Talk:Hundred man killing contest

Initial comments

not sure about the title. the japan times article i cited calls the event "hyakunin giri kyoso" (100 head contest); maybe "100 head contest would be a better title?" also be nice to get 百人... in complete kanji. (i currently cant display japanese text). Nateji77 07:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Watched. Polishing guns.
-- Miborovsky ^U|T|C|E 00:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The title's naming should depend on its purpose, whether it is primarily meant to describe the activity or to document the Nichi Nichi Shimbun article. Re-naming would be more appropriate for the latter but not necessarily the former, in my view. Shawnc 01:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm yes, "hyakunin-kiri kyoso" I think be a better name. Translated of course. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

百人斬り競争 - Literally, 100 People Beheading Contest. 斬り means beheading in Japanese, it's a verb (well more accurately, a conjugation of 斬る, to behead). Don't change the name of the article. 160.39.225.217 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

斬る (kiru) means cutting something with a sword, which often implies killing a person. But beheading is obviously a wrong translation. There is no single verb for beheading in Japanese. The Japanese phrase for beheading would be 首を斬る (cutting (someone's) neck (with a sword)). You'll see the meanings of 斬る in this dictionary site. http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese_english/?search=%E6%96%AC%E3%82%8B&match=beginswith&block=60067&offset=26&title=%E6%96%AC%E3%82%8B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.101.158.2 (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

English-language scholarship overwhelmingly uses "Hundred Man Killing Contest" or "100-Man Killing Contest." I've amended the title accordingly --Ash-Gaar (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to mention that some, a very small number of people, believe that this did not happen? This encourages readers to doubt this occurrence ever happened and is irrelevant. There is no such mention of deniers of the holocaust on that horrid event's page. There is a group of people who think the earth is flat. Should there be a disclaimer on every page regarding the earth or its geography? This is an attempt to raise doubt in the readers mind that this happened. It, and all other mentions or revisionism, must be deleted to truly educate people about this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.57.118.93 (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Discredited source?

