This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 17:50, January 5, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Hi, given the large depth and breadth of high quality scholarship that exists on this incident, I agree with the current assessment that this is "Start" class.
It needs a good bit of work. I did some myself, but recommend people bring in more scholarly sources. Fewer news sources unless they're about a current event or something uncontroversial. toobigtokale (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, there's a large debate and edit dispute on the Japanese version of this article: ja:ノート:関東大震災朝鮮人虐殺事件. The article has been locked because of the edit dispute. There is a debate over whether the event can be considered a genocide, whether estimated deaths from the event should be displayed in the lead, and some are disputing the authenticity of alleged photos of the incident. Note: I do not have opinions on these topics; I only have opinions on whether Wikipedia standards are being upheld.
Historiography is complicated and I don't pretend to know the details. It's not in my immediate wheelhouse to read into this topic unless the Japanese or English articles begin to read significantly revisionist. But this topic is so contentious, and there's a consistent pattern on the Japanese Wikipedia with netto-uyoku, that I'm concerned.
At least one of the editors involved in the dispute, AIMOF, has edited the English version of the page along the same vein as they have done on the Japanese article, by deleting images (per ja:ノート:関東大震災朝鮮人虐殺事件#出典付きの記述を含む画像ファイルの削除について). These images were, at least on the Japanese Wikipedia (I added the pic on En and didn't do a good job with sourcing), cited to reliable sources, but AIMOF has claimed without evidence that the reliable sources are incorrect and filled with South Korean propaganda.
I'm highly skeptical of their edit on the Japanese Wiki and possibly on here; that's a strong accusation to make without evidence. They were recently reported to the administrator's notice board. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image can be attributed to "画報日本近代の歴史 9" by Sanseidō, and no reliable source I'm aware of disputes its legitimacy. Does it seem appropriate to restore the image to the article? Kaze757 (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. The image is adequately sourced, relevant to the subject of the article, and the only comment received was in favor of restoring it. Kaze757 (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AIMOF is continuing to, seemingly without providing a single source, dispute claims made in the article. Worse, they're promoting revisionist tropes that (surprise) downplay the incident.
KappaPapa is engaging in walls and walls of WP:Wikilawyering, all the while providing extremely few bits of evidence themselves. What undermines their points is when you look at the broad strokes of their argument, the points are generally counter to the international consensus, meaning the burden of proof really should be on them to prove things.
Furthermore, their and AIMOF's narratives are suspiciously uniformly downplaying of information that is unflattering to Japan. If there was a give and a take it'd be more convincing; history is sometimes just messy. But when it's there's consistent sidling to one specific direction, it's hard to suspend disbelief.
I'm also noticing the use of salami slicing tactics from both users; they make dozens of claims against the international consensus, and when some of them go unchallenged, they try to push them through to the article. They're trying to exhaust other users with walls of texts. seefooddiet (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two dissenters are possibly sockpuppets of a user who previously disrupted the Nanjing Massacre article using sockpuppets. Unbelievable. seefooddiet (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AIMOF was indefinitely banned. I just read the entire article, from start to finish. For the past few months, other users have made a significant effort to revise AIMOF's writings. The article reads better now; it still has issues where it relies too heavily on contemporary sources, but I don't think it'd be fair to describe it as actively denialist. seefooddiet (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
