Talk:Ikuhiko Hata

Denial of existence

I wrote that he denies the existence of "the use of sex slaves." Hata doesn't believe that comfort women were sex slaves

• None of them was forcibly recruited.

The use of prostitutes is not a crime. The use of sex slaves is a crime. Hata denies the use of sex slaves, and he has caused plenty of controversy in and outside of Japan with his comments to warrant him to be "well known" for these ideas. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you edit so eagerly to defame Hata? You assume that Hata is a nationalist, but that is far from the truth. In reality he is the most acclaimed historian studying Japanese war crimes in WW2. He published books of Nanking massacre and Marco Polo Bridge Incident, both of which are regarded as one the most prominent studies. He didn't deny Nanking Massacre, Sook Ching massacre in Singapore, brutality in the Philippines, Bonin Islands and other places. John W. Dower and Herbert P. Bix appreciated his work and thanked him for his collaboration in their book. Do you know they are the most famous American historian in the study of the modern Japanese history? They takes liberal attitudes and you can't blame them as revisionists.

You write about Hata's political activities, but he have never involved in such a non-academic movements. There's a room for argument in the study of comfort women and he just made academic publications. So how's about your political activities in Wikipedia? Please tell me why can you blame this academic historian. 59.190.130.200 (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have recently been informed of Hata's reputation as a scholar on Japanese history, but I have never called him a nationalist. I also don't want to defame Hata. I just want to reveal his own motives/intentions/opinions through his own writings and actions. I realize that sometimes I am too bold, and can sometimes be biased, but no one is perfect, and hopefully I will get better the more edits I make. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Political activities and "Friday Weekly"

The Political activities section is sourced.

Friday Weekly is a usable source.

Discuss amongst yourselves :) Yaki-gaijin (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel it's impossible to make a consensus with Yaki-gaijin, who adhere to his beliefs, and I don't want to kill my time over absurd and futile disputes with him. If readers are interested in reliability of the "Friday Weekly", you can check its back volumes here. It's so far from academic journals.

Whatever Yaki-gaijin may defame Hata eagerly in here Wikipedia articles, his reputation does not change. Serious students and scholars in modern Japanese history already know Hata's reputation. They will easily notice low reliability of this article and your edits.

I hope Yaki-gaijin will continue his tireless duty in wikipedia to his meaningless goals. --220.219.92.222 (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of Friday as a reliable source. On the one hand, it's an obvious publication. I don't think anyone denies that. On the other hand, is it a reliable source for the claims made? One work I came across by Adam Gamble and Prof. Takesato Watanabe had this to say about the weekly:

"Circulation: 520,000. Friday is a weekly pictorial newsmagazine focusing on social events, crime, accidents, entertainment and sports of national and international interest. Over 60% of the readers are in their 20's and 30's and 70% are male. Features pornography: yes." (A Public Betrayed: an Inside Look at Japanese Media Atrocities and Their Warnings to the West, Regenery Publishing, Inc.: Washington D.C., p. 76)

Is a publication that features pornography as respectable as an academic journal? I hesitate to think so. But that doesn't mean we can't include it in the article. I guess the real questions are (1) whether Friday has a transparent editorial structure and reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and (2) whether the claims made in the citations are potentially libelous and/or controversial. Personally, I don't know enough about the newsmagazine to formulate an informed opinion (yet) but -- then again -- I'm not sure how controversial the cited comments are either. The quotes seem pretty tame to me. Does anyone have any further thoughts on this issue? J Readings (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I noticed that J Readings does not know nothing about Japanese magazines. "Friday Weekly" is not related with a famous Japanese pornographic magazine "Friday".

What annoys me is that Yaki-gaijin edits only negative descriptions about this respected researcher, and it's because Yaki-gaijin wants to underestimate Hata's scientific researches which contradict his opinions. How's about his huge amount of works in other war crime studies? Where is descriptions about his collaborative researches with Bix and Dower, which are regarded as the most acclaimed achievements for this area of study? Many students and scholars already know that lousy articles are made by users who possesses politically oriented opinions in the English Wikipedia. They says here is just a bunch of rubbish despite its excellent ideas.220.219.92.222 (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Attacking my credibility is meaningless, anonymous user 220.219.92.222. Why don't you start by making an account here on Wikipedia and taking responsibility for your words? Yaki-gaijin (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

220.219.92.222. Calm down, please. There is no need for you to be insulting. It's true, I assumed that Friday and Friday Weekly were the same news magazine. If they are not, there is no harm done and thank you for the correction. As it is, I rarely read Friday on kiosk shelves. What I don't understand is this: If you think other reliable sources should be added to the article (e.g., academic journal sources), why not just add them or post them to the talk page for discussion? Either is highly encouraged by the project and something that I fully support. Regards, J Readings (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Lest 220.219.92.222 or anyone else thinks that I'm some kind of partisan troll, I wrote the following post on the comfort women talk page:

"What Flying tiger calls "a dangerous tendency towards 'relativism'," I would simply call a faithful implementation of one of Wikipedia's most endearing policies: WP:NPOV. Respecting that and other policies, I think, would make editing this article less problematic. As it is, all editors here seem to agree with Hermeneus' suggestions, so I am left wondering where the naiveté enters the picture. If we assume good faith, obviously we are not here to debate the history and politics of the comfort women controversy (that violates WP:NOT and WP:BATTLE). Nor are we here to promote any one agenda or turn Wikipedia into a partisan propaganda vehicle for or against the comfort women lobby (that violates WP:SOAP). On these, we all hopefully agree. So what is preventing us from documenting (that is the correct word to use) a balanced, non-judgmental overview of the controversy?

