Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Nanking/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2015 [1].

---

Battle of Nanking

Nominator(s): CurtisNaito (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This article deals with the Battle of Nanking fought in December of 1937 between Japan and China, including its origins and aftermath.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

• I may or may not come back to do a full review. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits.
• The name "Nanjing" should be mentioned and briefly clarified, especially since that's the spelling of the city's article and "Battle of Nanjing" appears with some frequency in a Google Books search
• It would be helpful to give a capsule history of the Sino-Japanese War—no more than a paragraph, I'd say. The article starts bluntly with the fall of Shanghai and gives the reader no idea what significance that battle had or why the two nations were fighting. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Done.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
• File:Iwane_Matsui.jpg: source link is dead and image is tagged as lacking author info. When/where was this first published?
• File:Aerial_shot_of_Nanking_city_wall_1930.jpg: source link is dead and when/where was this first published?
• File%3ABattle_of_China_Nanking.webm: is there a more specific source that could verify the licensing? Same with File%3ANanking_victory_parade.webm
• File:IJA_tanks_attacked_Nanking_Chonghua_gate.jpg is tagged as lacking source info
• File:Nanking_Massacre_victims.jpg: source link is dead and the uploader is not the author so the licensing is incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I added the periods, swapped the first picture for a different one, and deleted the third picture. I specified the original source of the two videos, swapped the second to last photo for a different version, and added source information to the last photo.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• References—
  1. You can make the list of references a lot more compact and elegant if you move the different sources to a separate section, and refer to them only by author and page number here. Example.
  2. A citation covers all the text preceding it in a paragraph. So you don't need a cite after every single sentence. For eg: the "On November 15, near the end..." para needs just one Kasahara ref at the end.
• Images—avoid placing images in such a way that text gets sandwiched between them.
• Prose—several overlong sentences should be split in two, and much redundancy and repetitiveness can be removed. Examples.

This is a very interesting article; I'll try to return for a more substantial review.—indopug (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Cobblet

I have grave concerns about whether this article can be considered "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" per criterion 1c, since it relies nearly exclusively on Japanese and Western sources for a battle that took place on Chinese soil. For an article related to such a controversial and culturally sensitive subject as the Nanjing massacre I think a very high standard needs to be met in this regard. Cobblet (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, many of the English language sources did consult Chinese language sources in their own citations. The sources written by Masahiro Yamamoto and David Askew in particular used a large number of Chinese language sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough for the article to be considered "thorough" or "representative" in this respect. It's difficult to assess whether all significant views were represented fairly when Chinese perspectives on the course of the battle are rarely cited directly or even indirectly. For instance, Li Junshan's 為政略殉: 論抗戰初期京滬地區作戰 (p. 241–243), citing Tan Daoping (譚道平), gives an estimate of 30,000 new recruits (nearly double the 16,000 currently given in the article) among the 81,000 defending Chinese troops. Cobblet (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it might be okay if Tan Daoping is his source. Askew's article, which I used a lot, cites Tan Daoping very extensively all throughout his article. There are other featured-level articles which don't cite foreign language sources. For instance, Song dynasty cites no Chinese language sources and Japanese battleship Yamato and Guadalcanal Campaign cite no Japanese language sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, that's irrelevant to whether this article satisfies Wikipedia's featured article criteria at the present time. Note that none of the articles you mentioned have been through FAC or FAR in the last five years. Secondly, my concerns are over whether Chinese perspectives are represented fairly, which is not quite the same as suggesting that Chinese-language sources have to be cited directly, although the latter would go a long way toward showing the former. (The citation to Tan Daoping is on the bottom of the table on p. 243 – the table itself is a detailed list of the number of soldiers and new recruits by army and division. For example it's noted that 80% of the 2nd Army's 18,000 troops were new recruits.) Cobblet (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cobblet:Do you by any chance know of any English or Japanese language sources which give the "Chinese perspective" on the Battle of Nanking? I should have time this week to add them in if you know of any.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, are you really sure Askew's source doesn't qualify as giving the "Chinese perspective"? Askew mentions most of the data you just referred to, though he doesn't agree with all of it. Tan Daoping was a general in the Chinese Army and the figures Tan offers are thus a simple primary source. Askew analyzes Tan's estimates in considerable detail by comparing them to other Chinese figures. If Li Junshan merely copies down Tan's raw figures without analyzing them, then surely Askew is a better source for presenting the Chinese perspective.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm no historian, so no. I'll note that the Chinese Wikipedia article (which is where I found the figure I mentioned) has a useful number of inline citations to Chinese historians and their work, but I have no idea if any of those sources have been translated.

