - he is an award-winning journalist, and his credentials are given at one of the footnotes at the end of the sentence.
    • I have not found sources that can authoritatively say what the "dominant" thought on the book is, whether it is positive or negative. And it's not like academics all get together to all agree on what they think of a book. Mostly their individual opinions are published seperately, and at the core of the problem here is that since the book is controversial, it is highly speculative and POV-risky to try to state that the book is mostly thought of as either positive or negative.
    • About the "Research" section - I noted that she discovered John Rabe and Minnie Vautrin's diaries because sources indicate that this is a notable fact about her research. On the quality of her research - most of the discussion on that comes from either praises or criticism of her work, which I felt was better served to be put in the "Acclaim and criticism" section.
    • Actually the "Public reception" section does not contradict the preceeding section about her praises and criticism. The "Public reception" concentrates on how the general public felt about the book, while the "Acclaim and criticism" section focuses on the academic response to the book. But I've moved "Public reception" above "Acclaim and criticism" to try to make it clear what the difference between the two sections are.
    • I've moved the "Response in Japan" sub-section under the "Acclaim and criticism" section.
    • About integrating the "strengths and weaknesses" of the book into the rest of the article as opposed to seperating them into its own section - I must disagree with you on this. Since the book is controversial, I felt it necessary that a seperate section be devoted to this topic. If the book was not so controversial, then I agree that a seperate section is not necessary. But one of the notable things about the book is its controversial nature, and readers will want to read about that specifically. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Thanks for the response. However, I'm afraid that I'm not going to change my vote. This article is very good and you should be proud of it, but it doesn't really capture the extent to which Chang's work is controversial and why this is the case. I don't think that it would be POV to discuss serious criticisms such as plagerism and blatant inaccuracies if these criticisms are made by reputable reviewers, even if no response from the author can be found - maybe she didn't respond? --Nick Dowling 08:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment As another point there are some serious problems with some of the references you've used and these should be removed:
        • I'm rather uncomfortable with reference 24 being "Quotes on the Jacket and Interior of" the book. Without having seen the actual reviews, how do you know that the authors' quotes are being used in context and accurately reflect the content of the review? It's probably safe to assume that they are (the reviewers would be contacting their lawyers otherwise!), but what's basically advertising material shouldn't be considered a reliable source. If you can't dig up the actual reviews and cite them you'd probably be better off removing these quotes.
        • Reference 3 is the introduction of the book but is used to back statements about the book breaking new ground. It should not be used to support any statements about the worth of the book as it is not in any way independent of it (Chang and her publishers would have hardly included a critical assessment of the book in its introduction!).
        • You should cite the individual pages of the book and not lump them together as they are in references 7 and 9. --Nick Dowling 09:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)----
          • Thanks for your response - it's OK that you don't want to change your vote, but let me try to respond back to you anyway.
          • I've changed the footnotes to cite specific pages of the book itself.
          • I do disagree that in-depth criticism should be offered without also presenting rebuttals and defences. Right now the article is carefully balanced between praises and criticism, and I do think that giving too much attention to one side will make the article horribly POV. As you can see, some of the criticism come from sources that are not considered mainstream, or at least, are not at the same notability level as, for example, TIME magazine. It may be that no responses have been published to the public because the mainstream considers such criticism as basically Wikipedia:Fringe theories, because the criticism doesn't just go to the book itself, but toward what really happened in the Nanjing Massacre. A parallel can be drawn toward Holocaust denial and how much the mainstream actually acknowledge that by engaging in lengthy debates with deniers. However, praises and criticism must be offered, and so they have been mentioned in the article. I do think that an in-depth focus of Buress' article is sufficient to address the criticism, firstly because it was published in the San Francisco Chronicle and that's essentially the most notable source for a criticism that we have at the moment, and secondly because Buress draws from other critics as well and in doing so, the Buress article is an even better source for being a notable secondary source (per WP:NOR).