Regarding Ikuhiko Hata, his scholarship may not be a few editors' cup of tea (and his historical findings may irritate some), but his work remains highly respected among academics and even journalists. Writing a review for the Journal of International Affairs, Malcolm Kennedy considers Hata's The Hidden Crisis between Japan and the USSR: 1932-1934 to be an "absorbing study" and "enlightening to the general reader interested in Far Eastern history." Professor Shinobu Seizaburo (Nagoya University) praises Hata's A History of the Japanese-Chinese War (Nitchu-Senso-shi, macrons unavailable) stating that "from now on no study of the political history of the Showa era will be possible until [Hata's] book has first been read." David McNeill, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education (April 27, 2007), not only considers Hata to be a historian but also the author of "seminal works" such as Nankin Jiken (The Nanjing Incident, Tokyo: Chuo Koron, 1986).

I can cite many other journalists and academics who consider Hata to be an expert in modern history, but I think I made my point: Hata is a notable academic whose views deserve to be documented and treated with respect, regardless of whether some may disagree with his conclusions on the comfort women controversy. But, again, the only real policy issue here is with undue weight being afforded to any one historian, not with whether he should be included. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)"

Let's just all work together by getting back to what is a reliable source and what is not. A lot more can be added to this article; it's a work in progress. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Friday Weekly is thought to be a magazine under the effect of autocratic states such as mainland Chaina and North Korea. So articles dependent on quoted matters of Friday Weekly is thought to be one-sided arguments and not to be NPOV. Amazonfire (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary states that you're removing OR. That means "original research." How can it be original research when it has a clear citation? Again, the issue here is not original research or POV. The issues on the table here are really two separate things: reliable sources and undue weight. Is Friday Weekly a reliable source? Second, how much weight should it have relative to other sources? J Readings (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Amazonfire: perhaps this would be a more useful question to ask you. Who specifically says that Friday Weekly is "thought to be a magazine under the effect of autocratic states such as mainland China and North Korea"? Put differently, can you please cite some third-party sources that indicate that Friday Weekly is just propaganda from China and North Korea? Also, you wrote that it was OR again. I don't think you fully understand what original research means yet. See this page for further details on original research. J Readings (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a OR, because it contains his original translation, Japanese to English and his original interpretations. And I say again that the Friday Weekly is not a reliable source but a one-sided arguments. You can understand? Amazonfire (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Who specifically says that Friday Weekly is "thought to be a magazine under the effect of autocratic states such as mainland China and North Korea"??? If you can read Japanese, read this google[[1]]. VAW-Net, Friday Weekly, and North Korea have closer ties, and they are central players of comfort woman problem. Other players are Asahi Shinbun and mainland China as you know.Amazonfire (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, I understand what you're saying now. Thanks for the reply. However, Amazonfire, Japanese to English translations are not original research provided that the original Japanese text and citation is provided in the footnotes. See Non-English sources on Wikipedia's policy entitled Verifiability for further details. The policy reads, "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." If you think the translation is poor, we can discuss a better English translation. Also, it's probably true that it's a one-sided argument. Yes, I agree with you. But Wikipedia policy states that's fine. What we can do is to balance that out by providing more citations from academic journals, newspapers, etc. that say different things so that the reader has a full, balanced picture of the subject. J Readings (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I see. But as I said above, the articles dependent on quoted matters of Friday Weekly is thought to be one-sided arguments and not to be NPOV. It is not a reliable source. Because it is one of central player of this issue. The magazine is so to say a part of political body of this issue. Amazonfire (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Google hits, I read the first few pages. Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, they appear to be all blogs and self-published sources. According to Wikipedia content guidelines and policies, we cannot use those links as reliable sources to question the reliability of Friday Weekly. The specific reason is that they themselves do not have an professional editorial structure with a good reputation for fact-checking. That is why Wikipedia states specifically on its reliable sources page that we must use newspapers (electronic copies are also fine), academic journals, and books. If you type the same Google keywords and then click on ニュース, we could have reviewed those third-party news sources to question the reliability of Friday Weekly. However, I did not get any hits that demonstrate that the major dailies link Friday Weekly to Chinese or North Korean propaganda. Did the Sankei Shimbun or Asahi Shimbun or Nikkei Shimbun or any of the major dailies publish articles that can be cited to demonstrate that Friday Weekly is not a reliable source for fact-checking and accuracy? I realize this is complicated, and I am not trying to be difficult, but there are very good reasons why these policies and content guidelines are in place. If blogs and self-published sources were used in this article to squash unflattering POV edits, then OTHER blogs and self-published sources could be used to do the same thing for other issues. It becomes a double-edge sword and Wikipedia would quickly become useless. J Readings (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last comment I'll make on this thread. To repeat the above, I agree with Amazonfire that Friday Weekly should not get as much space as academic journals and books on the subject because of undue weight concerns. That said, I disagree with him that it should be removed completely from the article until reliable third-party sources discount the news magazine as a whole. One suggestion for those parties who care: the reliable sources noticeboard (or click here)is an excellent place to arbitrate these kinds of issues in front of experienced editors and administrators. I suggest that either Yaki-gaijin or Amazonfire take the issue to them if either party feels strongly about this issue. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Beside the editing, I read your page and I know you can read Japanese, so I quote some Japanse Wikis, "バウネット"[2],"松井やより"[[3]], "女性国際戦犯法廷"[[4]], and read this part "安倍晋三は、2005年1月中旬に「女性国際戦犯法廷の検事として北朝鮮の代表者が2人入っていることと、その2人が北朝鮮の工作員と認定されて日本政府よりこれ以降入国ビザの発行を止められていること」を指摘して、「北朝鮮の工作活動が女性国際戦犯法廷に対してされていた」とする見方を示した。 ". Friday Weekly, "バウネット", and Asahi Shibun have close ties with "松井やより". This is a common knowledge in Japan so you can read many sources about it. They made "Confort Women problem" out of nowhere with Seiji Yoshida's evidence after it was denied by researchs. Thanks. Amazonfire (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how your theory of the "Confort Women problem" coming "out of nowhere" justifies your deletion of sourced material. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted "Shukan Kinyobi" on the reliable source noticeboard. Waiting for judgement. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the website for the magazine. http://www.kinyobi.co.jp It seems pretty legit. I mean, they have a board of editors and everything. Though I didn't read the whole site thoroughly, it seems to be a normal magazine. I don't quite understand where you (Amazonfire) get the idea that this source is unreliable. Do you have any evidence that we can look into? Yaki-gaijin (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material moved...