I appreciate the work you've put into the article and I'm sorry not to be of much help – maybe there's someone on WP:CHINA who knows more about the subject than me and can be of more assistance. But I'm afraid we can't just ignore the Chinese scholarship on such a politically contentious subject. I cringe when I see no Chinese sources quoted among the four "leading estimates" of the size of the Nanjing garrison. I don't doubt what you say about Askew's source selection but there's nothing in the article that shows this. You could, for example, note how Askew arrived at the number of "73,790 to 81,500" Chinese troops which is in line with Tan Daoping's original figures – if Tan's indeed his primary source in this regard, that should be noted explicitly.

Simply asserting that "surely" Askew's analysis must be "better" than a primary source, and thus excluding the latter while not providing any details of Askew's analysis in the article, is insufficient. For example, how did Askew arrive at the number of 16,000 new recruits? Did he take account Tan Daoping's figure of 30,000; if he did, for what reasons did he reject it? Does he (or you, for that matter) subject Japanese sources (e.g. Shūdō Higashinakano, who you've quoted several times; not exactly the most objective of historians) to a similar level of scrutiny? We need answers to these sorts of questions if we're serious about trying to achieve NPOV. Cobblet (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, that seems like a good idea and I'll do additional research on it, but it seems likely that this material will ultimately end up in a different article. For instance, while the article Battle of Guadalcanal does include scholarly estimates of the size of the Japanese garrison, it does not include an explanation of how the estimates were calculated or a break-down of the composition of each unit. However, a detailed explanation of how Askew's and Kasahara's combat statistics were calculated is worth including on Wikipedia, and that alone would probably fill at least one whole article, if not several. I will definitely look into this matter further later this year and next year, but I can't help but think that most or all of this will ultimately end up in its own article. A detailed unit-by-unit breakdown of the size of the Nanking Garrison Force could easily fill an article entitled Estimates of the size of the Nanking Garrison Force (which might itself possibly be a subarticle of another article entitled Estimates of Nanking's population in 1937). I will conduct more research on this matter.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to provide a detailed order of battle; just an explanation of which sources Askew relied on. But I've now looked at his article myself and have noticed that it actually quotes Tan's numbers I was referring to, in Table 1. The figure of 16,000 you quoted excludes Tan's estimates of the new recruits in the 2nd Army – while these recruits joined at Hankow and did not come from the Nanjing area, I think they should nevertheless be mentioned in the article. Cobblet (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I added the information.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But my concern over how representative this article is of all the literature produced on the topic still stands. And the amount of effort it's taken me just to persuade you to add one piece of information you actually had access to all along discourages me from investing the effort of doing a full review of the article at this point. Coverage of issues such as Chiang's mentality and decision-making process before the battle (how did Alexander von Falkenhausen advise him?), the organization and bungling of the breakout attempt, the number of Chinese military casualties (and the issue of how whether people do or do not distinguish such casualties from casualties of the Nanjing massacre), and the overall assessment of the battle, would benefit from access to Chinese sources. I oppose promotion of the article until there is evidence that the work of Chinese and particularly Taiwanese historians (e.g. the official ROC history – see this volume of the 國民革命軍戰役史; and I've already brought up Li Junshan's work) has been consulted and their findings incorporated into the article where appropriate. If the work of massacre-deniers such as Higashinakano is to be cited uncritically, research from those who stand at the opposite end of the spectrum needs to be represented as well. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I never had access to the source until you mentioned it in your last post. Askew only mentioned the 16,000 from Nanking, not the 14,000 from Hankou. Also, Higashinakano is not cited for anything related to the massacre, just for some basic uncontroversial facts relating to the battle which can be conveniently cited to him since his book is in English. I don't really think this issue should be seen as one that pits a Western/Japanese perspective against a Chinese perspective on the "opposite end", because most of the recent scholarship on the battle is fairly objective. However, if all you mean by "opposite end" are massacre affirmationists, then I think all the sources cited in the article except for Higashinakano are massacre affirmationists, not that it matters very much for this article anyway which is not specifically about the Nanking Massacre.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I added some information about von Falkenhausen's stance. If there's any more specific information that you would like in the article I will certainly add it. Incidentally, I did consult the official ROC history, but it was not very detailed so I didn't bother to cite it. All the information from the official history was covered in much more detail by others sources like Tokushi Kasahara's book.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh one more thing, all the combat statistics in the article include only battle casualties, not victims of the Nanking Massacre. The expression used in the article is "killed in combat", and surely a reader of this article would not conflate "killed in combat" with "massacred". It's true that not every definition of "killed in combat" is exactly the same, but that's an issue for a different article.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Not true; Askew's article quoted it directly per my previous comments. And you cannot lump together the wide spectrum of views among all Japanese partial-deniers and non-deniers into the same group, let alone draw a comparison between their views and the official Chinese stance. If everyone agreed on the basic facts of the battle, estimates of the size of the ensuing massacre would not vary as widely as they do – the history of Nanjing as a whole gets told very differently when one is trying to justify a casualty figure of 40,000 vs. a figure of 300,000.

