Misplaced Pages

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

About foreign support in sino-japanese war

I can't understand why list British Empire as the foreign support but nothing detail in the article. When I read Second Sino-Japanese War, it describes the support from soviet, US and even Germany but doesn't describe any support from Britain. I don't know why list Britain as a foreign support but did not write any detail in the article. Moreover, soviet and US all sent military adviser (Vasily Chuikov and Joseph Stilwell) to China. If you think Britain is one of the major foreign support for sino-Japanese war, can you add a reference to that article. It seems it is unsource contents now. If list Britain as a major support because it is the major power of Allies, then we can also list Netherlands, Australia and Canada because they are all major power of allies in Pacific war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.173.116 (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zibo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hui. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Feng Baiju

Hi there. Just out of curiosity, why remove the infobox? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the infobox as part of a general cleanup of the article itself; when I accessed the article at first, the infobox appeared to be bugged, creating a very large infobox with a number of messages all over the screen. I was unable to fix it by myself except by deleting it entirely, but perhaps someone with greater technical skills than I can do so.Zmflavius (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted the good faith edit by User:Magioladitis and the infobox self-fixed. I still can't figure out why removing invisible comments broke the thing. Odd. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I am studiokazuyo. I was trying to make your input more balanced because your point is a Chinese view and mine is Japanese. If I cannot edited the Nanking issues would make no balanced view. However you do not allow for me to edit. Japan had a very good news coverage and we have articles in file. Nanking Massacre was not there until the Tokyo Trial you pointed out. The photos were all fake you pointed out so you cannot say that the Japan did not inform Japanese in 1937 about the massacre. Japan is not China. We do not control that much if it happened we inform the citizen but no such news in Japan, US, France, Germany, Italy and Russia. So it did not happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studiokazuyo (talk • contribs) 03:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Studiokazuyo

I am studiokazuyo. I was trying to make your input more balanced because your point is a Chinese view and mine is Japanese. If I cannot edited the Nanking issues would make no balanced view. However you do not allow for me to edit. Japan had a very good news coverage and we have articles in file. Nanking Massacre was not there until the Tokyo Trial you pointed out. The photos were all fake you pointed out so you cannot say that the Japan did not inform Japanese in 1937 about the massacre. Japan is not China. We do not control that much if it happened we inform the citizen but no such news in Japan, US, France, Germany, Italy and Russia. So it did not happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studiokazuyo (talk • contribs) 03:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to point out WP:NOR. Misplaced Pages is not in the habit of pushing a Chinese view or a Japanese view, Misplaced Pages's role is to publish information that is based on reliable, published sources. However, you did not supply any sources for your claims, such as that the photos were fake. If you wish to learn more about sourcing, it would behoove you to read more of WP:NOR. Finally, in reference to your talk page, while a member of Wikiproject China, I am actually Chinese-American. Nor do I control wikiproject China, and its role is not to push the "Chinese view" on matters. It is simply a group which handles the articles related to China on wikipedia.Zmflavius (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

ALOHA SHIRT: Reversing an edit without addressing issue on the talk page (as was requested when original deletion was done)

Hi, the last thing I want to do is start an edit war with you; but when I took the time to address my concerns on the article's talk page AND gave a weeks notice for comment AND noted the talk page discussion on the Edit History: (cur | prev) 18:19, 22 August 2014‎ Bobsd (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,082 bytes) (-2,018)‎ . . (→‎History: see talk page: Discussion of DOMA in an article about shirts) (undo)

then it is rude to revert my edit without any discussion or notice.

FROM THE TALK PAGE:

Discussion of DOMA in an article about shirts?

Okay, I was reading up on Hilo Hatties and found this article. Interesting history of the Aloha shirt style. Then I ran into this:

   The aloha shirt has at times  been associated with the gay community, as made clear  in the season 8 episode of The Simpsons Homer's Phobia. The association may stem  from the tendency of Magnum, P.I. main character Thomas Magnum, portrayed by Tom Selleck, to regularly wear aloha shirts on the show, as it was set on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. Selleck was rumored to be gay, though he has since denied those rumors. Any association with the court case Baehr v. Miike, a lawsuit in which three same-sex couples argued that Hawaii's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the state constitution which later provided an impetus for the enactment of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, is likely secondary at best, as the case wasn't initiated until 1991, roughly three years after the end of the television show's broadcast. 