Since this article is about a living person, as pointed out in no uncertain terms at the top of this page, I have moved the major uncited paragraph here, until someone can add citations for every sentence. We simply cannot have uncited statements in reference to a living person.SiberioS (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Though generally seen to be a conservative/right-wing, he is also an outspoken critic of ultra nationalists. He called Hideki Tojo a traitor who deserve death penalty even if the Tokyo Trial did not take place. He also brought an end to the controversy regarding the Contest to kill 100 people using a sword by showing that atrocity did indeed take place. Ultranationalists and families of the accused had long denied the alleged contest as a fabrication and hoax, and that the two perpetrators were being falsely (and unjustly) accused. Hata discovered records in a local archive in the two perpetrators' home town that showed that the two had made many public speeches in elementary and high schools during the war openly admitting to doing the deed. He also refuted the claim made by some right wing pundits who claim that the Huanggutun Incident was a false-flag action by Comintern. He also criticised the Yushukan, a historical museum in the Yasukuni Shrine, stating that the place is toned with "excessive mix of historical view and ideology". (歴史観とか主義主張のトーンが露骨すぎ).

Edited to create balance

I have edited this page to make it balanced and more accurate, and to add important information which was missing from the previous version. The earlier version, as edited by Curtis Naito and others, consisted entirely of one-sided praise for Hata. It included quotes from almost every positive review of Hata's work published in English (but none of the negative ones). Some of the quotations, for example the one from Sarah Soh, were given out of context, misleadingly suggesting that scholars who are critical Hata are his admirers and supporters. The entry fails to note Soh's important critique of the way Hata has shifted position, revising his estimate of the number of "comfort women" downwards over time, because of "his political alignment with the conservative anti-redress camp in Japan that emerged in the latter half of the 1990s".(Sarah C. Soh, "The Comfort Women: Sexual Violence and Postcolonial Memory in Korea and Japan", Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 24.)The entry also included blurb from the cover of at least one of his books, presented as though it were a quotation from a scholarly review (see reference 45 of CurtisNaito version). The text as a whole depicted Hata as a moderate and almost universally respected figure in current Japanese history debates, and as a fierce critic of historical revisionists. This is seriously misleading. Hata's writings (particularly his early and military history work) have certainly been praised by some scholars, and I have left this positive comment in. But his more recent work, particularly on the Nanjing Massacre and "Comfort Women" issue has also been strongly contested and criticised.(Jeff Kingston, "Contemporary Japan: History, Politics and Social Change", London: Wiley, 2012.)( Frederick R. Dickinson, "Biohazard: Unit 731 in Postwar Japanese Politics of National 'Forgetfulness'", in William R. LaFleur, Gernot Boehme and Susumu Shimazono eds., "Dark Medicine: Rationalizing Unethical Medical Research", Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press, 2008, p. 96.)(Yumiko Iida, "Rethinking Identity in Modern Japan: Nationalism as Aesthetics", London: Routledge, 2013.)(Gavan McCormack, "The Japanese Movement to 'Correct' History", In Mark Selden and Laura Hein eds. "Censoring History: Citizenship and Memory in Japan, Germany, and the United States", Armonk NY: M E Sharpe, 2000, pp. 53-73.)His pro-nationalist statements and actions (i.e. his attacks on respected historian Ienaga Saburo( Frederick R. Dickinson, "Biohazard: Unit 731 in Postwar Japanese Politics of National 'Forgetfulness'", in William R. LaFleur, Gernot Boehme and Susumu Shimazono eds., "Dark Medicine: Rationalizing Unethical Medical Research", Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press, 2008, p. 96.), support for Prime Minister Abe's 2013 visit to the Yasukuni Shrine( Nikkei Asian Review, 27 December 2013.), his recent attacks on Japan's 1993 apology to the "comfort women"(http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/31_S4.pdf.)(" Hokkaido Shinbun 21 June 2014.), and his collaboration with the far right Japan Society for History Textbook Reform, which circulates some of his writings on line with his acquiescence had all been omitted. When I added information about this to the page, it was promptly deleted again by Curtis Naito and others. Please assist me in keeping this page balanced, informative and up-to-date, and preventing it from being turned into a misleading publicity platform for one politicised point of view. Giant Sumatra Rat (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have now just re-edited this page, which had been reverted by CurtisNaito without any response to the points raised above. If you can demonstrate that the any of points I raised were incorrect, please do so here before reverting this page again. Giant Sumatra Rat (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding new material to the article, but you can't delete reliably sourced material unless you have a reason to do so based on Wikipedia policy. You've been deleting swaths of reliably sourced material including the opinions of many of the world's leading historians in Japanese history. We can't just delete relevant and reliably sourced material based on personal objections. There has to be a policy-based reason why the citations are unreliable. We can discuss additions, but such extreme deletions of reliably sourced material should not be implemented unless the sources themselves are unreliable.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing from a neutral point of view