I don't see a need to cite Higashinakano on "basic uncontroversial facts" any more than I see a need to cite Iris Chang on such things, and the presence of citations from one extreme end and absence from the other reinforces the seeming lack of neutrality that is my basic concern. Frankly, from what I've read I don't think I'd even trust Hata to be an objective source, let alone Higashinakano – I cannot take someone seriously as a historian if they disbelieve estimates of casualties higher than their own simply because the higher figures seem "unnatural" to them (since when do massacres have to be "natural"?), as Hata does in The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable; his methodology boils down to picking the number that feels right to him, and I have to wonder if that's how he handles all the facts he presents.

I see now that Askew and Yamamoto do incorporate Chinese primary and secondary sources into their work when discussing at least some of the topics I've alluded to, and would recommend citing the original sources indirectly via Askew and Yamamoto where possible (actually this should be done whether the sources are Chinese or not). By providing the original Chinese sources in addition to Askew and Yamamoto you avoid giving the impression that the article is based almost completely on Japanese and Western scholarship, which is the impression I got from looking at the current list of citations. The reader should not have to take your word for it that this article represents a comprehensive survey of the literature; it should be made as self-evident as possible. Cobblet (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Askew's article does not mention any specific figures about how many came from Hankou. When it comes to the battle, it's only the numbers that are sometimes controversial, not the facts of the battle itself. Also, I'm not so sure it would be advisable to cite the original Chinese sources for Askew and Yamamoto, because in the majority of cases the original sources are primary sources, primary sources like Tan Daoping for instance. Wikipedia tends to discourage the direct citing of primary sources, so I think it would be better if we stuck to the secondary ones. Furthermore, I don't think deleting the few citations to Hata's works would improve the impartiality of the article, because Hata's work is widely noted for its impartiality. The Chinese-American historian Daqing Yang noted that Hata's research on the massacre is the most impartial ever written. Marius Jansen deemed Hata's work the best scholarship ever written on the massacre.