This whole thread is rather Stream of Consciousness ... Okay, so maybe the original point of an association with the gay community is valid however a reference to the Simpsons is hardly a valid source, and more than using the Simpsons in an article about pork chops or donuts. And in any case, how is this germane to an article about shirts?

I am going to remove the entire section in a week, unless someone can propose a valid reason why Selleck's orientation or Baehr v. Miike or DOMA adds any value to this article about shirts.

Bobsd (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Consequently I am going to delete the section again. If you want to discuss this, please do so on the TALK page of the article, as directed by[REDACTED] guidelines.

Regards, Bobsd (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Response on your talk page and the Aloha Shirt talk page.Zmflavius (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation! I was pretty surprised about the deletion, but you know how things get around here sometimes. Happy editing! Bobsd (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comfort women, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Takashi Uemura. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

banned sockpuppeteer

I notice you ran accross User:Rijun1234's edits. He isn't allowed to edit since he is evading a block. See these- Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinese-proti/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinese-proti, User_talk:Rjanag#Same_sockpuppet_keeps_returning_and_apparently_watches_the_article, User_talk:Nlu#Sock_account_keeps_dogging_article_for_yearsRajmaan (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about this, I was not aware at all!-Zmflavius (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kazuo Hirai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Interview. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Florida Man

Florida Man is likely to be deleted in the near future. The very few sources provided were all published within the one month - February 2013. So reads like a WP:NOTNEWS page.--Otterathome (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Death toll of Nanking Massacre victims

Hi, Zmflavius. After a very long discussion last winter, in February we have achieved a consensus on the estimated death toll of Nanking Massacre, which suggests a range from 40,000 to 300,000. However, CurtisNaito, who also participated in that discussion, has re-written a closely related article Battle of Nanking in summer and asserts the range is still 40,000 to 200,000. In the talk page, he even denies that a consensus ever exists and is repeating his arguments which had been refuted in the February discussion. It seems the effort and negotiation that so many users have made is becoming completely useless, for a single user can easily reject any consensus by forging his own "agreement of majority" in another article. May I know your opinion on the February consensus, is it still valid or is it necessary to re-open the debate? --MtBell 06:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are discussing this issue here, but since you are bringing it up, please permit me a lengthy post in order to fully explain my views. A major point that I want to make here is that, while there are certainly other Misplaced Pages articles where we can deal with the controversy surrounding Nanking Massacre death toll estimates higher than 200,000 and lower than 40,000, the article on the Battle of Nanking is just not the place for it.

Here is the proof that this range is, in fact, a solid scholarly consensus of historians who have specialized in the field of Nanking Massacre studies.

(1.) Bob Tad Wakabayashi wrote a very well-received edited volume in 2007 entitled "The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38" which amalgamated the work of a large number of the leading specialist scholars who have studied the Nanking Massacre. In writing the conclusion of this book, Wakabayashi concludes that 40,000 to 200,000 civilians and POWs massacred is the scholarly valid range of estimates. Even though he expresses some personal disagreement with some of the estimates within this range, he still notes that any estimate within this range is at least numerically possible. To quote Wakabayashi: "an empirically verifiable, scholarly valid victimization range is from over 40,000 to under 200,000." (2.) In the academic journal Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies, James Leibold recently concurred that 40,000 to 200,000 constitutes "the most careful and thoroughly empirical analysis of the death count to date". (3.) All Chinese historians who have been interviewed anonymously for their opinion on the death toll of the Nanking Massacre have given the range of 40,000 to 150,000 which is very close to the scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000. In China there is some gap between the public views of historians, which are tightly censored, and their private views. In 2006 when historian Kaz Ross investigated the real opinions of Chinese historians in the city of Nanking on an anonymous basis, all of them gave figures between 40,000 and 150,000. (4.) Wakabayashi's argument is bolstered by the fact that almost all scholars outside of China who have written books or peer-reviewed article on the Nanking Massacre have given figures somewhere between 40,000 and 200,000. David Askew, Tokushi Kasahara, Katsuichi Honda, Yoshida Yutaka, Jean-Louis Margolin, Masahiro Yamamoto, and Ikuhiko Hata, etc. all give figures within this general range. (5.) Almost all the individuals who have given figures above or below this range are non-specialists with no particular knowledge of this subject. Marvin Williamsen and Edward L. Dreyer are said to be two historians who have given higher estimates, but neither of them has ever written more than a paragraph about the massacre in their entire careers. Adding all their research together would not fill a single page of text. Furthermore, none of these scholars have ever said how they calculated their figures. An estimate which is not known to be based on any data should not be considered part of the scholarly consensus of specialists. In fact, it seems like many of these scholars merely copied down the verdicts of the postwar war crimes tribunals without analyzing them. Former army officer and non-fiction writer Frank Dorn, who is quoted in the book "China's Bitter Victory" that is being inserted into the Battle of Nanking article, gives "over 200,000 civilians" as the death toll of the massacre, without providing a citation but most likely from the IMTFE verdict. However, in the previous sentence of his book he says the Japanese killed "over 20,000 civilian men" a statement which seems to be taken directly taken from Miner Searle Bates' testimony at the IMTFE. However these two estimates are mutually exclusive because, as David Askew made very clear in his article "The Scale of Japanese Atrocities in Nanjing", Bates did not accept the validity of the Chongshantang burial records which the IMTFE did include. This sort of copying and pasting from a single primary source is not equivalent to the level of research carried out by the historians who have written whole books or peer-reviewed articles on the massacre which actually do explain how the death toll was calculated.