I have reverted the page to the form that it was in before the recent edits and reversions by CurtisNaito, for the following reasons: 1. CurtisNaito did not respond to any of the criticisms of his version of the page given by Giant Sumatra Rat above. 2. A core and fundamental Wikipedia principle is "editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV)", which means "representing fairly, proportionally and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The CurtisNaito version contains disproportionate use of a mass of quotations from one point of view (favourable to Hata), and arbitrarily deletes crucial scholarly opinion and factual material critical of Hata. It is in flagrant violation of the principle of NPOV. 3. CurtisNaito explains his repeated reversions of the text to his favoured version by saying that "you can't delete reliably sourced material unless you have a reason to do so based on Wikipedia policy". But the CurtisNaito version first uploaded on 23 May this year (to which he keeps reverting) deleted the entire section headed "Criticisms" from the previously existing version of this article without any explanation. His repeated reversions delete (with absolutely no discussion or explanation) important factual information on critical comments about Hata's work, Hata's membership of the 2014 Japanese government committee on the Kono Declaration, Hata's subsequent comments about the Declaration, Hata's attacks on fellow historian Ienaga Saburo, Hata's support for the 2013 Abe visit to the Yasukuni Shrine, and Hata's relationship with the revisionist Society for History Textbook Reform. 4. The current version contains a fair, proportional and balanced account of the work of Ikuhiko Hata which takes into account all the significant views. 5. It is absolutely unacceptable for CurtisNaito to keep on reverting this article without responding properly to the serious criticisms that have been made of the fairness and neutrality of his version. SHMandala (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Material added to improve a very one-sided article

This article was one-sided, and presented only one side of important debates. Scholarly material has now been added to the article to restore balance (and a few other minor edits have been made to improve accuracy). Please do not revert to previous versions of this article without discussion on this talk page. 130.56.124.31 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ikuhiko Hata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 23:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Second on my "to review" list, after Keturah. BenLinus1214^talk 23:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Comments

• Is the question mark in the very first parenthetical supposed to be there? - I think so. It's just a link for instructions on installing a Japanese character set.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• I think the lead could be expanded a bit, especially with a bit more specifics on the "scholarship" section and a mention of what's in the "political leanings" section. Done
• What exactly is "profile from Marquis Who's Who"? Could you be a bit more specific--is it a print source? Web source? More information in general? - I have clarified that it is Marquis Who's Who On Demand, an online source.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• If you want to keep the first paragraph of "scholarship" relatively intact, I would prefer that you change the topic sentence with "Hata has been described by numerous historians as an important scholar on the history of modern Japan", because the first paragraph isn't about specific scholarship, it's more about Hata's legacy itself. Done
• "while doing his bachelor's degree" is a bit informal, maybe "while completing his bachelor's degree"? Done
• Something that would be helpful to readers is when you're describing Hata's essays, provide links to the actual historical events that are in the titles (i.e. "A History of the Second Sino-Japanese War") Done
• Link to Marius Jansen. Done
• Who's the quote in that paragraph from? Done
• "Nanking Jiken and Death Toll Estimate" might be a better name…unless you think that's too awkward. I feel that it better describes the section. Done
• "Research on comfort women" might be better—remove the "the". Also, link to "comfort women" Done
• The "political leanings" section is primarily good, except that I would prefer that you have something at the beginning of the section like "Scholars have debated what they believe Hata's political leanings to be." Done
• Why is it just "works in English" instead of total works? Why are works in Japanese only excluded? - Well, it would take far too much space to list all of Hata's works. I needed to think of some criteria to limit how long the list would be. I eventually opted to include only his English language books since I guess English Wikipedia users might be more interested in those ones.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• "Awards" should probably come after "personal life". Done

@CurtisNaito: A few problems. Too few problems to put it on hold, but there are a few things that should be taken care of. :) BenLinus1214^talk 00:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. Is there anything else I should do to expand upon your recommendations?CurtisNaito (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: I'm still a bit troubled by reference one. Could you use the cite web template to include a url, title, work, author, and date (if there is one listed?) BenLinus1214^talk 13:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, how about this link https://cgi.marquiswhoswho.com/OnDemand/Default.aspx?last_name=hata&first_name=ikuhiko. This is where I got it from. However, you have to pay money in order to actually see the information. If this link is okay, I'll add it in.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That's good. I just added in the ref that you have to pay for it. Pass. BenLinus1214^talk 17:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Denial of existence

I wrote that he denies the existence of "the use of sex slaves." Hata doesn't believe that comfort women were sex slaves

• None of them was forcibly recruited.

The use of prostitutes is not a crime. The use of sex slaves is a crime. Hata denies the use of sex slaves, and he has caused plenty of controversy in and outside of Japan with his comments to warrant him to be "well known" for these ideas. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you edit so eagerly to defame Hata? You assume that Hata is a nationalist, but that is far from the truth. In reality he is the most acclaimed historian studying Japanese war crimes in WW2. He published books of Nanking massacre and Marco Polo Bridge Incident, both of which are regarded as one the most prominent studies. He didn't deny Nanking Massacre, Sook Ching massacre in Singapore, brutality in the Philippines, Bonin Islands and other places. John W. Dower and Herbert P. Bix appreciated his work and thanked him for his collaboration in their book. Do you know they are the most famous American historian in the study of the modern Japanese history? They takes liberal attitudes and you can't blame them as revisionists.