I will delete the citations to Higashinakano, though incidentally I added in many of the citations to Higashinakano only because another user named Miracle dream insisted that I add them into the article in order to improve the article's neutrality. Neither I nor any other user was able to deter him, so I ultimately had no choice but to add it in. It did seem strange to me to add Higashinakano in in order to improve the article's impartiality, but by the same token it also seems strange that you want me to improve the article's impartiality by deleting Hata, the most impartial historian to write on the subject, and adding primary sources which are quite often not permitted by Wikipedia rules.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Citation 59 is still to Higashinakano. And your continued inability to read what's in Askew's article astounds me – look at Table 1 as well as the first line of page 164. You're as much entitled to your personal opinion of Hata as I am to mine, but I can't believe you have the temerity to suggest that his impartiality is unquestionable when you yourself have noted otherwise. I'm not asking you to quote primary sources in vacuo, but with the support of secondary sources such as Askew and Yamamoto using the format given in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which is entirely acceptable on Wikipedia. Frankly I'm getting the impression that some of your latest comments were not written in good faith. I shouldn't have to make you correctly read the source you've cited eleven times, and I'm really not impressed by you trying to tell me there are "rules" that prevent you from dealing with NPOV issues. Cobblet (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I missed the table, but the first line of page 164 in Askew's does not say that at all. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article you cited above does note that Ikuhiko Hata is widely regarded as the best and most impartial historian on the subject, so I don't know what you're talking about in that regard. At any rate, I don't think you're being very clear about where the NPOV issues are. The "Chinese perspective" is amply included in the article, just not by using Chinese language sources. Rather, it uses impartial works of English and Japanese language scholarship which present all sides equally. If you were more clear about where the NPOV issues are, it would help me make further edits. For instance, you wanted more coverage of "Chiang's mentality and decision-making process", but what part of this section is NPOV? I could provide more information on "Chiang's mentality and decision-making process", just like I could provide more information on any topic(within limits of course, to prevent the article from becoming too long), but I wouldn't know whether or not the details would improve the neutrality because I don't know where the neutrality issue is to begin with. Does this section portray Chiang in too negative of a light? Does it portray him in too positive of a light? Does it portray those who disagreed with his decision in an inappropriate manner? I definitely could add more details to this section, but I wouldn't know whether or not the details would improve neutrality unless I knew what the neutrality problem is. It's the same issue with adding more details about how Askew calculated the size of the Nanking Garrison Force. I guess I could summarize a few dozen of the sources he used, but would that actually improve the neutrality? Just adding more details doesn't necessarily improve neutrality, and you still haven't told me what exactly the neutrality problems are with the three estimates provided.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you still can't comprehend the meaning of "In addition, according to T’an, 80% of the Second Army consisted of new recruits. These joined the Army in Hankow before reaching Nanking." Whatever. And you are either forgetting or ignoring your own words "By contrast, Takuji Kimura has criticized Hata as a "minimizer" of the atrocity... and Herbert Bix has described him as "the most notorious" of the "partial deniers" of the Nanking Massacre."

I'm repeating myself now, but I want it demonstrated clearly that Chinese sources have been consulted in the article, using indirect citations of them via Askew and Yamamoto if this is the best we can do. As far as I'm aware, the actions and words ascribed to Chiang and his circle come from Chinese testimonies: give the original sources of these testimonies through citations to Askew and Yamamoto or any other historian that quotes from them.

When you ask me, "Does this section portray Chiang in too negative of a light? Does it portray him in too positive of a light? Does it portray those who disagreed with his decision in an inappropriate manner?", my answer is "I don't know, because you don't tell me whether Yamamoto made up the statements on his own or if he got them from other sources that you haven't told me about." Right now statements like "Chiang insisted fervently on mounting a sustained defense of Nanking" or "had become increasingly agitated" rely solely on a citation to him. A reader without access to his work could construe this as a smear job by a Japanese historian trying to make Chiang look like an idiot and a madman, because you have not given the Chinese sources upon which Yamamoto based these statements. Do you see how without the appropriate citations, it's really easy to question the neutrality of many of the statements in the article in a similar fashion?

I would like every interpretation of a fact concerning the battle to cite the primary source originally making that interpretation as well as secondary sources supporting that interpretation. When I speak of meeting a "very high standard" with respect to criterion 1c, this is the kind of work I mean. With just citations to Japanese/Western secondary sources it is impossible to determine the degree to which the article satisfies NPOV – you've asked me repeatedly in this discussion to take it on your word that it does, but you've also clearly shown your word to not be very reliable.

So again, with regards to the garrison figures, I'd want to know the original sources each historian used to derive their numbers. If Askew's research is more extensive than that of others, say so and explain briefly how that's the case. I would characterize his work as essentially a slight downward revision of Tan's estimates. Ditto with battle casualties. Ditto with how the Chinese breakout was (mis)handled.