          • You are right that a couple of the praises comes from the jacket of the book itself. But I do think they are OK to include because they are balanced by criticism, those quotes did in fact come from the people who wrote or said it, and they are footnoted as being from the jacket of the book. Readers may disregard them if they so choose, just like they may choose to disregard criticism that was published on the website of Edogawa Women's Junior College, or they may choose to disregard criticism that was published from www.jiyuu-shikan.org - the article uses that website as a source and the website is basically devoted to advancing the idea that Japan played a benevolent role in WW2. In the absence of more notable sources, I believe the important thing here is to make sure the praises and criticism are balanced and sourced for the readers' benefit. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Thanks again for your response. I think that you should definetly not use the introduction of the book to justify statements about the book such as "[it] shows more clearly than any previous account just what [the Japanese] did" in the 'Acclaim and criticism' section. If the reviews of the book are from unreliable sources or were written to justify fringe theories then they should be treated as such and be removed. However, you quote a negative review from Fogel in what looks like a highly reputable publication which critises the book's research so it doesn't seem to be the case that all criticism of the book is driven by a desire to deny that the Rape of Nanking occured - some of these reviews seem to be arguing that it's simply not a good book. I don't think that it's fair on your readers to ask them to trawl through the footnotes to decide whether to believe individual bits of the article - if the source is unreliable or biased then the material shouldn't be used. Finally, articles don't need to be 'balanced' - they need to be accurate. If the reviews were generally good then this should be stated and cited and you don't need to trawl for unreliable bad reviews to provide 'balance'. Conversely, if the reviews were mixed, then the main issues raised should be covered without concern over whether they balance out. Do you have an article which discusses the book's reception you can draw from? - all the references seem to be basically primary sources or articles on Chang. --Nick Dowling 00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Definitely disagree that the article doesn't have to be balanced. WP:NPOV is stated as "absolute and non-negotiable". At the same time I believe the article is also factual. Let me clarify - the article doesn't try to present that the book "shows more clearly than any previous account...", it merely states that it is what William C. Kirby wrote. Note that the same treatment is given to the criticism of the book. The article specifically uses quotes from the reviewers to avoid any original research problems. There are other positive reviews from other sources (for example[5][6][7]), but I disagree that using reviews found in the book itself is problematic. These reviews come from some of the most notable reviewers (professors from both Harvard and Yale), and it would be a great loss to the article to delete them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Kirby's introduction forms part of the book and is not a review so it has no place whatsoever the 'Acclaim and criticism' section and placing it there is misleading as the text indicates that this is a review of the book. Unless you can verify the reviews quoted on the book they should be treated as suspect. Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made" - these references clearly fail this test as they are not reliable unless they can be verified, are not from third-party sources, were selected by the publisher to promote the book and are not appropriate to the claims being made as they also essentially form part of the book. I think that you're misinterpreting WP:NPOV to mean that all views should be considered equal, when this isn't the case - the facts are meant to speak for themselves. --Nick Dowling 05:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • I do maintain that they are OK to use as they are factual and accurately reflected. But would they be more acceptable to you if I added that those reviews are found in the book sleeve? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • In short, no. These are simply not suitable references for any article, and especially not a FA standard article. Unless you read the full review you don't know whether the graphic designer who put the book's cover together accurately quoted the reviews or whether the reviews also made serious criticisms of the book (eg, it's possible to argue that a book "yields a new and expanded telling" of something and but is also poorly written or contains serious errors). The book's cover is not a reliable source on the book's worth as it is advertising material promoting the book. Sorry, but I'm not going to be changing my vote on this article. --Nick Dowling 00:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (I changed my position; see below -- Taku 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)) In general, I don't like (and so I usually do not) editing an article about a controversial topic. But the lead in the article should at least mention the facts: (1) there is no Japanese translation, and (2) the was not quite well received by the Japanese public in general. Maybe it is not easy to do this in a NPOV but this is my suggestion. -- Taku 09:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added in the intro that the book was not translated into Japanese. But is there a source that the book was not well-received by the Japanese "public in general"? The book wasn't even published in Japan, so how would the Japanese general public have any reaction to it? I know that there are a lot of right-wing politicians and academics that attacked the book, and that is covered in its own section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • My sorry for the lateness of the reply and thank for addressing (1), which was done very nicely. Anyway, to elaborate on what I meant, me growing up in Japan, I noticed, for