You write about Hata's political activities, but he have never involved in such a non-academic movements. There's a room for argument in the study of comfort women and he just made academic publications. So how's about your political activities in Wikipedia? Please tell me why can you blame this academic historian. 59.190.130.200 (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have recently been informed of Hata's reputation as a scholar on Japanese history, but I have never called him a nationalist. I also don't want to defame Hata. I just want to reveal his own motives/intentions/opinions through his own writings and actions. I realize that sometimes I am too bold, and can sometimes be biased, but no one is perfect, and hopefully I will get better the more edits I make. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Political activities and "Friday Weekly"

The Political activities section is sourced.

Friday Weekly is a usable source.

Discuss amongst yourselves :) Yaki-gaijin (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel it's impossible to make a consensus with Yaki-gaijin, who adhere to his beliefs, and I don't want to kill my time over absurd and futile disputes with him. If readers are interested in reliability of the "Friday Weekly", you can check its back volumes here. It's so far from academic journals.

Whatever Yaki-gaijin may defame Hata eagerly in here Wikipedia articles, his reputation does not change. Serious students and scholars in modern Japanese history already know Hata's reputation. They will easily notice low reliability of this article and your edits.

I hope Yaki-gaijin will continue his tireless duty in wikipedia to his meaningless goals. --220.219.92.222 (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of Friday as a reliable source. On the one hand, it's an obvious publication. I don't think anyone denies that. On the other hand, is it a reliable source for the claims made? One work I came across by Adam Gamble and Prof. Takesato Watanabe had this to say about the weekly:

"Circulation: 520,000. Friday is a weekly pictorial newsmagazine focusing on social events, crime, accidents, entertainment and sports of national and international interest. Over 60% of the readers are in their 20's and 30's and 70% are male. Features pornography: yes." (A Public Betrayed: an Inside Look at Japanese Media Atrocities and Their Warnings to the West, Regenery Publishing, Inc.: Washington D.C., p. 76)

Is a publication that features pornography as respectable as an academic journal? I hesitate to think so. But that doesn't mean we can't include it in the article. I guess the real questions are (1) whether Friday has a transparent editorial structure and reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and (2) whether the claims made in the citations are potentially libelous and/or controversial. Personally, I don't know enough about the newsmagazine to formulate an informed opinion (yet) but -- then again -- I'm not sure how controversial the cited comments are either. The quotes seem pretty tame to me. Does anyone have any further thoughts on this issue? J Readings (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I noticed that J Readings does not know nothing about Japanese magazines. "Friday Weekly" is not related with a famous Japanese pornographic magazine "Friday".

What annoys me is that Yaki-gaijin edits only negative descriptions about this respected researcher, and it's because Yaki-gaijin wants to underestimate Hata's scientific researches which contradict his opinions. How's about his huge amount of works in other war crime studies? Where is descriptions about his collaborative researches with Bix and Dower, which are regarded as the most acclaimed achievements for this area of study? Many students and scholars already know that lousy articles are made by users who possesses politically oriented opinions in the English Wikipedia. They says here is just a bunch of rubbish despite its excellent ideas.220.219.92.222 (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Attacking my credibility is meaningless, anonymous user 220.219.92.222. Why don't you start by making an account here on Wikipedia and taking responsibility for your words? Yaki-gaijin (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

220.219.92.222. Calm down, please. There is no need for you to be insulting. It's true, I assumed that Friday and Friday Weekly were the same news magazine. If they are not, there is no harm done and thank you for the correction. As it is, I rarely read Friday on kiosk shelves. What I don't understand is this: If you think other reliable sources should be added to the article (e.g., academic journal sources), why not just add them or post them to the talk page for discussion? Either is highly encouraged by the project and something that I fully support. Regards, J Readings (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Lest 220.219.92.222 or anyone else thinks that I'm some kind of partisan troll, I wrote the following post on the comfort women talk page:

"What Flying tiger calls "a dangerous tendency towards 'relativism'," I would simply call a faithful implementation of one of Wikipedia's most endearing policies: WP:NPOV. Respecting that and other policies, I think, would make editing this article less problematic. As it is, all editors here seem to agree with Hermeneus' suggestions, so I am left wondering where the naiveté enters the picture. If we assume good faith, obviously we are not here to debate the history and politics of the comfort women controversy (that violates WP:NOT and WP:BATTLE). Nor are we here to promote any one agenda or turn Wikipedia into a partisan propaganda vehicle for or against the comfort women lobby (that violates WP:SOAP). On these, we all hopefully agree. So what is preventing us from documenting (that is the correct word to use) a balanced, non-judgmental overview of the controversy?

Regarding Ikuhiko Hata, his scholarship may not be a few editors' cup of tea (and his historical findings may irritate some), but his work remains highly respected among academics and even journalists. Writing a review for the Journal of International Affairs, Malcolm Kennedy considers Hata's The Hidden Crisis between Japan and the USSR: 1932-1934 to be an "absorbing study" and "enlightening to the general reader interested in Far Eastern history." Professor Shinobu Seizaburo (Nagoya University) praises Hata's A History of the Japanese-Chinese War (Nitchu-Senso-shi, macrons unavailable) stating that "from now on no study of the political history of the Showa era will be possible until [Hata's] book has first been read." David McNeill, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education (April 27, 2007), not only considers Hata to be a historian but also the author of "seminal works" such as Nankin Jiken (The Nanjing Incident, Tokyo: Chuo Koron, 1986).

