Talk:Three Alls policy

Rename?

Would a better name for this article be "Three Alls Policy"? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did a quick Google search, and "Three Alls Policy" seems to turn up the most hits of any of the possible names, so I moved the article, with a redirect from Sanko. (We should keep the redirect though, as Herbert Bix uses the term Sanko almost exclusively when discussing the event. I imagine most readers of the book looking for further information will search under that name.) Bueller 007 11:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation please?

This book title is a long line of Japanese "Sankō, Nihonjin Chogoku ni okeru senso hanzai no kokuhaku" with no explanation of what it means. Based on my excellent command of Year 7 English, it says "Three-Alls, Japanese China something something something." Experts? --Sumple (Talk) 00:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It would mean "Three-Alls: Confessions of War Crimes in China by Japanese".--Ryoske 03:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense

"Many supposed victims of the Three Alls Policy, they claim, actually died at Chinese hands, and their deaths were misattributed to the Japanese" Needs to be Reworded --Bushido Brown 20:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Written as it is, this is extremely racist. Why don't you deny the holocaust next?

Well, that would depend - who said this? It just says "right wing" politicians, it doesn't explicitly mention who among them is supposedly saying this. So, it should be rewritten to include a quote from someone who claimed this, assuming anyone ever did. It's not impossible for someone to have claimed this, no matter how odd it may seem to us. Stranger things have been claimed, and the Chinese and Japanese have been at odds for years, you know.

However, Japanese war crimes are quite well documented, so these points are not something that can be treated as merely 'allegations.' One only needs to look at the Soviet-German conflict to see similar parallels. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aldis90 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Importance

This article was rated as being of low importance, which I found astonishing. Even if you think that this policy is historically questionable, the claim that it is true, the nature and implications of what is claimed and the fact that it is disputed is of very great importance - nationally, globally, historically and in terms of inclusion in this or any encyclopedia. I had no idea about the existence of this policy until I was linked here via wikipedia:World War II. I was very frustrated that there were no more details or at least links to more information. More please from those who can.

So, I changed it to 'high' importance. If you don't agree, please check with the criteria concerning importance ratings for this encyclopedia, before changing. Thanks. Drywontonmee 00:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This article describes something which may be pure propaganda.

The claim that something called the 'Three Alls Policy' even existed is extremely contentious outside of the PRC. This whole article should be covered in 'allegedly'.

The rhetorical structure of Sanko/Three Alls is Chinese, not Japanese. Chinese rhetoric places great importance on enumerating things, whereas Japanese doesn't. "koroshi tsukushi-yaki tsukushi-ubai tsukusu" has a syllable count of 6-6-6 which is rare; 5-7-5 is much more common in Japanese rhetoric.

There are zero primary sources for this policy in Japanese. The first Japanese-language reference comes from 1957, from a man who had spent at least 12 years undergoing imprisonment and torture in Chinese Communist camps. This one man's testimony should not be so heavily relied upon, and a variety of additional sources are required.

The extremeness of the claim warrants exceptionally good sourcing - 'Kill all, burn all, loot all' is exactly the sort of thing that wartime propagandists would make up about their enemies. Even the Imperial Japanese are unlikely to have been so brazen about atrocities.

Did this happen? Was burning and looting really part of a systematic plan? If so, on what scale? Was this a formal policy signed off by senior officers? Or a militarist competition between soldiers? How does it compare to other scorched earth policies in the region? There is so much missing information.

Nevertheless, Sanko is an evergreen topic of PRC propaganda to this day. Sanko appears regularly in the 200+ war films produced by Chinese state media each year, and this propaganda routinely stirs up racial hatred against Japanese people. Wikipedia should be extremely vigilant not to become the mouthpiece for this sort of propaganda, especially on articles relating to the Sino-Japanese War which appear to have disproportionate representation from Communist Chinese sources. (The Nationalist Chinese and Japanese sides are currently underrepresented).

Suggestions: add a warning banner to the top of this article; introduce the policy as something 'alleged' to have happened; add a lengthy section about the historiography of these claims; and for god's sake sort out all the missing citations. Makibadori (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Crimes against humanity category removal

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

restoring these tags as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sook_Ching#Crimes_against_humanity_category_removal Relm (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)