One more note, again on the neutrality of the chosen sources and how they've been presented – Durdin's journalism and the direct quote from him in particular portrays the Chinese as not just being routed, but embarrassed and humiliated. No doubt the fall of Nanjing was a catastrophic tragedy; but I have never heard the Chinese themselves describe it as an embarrassment in the same vein as events like the unequal treaties or the Boxer Rebellion or the Mukden Incident – as the article shows elsewhere, they were aware of the risks they were taking and I don't see evidence of them being surprised by the outcome. Durdin may be an accurate reflection of how the West perceived the course of events at the time, but the way you've chosen to present his quote on its own and without any counterpoint is again cringe-inducing. I suggest omitting the hyperbolic first sentence of the quote (good for selling papers in December 1937; bad for Wikipedia to present 77 years later – Durdin's no historian) and moving the rest of it into the "Aftermath and assessment" section. Cobblet (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well alright. It will take me some time to implement this change though. It seems strange to me though, that the article needs to mention every primary source on which the facts were based. I'm not aware of any other featured level article, actually I'm not aware of any article at all on Wikipedia, which takes the time to explain all the primary sources which historians used to write their works. Up to now I was under the impression that if a history book was deemed a reliable source, then it was not necessary to explain the primary sources that the historian used in order to compose his research. But okay, I will gather up my sources and gradually add in all the primary source documentation they used.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No doubt it is an enormous task. But I'm not aware of anyone else trying to write one of "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" on a topic this controversial. Your work will be "used by editors as an example for writing other articles" on similarly controversial topics. The Chinese government feels compelled to censor Wikipedia precisely because of articles like this one. It's a massive responsibility. Cobblet (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm gradually working on it, but I might already be getting close to the limit of what I can do. The books by Tokushi Kasahara and Yoshiaki Itakura include a list of primary and secondary sources consulted, but very few in-line citations referring to exactly which ones they used for a given paragraph. Thankfully, Askew and Yamamoto have plenty of citations on every page, but with them I often check the citations and find a lengthy list of five or more primary sources. For the sake of brevity, I've just been choosing a couple of what seemed to me to be the most important ones to mention by name, and then noting that a variety of other primary sources were also used on top of those ones.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose at this stage

• Lots of work has clearly gone into this, but I have some concerns, so am opposing at this stage.
• The prose could do with a decent copyedit, e.g.

• "By December 9 they had reached the last line of defense, the Fukuo Line, behind which lay Nanking's fortified walls. On December 10 Matsui ordered an all-out attack on Nanking, and after less than two days of intense fighting Chiang decided to abandon the defense. Before fleeing, Tang ordered his men to launch a concerted breakout of the Japanese siege, but by this time Nanking was largely surrounded and its defenses were at the breaking point.", for example, has the repetition of "defense" in three subsequent sentences.* "
• " the Japanese government at first kept strong limits on the area of fighting " - reads, to me, somewhat awkwardly.
• "Within Nanking, the Japanese units on mopping-up duty " read very informally for an encyclopaedic article.

• Some of the images seem to lack US tags, for example File:Iwane Matsui 01.jpg. There's a Japanese copyright tag there, for example, but no tag showing why it is free for use under US copyright law.
• I wasn't convinced that File:Battle of Nanking 1937.jpg fitted well in an English-language, Featured Article - I simply can't understand what the map is trying to tell me as it's not in a script I can read.
• The "Mopping-up operations and the Nanking Massacre" has three images in a three-paragraph section, and becomes a jumble of overlapping images and sandwiched text on my screen, contrary to the MOS guidance. Other sections have a significant number of right-justified images, producing a "wall of images" along the right hand side.
• There's a lack of metric/imperial conversions. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I have implemented all the above recommendations.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I appreciate the nominator is working to resolve issues but the review has been open a month and seems quite a way from achieving consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Per FAC instructions, pls allow a minimum of two weeks before nominating this again, or any other article, taking the time to work on the points raised above. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.