I can cite many other journalists and academics who consider Hata to be an expert in modern history, but I think I made my point: Hata is a notable academic whose views deserve to be documented and treated with respect, regardless of whether some may disagree with his conclusions on the comfort women controversy. But, again, the only real policy issue here is with undue weight being afforded to any one historian, not with whether he should be included. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)"

Let's just all work together by getting back to what is a reliable source and what is not. A lot more can be added to this article; it's a work in progress. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Friday Weekly is thought to be a magazine under the effect of autocratic states such as mainland Chaina and North Korea. So articles dependent on quoted matters of Friday Weekly is thought to be one-sided arguments and not to be NPOV. Amazonfire (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary states that you're removing OR. That means "original research." How can it be original research when it has a clear citation? Again, the issue here is not original research or POV. The issues on the table here are really two separate things: reliable sources and undue weight. Is Friday Weekly a reliable source? Second, how much weight should it have relative to other sources? J Readings (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Amazonfire: perhaps this would be a more useful question to ask you. Who specifically says that Friday Weekly is "thought to be a magazine under the effect of autocratic states such as mainland China and North Korea"? Put differently, can you please cite some third-party sources that indicate that Friday Weekly is just propaganda from China and North Korea? Also, you wrote that it was OR again. I don't think you fully understand what original research means yet. See this page for further details on original research. J Readings (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a OR, because it contains his original translation, Japanese to English and his original interpretations. And I say again that the Friday Weekly is not a reliable source but a one-sided arguments. You can understand? Amazonfire (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Who specifically says that Friday Weekly is "thought to be a magazine under the effect of autocratic states such as mainland China and North Korea"??? If you can read Japanese, read this google[[5]]. VAW-Net, Friday Weekly, and North Korea have closer ties, and they are central players of comfort woman problem. Other players are Asahi Shinbun and mainland China as you know.Amazonfire (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, I understand what you're saying now. Thanks for the reply. However, Amazonfire, Japanese to English translations are not original research provided that the original Japanese text and citation is provided in the footnotes. See Non-English sources on Wikipedia's policy entitled Verifiability for further details. The policy reads, "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." If you think the translation is poor, we can discuss a better English translation. Also, it's probably true that it's a one-sided argument. Yes, I agree with you. But Wikipedia policy states that's fine. What we can do is to balance that out by providing more citations from academic journals, newspapers, etc. that say different things so that the reader has a full, balanced picture of the subject. J Readings (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I see. But as I said above, the articles dependent on quoted matters of Friday Weekly is thought to be one-sided arguments and not to be NPOV. It is not a reliable source. Because it is one of central player of this issue. The magazine is so to say a part of political body of this issue. Amazonfire (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Google hits, I read the first few pages. Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, they appear to be all blogs and self-published sources. According to Wikipedia content guidelines and policies, we cannot use those links as reliable sources to question the reliability of Friday Weekly. The specific reason is that they themselves do not have an professional editorial structure with a good reputation for fact-checking. That is why Wikipedia states specifically on its reliable sources page that we must use newspapers (electronic copies are also fine), academic journals, and books. If you type the same Google keywords and then click on ニュース, we could have reviewed those third-party news sources to question the reliability of Friday Weekly. However, I did not get any hits that demonstrate that the major dailies link Friday Weekly to Chinese or North Korean propaganda. Did the Sankei Shimbun or Asahi Shimbun or Nikkei Shimbun or any of the major dailies publish articles that can be cited to demonstrate that Friday Weekly is not a reliable source for fact-checking and accuracy? I realize this is complicated, and I am not trying to be difficult, but there are very good reasons why these policies and content guidelines are in place. If blogs and self-published sources were used in this article to squash unflattering POV edits, then OTHER blogs and self-published sources could be used to do the same thing for other issues. It becomes a double-edge sword and Wikipedia would quickly become useless. J Readings (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last comment I'll make on this thread. To repeat the above, I agree with Amazonfire that Friday Weekly should not get as much space as academic journals and books on the subject because of undue weight concerns. That said, I disagree with him that it should be removed completely from the article until reliable third-party sources discount the news magazine as a whole. One suggestion for those parties who care: the reliable sources noticeboard (or click here)is an excellent place to arbitrate these kinds of issues in front of experienced editors and administrators. I suggest that either Yaki-gaijin or Amazonfire take the issue to them if either party feels strongly about this issue. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Beside the editing, I read your page and I know you can read Japanese, so I quote some Japanse Wikis, "バウネット"[6],"松井やより"[[7]], "女性国際戦犯法廷"[[8]], and read this part "安倍晋三は、2005年1月中旬に「女性国際戦犯法廷の検事として北朝鮮の代表者が2人入っていることと、その2人が北朝鮮の工作員と認定されて日本政府よりこれ以降入国ビザの発行を止められていること」を指摘して、「北朝鮮の工作活動が女性国際戦犯法廷に対してされていた」とする見方を示した。 ". Friday Weekly, "バウネット", and Asahi Shibun have close ties with "松井やより". This is a common knowledge in Japan so you can read many sources about it. They made "Confort Women problem" out of nowhere with Seiji Yoshida's evidence after it was denied by researchs. Thanks. Amazonfire (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how your theory of the "Confort Women problem" coming "out of nowhere" justifies your deletion of sourced material. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted "Shukan Kinyobi" on the reliable source noticeboard. Waiting for judgement. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the website for the magazine. http://www.kinyobi.co.jp It seems pretty legit. I mean, they have a board of editors and everything. Though I didn't read the whole site thoroughly, it seems to be a normal magazine. I don't quite understand where you (Amazonfire) get the idea that this source is unreliable. Do you have any evidence that we can look into? Yaki-gaijin (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material moved...