My goal is simply to uphold the scholarly consensus, and in doing so I am NOT overturning any consensus reached among Misplaced Pages users. In a post made on 29 May 2014 Zmflavius acknowledges an important point that, "consensus was reached that... Wakabayashi cites the general scholarly consensus as being a range of 40k-200k". Though Zmflavius did "not recall entirely whether the discussion was completely settled", he agreed that "figures over 200k are to some degree subject to suspicion". What I am saying is that figures "subject to suspicion" don't belong in an article about the Battle of Nanking. In that article the massacre is not the main focus and thus we should stick to the "general scholarly consensus" that the large majority of specialist historians can agree on and that, as Zmflavius noted, the Misplaced Pages community also agreed upon. As I indicated, 40,000 to 200,000 is a useful range because this range of figures has successfully united almost all specialist scholars in the field, cutting across all ideological and national boundaries. In the same post, Zmflavius stated that, by contrast, the alternative range of 40,000 to 300,000 was based on "a composite of the extensive historiographical study of Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, as well as several noted Chinese historians who cite figures up to 300k". Leaving aside that any "composite" range risks being against Misplaced Pages's prohibition on synthesis, it's important to note that, so far at least, no Chinese historian interviewed about his views anonymously is known to have ever given an estimate over 150,000, and surely the honest opinions of Chinese historians are more valid than what their government requires them to say publicly. Secondly, Wakabayashi's detailed study rejected figures over 200,000 is no uncertain terms, and so it may not be appropriate to simply combine his estimates with scholarship produced in China. In summarizing the points of view of all the eminent scholars who contributed to his anthology, Wakabayashi also explains in detail that the estimates of the postwar war crimes trials were based off faulty evidence, and that the Chinese government is actually harming itself, "weaken the hand of Japanese leftists sympathetic to the Chinese cause" as he says, by insisting so adamantly on a death toll estimate that scholars outside China can clearly see is an exaggeration. For an article on the Battle of Nanking, is it really appropriate to use a "composite" figure that simply combines together the Wakabayashi consensus with suspicious figures that the Wakabayashi consensus explicitly says are NOT "empirically verifiable scholarly valid" and are damaging to the credibility of the very country promoting them?

Until very recently, I did not want to put any Nanking Massacre death toll estimate in the Battle of Nanking article at all. I left all specific estimates out of the article precisely in order to avoid having to discuss this controversy a second time, but to my dismay it turns out that not including a death toll estimate is as controversial as including one. Since other editors did want a death toll estimate in that article, I reluctantly agreed with two other editors (a majority of editors) in the talk page that, for the purposes of that article, Misplaced Pages users should be able to agree that 40,000 to 200,000 massacre victims is the general scholarly consensus, as opposed to the minority estimates fished from Google Books searches of non-specialists works or newspaper articles which make no effort to reveal how their numbers were calculated. I know that every Wikipedian has their own personal opinion on this matter, but let's please not ignore the scholarly consensus in that article. I am the primary contributor to the article on the Battle of Nanking and made a great effort in writing up the article to aim for objectivity, balance, and use of the latest and most reliable research. Now I am making an appeal to common sense in saying that, for the purposes of that article, we should use the mainstream "general scholarly consensus" which the Misplaced Pages community agreed on and not the dubious "composite" range, though there is certainly space in other articles to discuss higher and lower minority points of view. If we can't put such a solidly-founded scholarly consensus into even an article that is not specifically about the Nanking Massacre without provoking this much controversy, then we really do need to re-open the whole debate from scratch.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)