example, that some people use the book as an example of how the Chinese government uses the events in WWII in order to advance its nationalism. Even some, I say, ordinary people. Given that there is no Japanese translation, I suspect those (not necessarily academic) critics actually never read the book. I know this is completely anecdotal but I witness something like sometimes when the war-time topics are brought up and I feel that the book has not-so-good reputation in Japan and I suspect some ignorance is playing some part. In any rate, the logical step, now I think, is to address this point in the body of the article, then we can summarize it in the lead later. -- Taku 05:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Do you have sources that discuss how the book was received by the general public in Japan? Without sources, I fear it would be difficult to include something like that in the article, and I haven't come across any sources that discuss this in particular. There are sources for right-wing academics criticising the book, but none that I've found about the general public in Japan. And to be honest, I think it would be a little strange to try to discuss the general public reaction to the book in Japan when the book wasn't even published in Japan. How would we present that? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
        • What I meant is that even when the book is not available in Japan, people still know that it exists, and the book gets mentioned sometimes, like in the way, for example, the Chinese textbooks are mentioned even though they are not translated into Japanese. So, I don't think it's that strange. In any rate, I don't know reliable sources (there may be some though), so I agree that discussing the point is probably not easy. But, like I said, this is something that needs to be covered in my opinion. (See my other post below too) -- Taku 00:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Almost ready to support. Very well written etc. I have two concerns, one trivial and one somewhat more substantial. Small things first first: I'd like to see one sentence (or even just one phrase or clause, actually) added to the lede which provides a tiny sample of the quotes from both supporters and detractors (perhaps even just one of each), to make the range of response more concrete. That should take 5 minutes or less. Slightly more substantially, I noted that BUress' criticism was discounted for several reasons. Did any serious, accomplished scholars respond to the criticisms by others (Entenmann, etc.)? If so, I'd like to see that. But I am right on the cusp of supporting. Good work. --Ling.Nut 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.

• I've added two quotes in the intro section.[8]
• That section was not meant to discount Buress' criticism, but Chang's response was there to maintain NPOV. Without rebuttals or counter-arguments, giving in-depth focus to criticism would make the section POV. Also it was pointed out by the GA reviewer that it was necessary to provide rebuttals and counter-arguments in that section. Sources indicate that Chang fiercely defended her work in talks and seminars, having even appeared in talks where she was the only Asian and only woman in a panel of "experts". Unfortunately, Chang's response to Buress was the only one which I could actually find, thus more attention was given to both Buress' criticism and Chang's response. If I can find more responses and rebuttals to specific criticism, I'd be glad to add them to the article. But I feel the section would become POV if there was in depth focus to other criticism without offering specific responses to them. Fortunately though, from what I can see, some of Buress' criticism is shared by other critics, as he appeared to have drawn from other critics. And the article does make sure to mention that Buress cited notable critic Ikuhiko Hata. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment In the paragraph beginning, "Conversely, critic Joshua A. Fogel..." did these critics disagree with the main thrust of the book, i.e. denying the existence of the massacre, or did they simply feel the authored messed up a large number of details in the historical background? I ask because if people are saying the book was full of inaccuracies, that sort of leads to the implication that they felt its main thesis was false... which in fact may not have been be their opinion at all... -- Ling.Nut 19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The "main thrust" of the book, if there is one, is not about the denial. I have the book in my hands right now. In fact, only one out of ten chapters of the book is dedicated to what Chang sees as denial by Japanese right-wing politicians and elements like Ishihara Shintaro. That's only 15 pages out of a 290-page book. It's also briefly discussed in the intro of the book itself. I hope the article has not presented the book as a work that's thrusting a certain point to the readers. The book really is as simple as the article lead states - it's a book about the Nanjing Massacre and it tells of what happened in the Massacre. If Chang had any goal for the book at all, it is as the article stated - that she wanted simply to document the massacre because she felt that there was a lack of literature about it. So the bulk of the book is a documentation of the events of the Massacre and events leading up to the Massacre. Critics have mostly attacked the book for what they see as bad research - for example, the article mentions that Fogel called the book "full of misinformation and harebrained explanations". The in-depth focus on Burress' criticism exemplifies the kind of criticism that the book received, that such and such detail was not accurate, that this or that photo was problematic, etc etc. Iris Chang herself, however, before her suicide, was heavily involved in a movement to call for redress from the Japanese government, and this may have blurred the line in the point of the criticism offered - the motivation could have been to attack Chang herself for her efforts in calling for redress. But the book specifically only devoted very little about current Japanese reaction to the Nanjing Massacre. In fact that's written in the last chapter of the book almost as an afterthought or addendum. The book is divided into three parts, 1) What lead to the Massacre and what happened during the Massacre, 2) What happened immediately after the Massacre, and 3) modern Japanese reaction to the Massacre, consisting of only one chapter of 15-page long. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, we're talking around each other... I can see how you misinterpreted my comment. It was unintentionally ambiguous. I didn't mean to say that the book was about denial. I meant... the critics of the book whom you listed.. did they all deny the historicity of the account as a "massacre," or did som of them say, "Yes it was a massacre but Chang got her supporting facts wrong?" I want to get to the main point that perhaps not all critics deny the historicity of the massacre even though they think Chang botched many details... BUT that point is not clearly made in the article. --Ling.Nut 22:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, critics stayed away from stating their own personal opinions about "yes, it did happen, there was a massacre" or "no, it did not happen, there wasn't a massacre". They concentrated on the details of the book that they see as inaccurate and then summarised Chang's work as negative or bad, instead of making their own conclusions about the Nanjing Massacre - or at least, I don't think I can say that they made conclusions of their own without interpreting their statements and violating WP:Original research. None of them pointedly stated something to the effect of "Yes it was a massacre but Chang got her supporting facts wrong", or something similar. This is, of course, with the exception of certain Japanese right-wing individuals. And the article does state that noted critic Shudo Higashinakano had flat-out denied that there was even a massacre in the "Response in Japan" section. Hopefully this answers your question? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to interrupt the main line of the discussion between you two, but Ling.Nut made something clear to me. From what I hear (I never read the book) the book is "about the Nanjing Massacre and it tells of what happened in the Massacre." But that's not how it is "perceived" as I understand. Some people (say for instance news media) use the book as an example of how the Chinese is trying to revise the history by making up the stuff. That is why the inaccuracies in the books are so significant. They see that the errors are "deliberate" not innocuous ones, that the book is a part of the greater program of revisionism. Like I said, the problem emerges most likely from the ignorance but, very regrettably I think, this is something indeed going on. -- Taku 00:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this, or is it just your personal feeling? There are sources for the general public feeling for the book in China, and that's been included in the article. It would be valuable to also add the same for the general public feeling in Japan. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my post above? I think you missed the one. -- Taku 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see your comment above. And I guess you are aware that the problem here is that there are no reliable sources to state what the reaction is from the Japanese general public. I'd love to insert that into the article if some reliable sources can be found, but without that, I don't think we should put something in that would essentially be WP:Original research - especially since the book was never even published in Japanese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That I am unaware of the source doesn't mean there cannot be one. So, I will certain let you know if I see something. -- Taku 09:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course - I am only stating that we can't add anything like that to the article unless there are sources to support it. And there's also the possibility that a source like that doesn't actually exist. Admittedly I only have access to what is freely available online, but like I said, I'd love to add content about reception by the general public in Japan if there are sources that discuss that. The question is - would you support this FAC or does the lack of sources on this subject matter prevent you from supporting it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is my answer.

• Oppose Just to sum up what I was saying to Hong Qi Gong and what I am hearing here, I believe, in the current state, the article is quite good but lacks the discussion of a critical point, which in my opinion prevents the article from deserving the FA status. To put my point one more time, the book is not just a book. This is where I have a problem and we differ I guess. For example, like Ling.Nut was saying, it is vital to discuss some connection between the book and the denial of massacre in a larger context. The article should answer: what those inaccuracies, if any, mean in a more general sense. At least the lead of the article needs to make it clear this. Of course, whether this is something that can be omitted or not may ultimately bogs down to a personal taste. -- Taku 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC) To clarify what I meant by "the book is not just a book", when we discuss the Origin of the Species, it is necessary to discuss how Darwin wrote the book and what his critics said, what flaws the book had. But if that was all in the article, I think the article is incomplete because what the book means to people is so significant. I get the same feeling of incompleteness here. -- Taku 23:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually the "Response in Japan" does cover the controversy of the denial itself, in the context of the book. The controversy outside the context of the book is better covered in the Nanking Massacre. The article also covers the book's critics, with specific examples of their criticism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like you've actually read the book itself. Nor do you actually have sources to provide a discussion about the response in the Japanese general public. It's possible that you may be looking for something that isn't there. But thanks for the review anyway. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.