Since this article is about a living person, as pointed out in no uncertain terms at the top of this page, I have moved the major uncited paragraph here, until someone can add citations for every sentence. We simply cannot have uncited statements in reference to a living person.SiberioS (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Though generally seen to be a conservative/right-wing, he is also an outspoken critic of ultra nationalists. He called Hideki Tojo a traitor who deserve death penalty even if the Tokyo Trial did not take place. He also brought an end to the controversy regarding the Contest to kill 100 people using a sword by showing that atrocity did indeed take place. Ultranationalists and families of the accused had long denied the alleged contest as a fabrication and hoax, and that the two perpetrators were being falsely (and unjustly) accused. Hata discovered records in a local archive in the two perpetrators' home town that showed that the two had made many public speeches in elementary and high schools during the war openly admitting to doing the deed. He also refuted the claim made by some right wing pundits who claim that the Huanggutun Incident was a false-flag action by Comintern. He also criticised the Yushukan, a historical museum in the Yasukuni Shrine, stating that the place is toned with "excessive mix of historical view and ideology". (歴史観とか主義主張のトーンが露骨すぎ).

Edited to create balance

I have edited this page to make it balanced and more accurate, and to add important information which was missing from the previous version. The earlier version, as edited by Curtis Naito and others, consisted entirely of one-sided praise for Hata. It included quotes from almost every positive review of Hata's work published in English (but none of the negative ones). Some of the quotations, for example the one from Sarah Soh, were given out of context, misleadingly suggesting that scholars who are critical Hata are his admirers and supporters. The entry fails to note Soh's important critique of the way Hata has shifted position, revising his estimate of the number of "comfort women" downwards over time, because of "his political alignment with the conservative anti-redress camp in Japan that emerged in the latter half of the 1990s".(Sarah C. Soh, "The Comfort Women: Sexual Violence and Postcolonial Memory in Korea and Japan", Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 24.)The entry also included blurb from the cover of at least one of his books, presented as though it were a quotation from a scholarly review (see reference 45 of CurtisNaito version). The text as a whole depicted Hata as a moderate and almost universally respected figure in current Japanese history debates, and as a fierce critic of historical revisionists. This is seriously misleading. Hata's writings (particularly his early and military history work) have certainly been praised by some scholars, and I have left this positive comment in. But his more recent work, particularly on the Nanjing Massacre and "Comfort Women" issue has also been strongly contested and criticised.(Jeff Kingston, "Contemporary Japan: History, Politics and Social Change", London: Wiley, 2012.)( Frederick R. Dickinson, "Biohazard: Unit 731 in Postwar Japanese Politics of National 'Forgetfulness'", in William R. LaFleur, Gernot Boehme and Susumu Shimazono eds., "Dark Medicine: Rationalizing Unethical Medical Research", Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press, 2008, p. 96.)(Yumiko Iida, "Rethinking Identity in Modern Japan: Nationalism as Aesthetics", London: Routledge, 2013.)(Gavan McCormack, "The Japanese Movement to 'Correct' History", In Mark Selden and Laura Hein eds. "Censoring History: Citizenship and Memory in Japan, Germany, and the United States", Armonk NY: M E Sharpe, 2000, pp. 53-73.)His pro-nationalist statements and actions (i.e. his attacks on respected historian Ienaga Saburo( Frederick R. Dickinson, "Biohazard: Unit 731 in Postwar Japanese Politics of National 'Forgetfulness'", in William R. LaFleur, Gernot Boehme and Susumu Shimazono eds., "Dark Medicine: Rationalizing Unethical Medical Research", Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press, 2008, p. 96.), support for Prime Minister Abe's 2013 visit to the Yasukuni Shrine( Nikkei Asian Review, 27 December 2013.), his recent attacks on Japan's 1993 apology to the "comfort women"(http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/31_S4.pdf.)(" Hokkaido Shinbun 21 June 2014.), and his collaboration with the far right Japan Society for History Textbook Reform, which circulates some of his writings on line with his acquiescence had all been omitted. When I added information about this to the page, it was promptly deleted again by Curtis Naito and others. Please assist me in keeping this page balanced, informative and up-to-date, and preventing it from being turned into a misleading publicity platform for one politicised point of view. Giant Sumatra Rat (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have now just re-edited this page, which had been reverted by CurtisNaito without any response to the points raised above. If you can demonstrate that the any of points I raised were incorrect, please do so here before reverting this page again. Giant Sumatra Rat (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding new material to the article, but you can't delete reliably sourced material unless you have a reason to do so based on Wikipedia policy. You've been deleting swaths of reliably sourced material including the opinions of many of the world's leading historians in Japanese history. We can't just delete relevant and reliably sourced material based on personal objections. There has to be a policy-based reason why the citations are unreliable. We can discuss additions, but such extreme deletions of reliably sourced material should not be implemented unless the sources themselves are unreliable.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing from a neutral point of view

I have reverted the page to the form that it was in before the recent edits and reversions by CurtisNaito, for the following reasons: 1. CurtisNaito did not respond to any of the criticisms of his version of the page given by Giant Sumatra Rat above. 2. A core and fundamental Wikipedia principle is "editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV)", which means "representing fairly, proportionally and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The CurtisNaito version contains disproportionate use of a mass of quotations from one point of view (favourable to Hata), and arbitrarily deletes crucial scholarly opinion and factual material critical of Hata. It is in flagrant violation of the principle of NPOV. 3. CurtisNaito explains his repeated reversions of the text to his favoured version by saying that "you can't delete reliably sourced material unless you have a reason to do so based on Wikipedia policy". But the CurtisNaito version first uploaded on 23 May this year (to which he keeps reverting) deleted the entire section headed "Criticisms" from the previously existing version of this article without any explanation. His repeated reversions delete (with absolutely no discussion or explanation) important factual information on critical comments about Hata's work, Hata's membership of the 2014 Japanese government committee on the Kono Declaration, Hata's subsequent comments about the Declaration, Hata's attacks on fellow historian Ienaga Saburo, Hata's support for the 2013 Abe visit to the Yasukuni Shrine, and Hata's relationship with the revisionist Society for History Textbook Reform. 4. The current version contains a fair, proportional and balanced account of the work of Ikuhiko Hata which takes into account all the significant views. 5. It is absolutely unacceptable for CurtisNaito to keep on reverting this article without responding properly to the serious criticisms that have been made of the fairness and neutrality of his version. SHMandala (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Material added to improve a very one-sided article

This article was one-sided, and presented only one side of important debates. Scholarly material has now been added to the article to restore balance (and a few other minor edits have been made to improve accuracy). Please do not revert to previous versions of this article without discussion on this talk page. 130.56.124.31 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ikuhiko Hata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 23:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Second on my "to review" list, after Keturah. BenLinus1214^talk 23:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Comments

• Is the question mark in the very first parenthetical supposed to be there? - I think so. It's just a link for instructions on installing a Japanese character set.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• I think the lead could be expanded a bit, especially with a bit more specifics on the "scholarship" section and a mention of what's in the "political leanings" section. Done
• What exactly is "profile from Marquis Who's Who"? Could you be a bit more specific--is it a print source? Web source? More information in general? - I have clarified that it is Marquis Who's Who On Demand, an online source.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• If you want to keep the first paragraph of "scholarship" relatively intact, I would prefer that you change the topic sentence with "Hata has been described by numerous historians as an important scholar on the history of modern Japan", because the first paragraph isn't about specific scholarship, it's more about Hata's legacy itself. Done
• "while doing his bachelor's degree" is a bit informal, maybe "while completing his bachelor's degree"? Done
• Something that would be helpful to readers is when you're describing Hata's essays, provide links to the actual historical events that are in the titles (i.e. "A History of the Second Sino-Japanese War") Done
• Link to Marius Jansen. Done
• Who's the quote in that paragraph from? Done
• "Nanking Jiken and Death Toll Estimate" might be a better name…unless you think that's too awkward. I feel that it better describes the section. Done
• "Research on comfort women" might be better—remove the "the". Also, link to "comfort women" Done
• The "political leanings" section is primarily good, except that I would prefer that you have something at the beginning of the section like "Scholars have debated what they believe Hata's political leanings to be." Done
• Why is it just "works in English" instead of total works? Why are works in Japanese only excluded? - Well, it would take far too much space to list all of Hata's works. I needed to think of some criteria to limit how long the list would be. I eventually opted to include only his English language books since I guess English Wikipedia users might be more interested in those ones.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• "Awards" should probably come after "personal life". Done

@CurtisNaito: A few problems. Too few problems to put it on hold, but there are a few things that should be taken care of. :) BenLinus1214^talk 00:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. Is there anything else I should do to expand upon your recommendations?CurtisNaito (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: I'm still a bit troubled by reference one. Could you use the cite web template to include a url, title, work, author, and date (if there is one listed?) BenLinus1214^talk 13:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, how about this link https://cgi.marquiswhoswho.com/OnDemand/Default.aspx?last_name=hata&first_name=ikuhiko. This is where I got it from. However, you have to pay money in order to actually see the information. If this link is okay, I'll add it in.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That's good. I just added in the ref that you have to pay for it. Pass. BenLinus1214^talk 17:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Japanese POW Testimonies Re Nanking

Hello everyone. The section on the Nanking death toll contains the following text:

"In November 1997 at a conference in Princeton University Hata was confronted by Iris Chang, author of the book The Rape of Nanking, who asked him why he doubted the testimony of Japanese POWs who had stated that hundreds of thousands of Chinese were killed in the atrocity. When Hata replied that torture and coercion of Japanese POWs made their testimony unreliable Chang walked out and the audience became unruly, shouting Hata down and yelling insults at him."

A careful reading of the text as it stands can only state that both Chang and Hata are referring to Japanese soldiers who "testified" [in a legal proceeding? When? Where?] that hundreds of thousands of Chinese were killed. If so, would Chang have been so bold as to present, and would the moderator have been so amiss as to allow her to present, evidence given by men under torture? Common sense rebels against such a conclusion. It therefore seems much more likely that the Japanese Nanking veterans whom Chang was referring to at least included some of the many Japanese Nanking veterans who have testified and not as current or former POWs but at their own free will and indeed at considerable personal risk. Since it is impossible to resolve these important questions from the above description of the conference, I feel the contributor or someone with more free time than I have at the moment should render it sufficiently concrete so as to resolve them. Finally, even if Chang was not referring to any veterans who gave testimony free of duress, which I find unlikely for the reasons noted above, many such Japanese Nanking veterans have come forward in the two decades since 1997 in collections of letters, documentary and television appearances and books, though I admit most of this is in Japanese. My point is that, as it stands, the above text seems to imply that most or all of the Japanese veterans who have described the consistent pattern of widespread brutality committed by the Imperial Army in China and elsewhere in Asia are either brainwashed or coerced, and that this is the view of a "neutral," high-ranking Japanese historian, since that is precisely how Professor Hata is portrayed throughout this entire article. For my part, I dispute the view that he is as objective a historian as the tenor of this entire article implies, but that is merely my opinion. Cheers. Gunnermanz (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)