Article says:"Contest to Kill First 100 Chinese with Sword Extended When Both Fighters Exceed Mark--Mukai Scores 106 and Noda 105". - This quote is clearly stolen directly from Iris Chang's discredited book "The Rape of Nanking", which is not listed in the references. Either remedy this situation, or I will remove the quote in question, along with any others that have been plagiarized. Bueller 007 04:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good catch on the plagiarized quote, but to call Chang's book "discredited" is gross hyperbole. Out of the dozens of historians both in the US and abroad who praised the book (Steven Ambrose for one), there have been maybe 3 or 4 who criticized it. Remember WP:POV, especially if it's wacky and unlikely to be supported. 24.29.58.38 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you seriously need to get a clue. Before that book was released in Japan, the "daigyakusatsu-ha" (the group of Japanese scholars who believe that the massacre was ~300,000 people) begged her not to release it because it was full of so much GARBAGE that had already been discredited in Japan. They were afraid that the release of "The Rape of Nanking" was just going to set up a straw man that the Maboroshi-ha (the Nanjing-deniers) would have no problem knocking down. As it turns out, that's EXACTLY what happened. I'm not saying there was no massacre, but her book was absolute GARBAGE. There's serious scholarship being done on the subject on all sides of the matter. "The Rape of Nanking" for the most part just uses already-falsified propaganda. (Not to mention Chang's complete lack of any knowledge or cultural understanding of the Japanese, and her masking of the Chinese army's own scorched-earth program.) Bueller 007 13:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Dude, you seriously need to get a clue." I could try to match the disrespect for pretty much everyone and everything here, but I'll leave it at warning you that I will follow your writing and work to clean out your clear disrespect and bias on Japan-related issues. This comment of yours is some years old. Hopefully, you've improved. TheCryingofLot49 (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Further, as is often the case with Nanjing, there is more material available in Japanese than there is in English. I will work on translating the Japanese page, and I will post what I find in the English article. If anyone here can speak Chinese, I invite them to do the same with the Chinese article. English scholarship in this field is particularly bad. Bueller 007 04:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Silly Bueller 007. 1. Japanese views on the matter don't count. It's as if a criminal who is convicted has his/her own views counted towards evidence which helps defend him/her. Convicted criminals do not get a say in their defense; or, if they do, nobody listens to them. The only GARBAGE that exists is any Japanese view which tries, in any way, to defend what they did during WW2. Notice how a majority supports the book, and a minority criticises it. I'm sorry to say, minority views are often of such poor quality that everyone can safely ignore them. Including yours. 2. There is absolutely NO propoganda in the book. You are confusing truth of what happened with propaganda against the Japanese. It's unfortunate that what the Japanese did was so indescribably horrible that attempts to describe it seem like propaganda against them, but they brought that upon themselves. The only propaganda comes from any Japanese trying to defend his/her nation. 3. You don't need to understand Japanese culture to describe what happened. If Japanese culture supports the killings, then Japanese culture is filthy and should be destroyed. You are saying the author's view on WHY the killings happened are garbage. Well to be honest, nobody really cares WHY the killings happened. WHY it happened doesn't justify anything. If irrelevant details are misreported, nobody cares. You are trying to discredit the book on the basis of the misreporting of irrelevant details. Nobody, therefore, should take you seriously. 4. The book is trying to describe what the JAPANESE MILITARY did in China. Why does it need to mention China's scorched-earth policy? How is that relevant in any way? Yes, it's a nice addition to the already myriads of things Japan borrowed from China. But totally irrelevant. And also, are you trying to say that, since the Chinese military commited the atrocities, that Japanese troops have the right to also? You are doing what Japanese people love to do so much; picking out pesky irrelevant small details. On one hand, it makes their products of such good quality. On the other hand, it's a total flaw in things like historical analysis; always missing out the bigger picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.169.226 (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bueller, you need to stop sucking up the Japanese propaganda like it's candy. Iris Chang's book is no more discredited than the Holocaust is. It's only "discredited" by people who like to believe the fantasy that the Japanese didn't commit horrible atrocities, just like the Holocaust is only denied by anti-semites and Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.16.132.208 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Iris Chang's book is a work of "popular history". There are many errors in her book that call into question her credibility as a historian. That doesn't mean that the Nanking Massacre never happened. It does mean that not everything in Iris Chang's book is gospel truth and one shouldn't assume it's true solely on the basis of it being in her book. That said, there has been a lot of scholarly research in Japanese and English on the topic. Some of it suggests that this contest was actually the invention of journalists as a bit of wartime propaganda. (cf. Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi) If so, it's too bad since the two men in the contest were executed as war criminals largely on the basis of the newspaper accounts. It would be an incredible irony if they had been innocent, huh?

It's worthwhile to read Nanking Massacre controversy and denial. (NB: I am a major author of that article.) Some of it (especially towards the end) is heavily canted towards the denialist camp. (Hey, this is Wikipedia, it's not easy to control other editors.)

Nonetheless, the beginning part of that article provides a good overview of the range of scholarly debate about the Nanking Massacre. It seems the most reasonable estimates of the number killed in the massacre may be closer to the 40,000-100,000 range with 300,000 killed being considered implausible. Google "David Askew Nanking population" and look for his paper estimating that the total population of Nanking before the battle was in the range of 220,000 to 240,000. The article Nanking Massacre controversy and denial provides a summary why the estimates of the population vary (based on the particular area that is being estimated and the specific time of the estimate).

This is not to minimize the atrocity or exculpate the Japanese Army (although some Japanese do attempt to do that). 40,000 civilian deaths is still a lot. It's still a war crime or crime against humanity.

It's just that some of the "middle of the road" Japanese think the Chinese have locked into the 300,000 number and are willing to believe anything and everything bad that anybody has ever said about the Japanese Army's behavior in Nanking. They see that as excessive histrionics that only serves to fuel the arguments of the denialists. Their argument is that everyone should take a cold, hard look at the facts available in the historical record and determine what really happened rather than relying on wildly distorted accusations.

--Richard S (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition

Just a small addition. Thirty years after Japan's surrender, Yamamoto Shichihei wrote "Watashi no Naka no Nihongun" (私の中の日本軍) [1] in which he dissected the original newspaper article that described the contest. It speaks of the Japanese officers "cutting straight through helmets" of over 100 Chinese soldiers with antique swords. The article also contained gross misuse of military jargon, suggesting that the original author had little understanding of military affairs. [2] 219.163.12.72 11:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Oscar_the_Grouch

As for "antique" swords vs. modern ones, the katana used during WWII were mostly hand-made family relics of very high quality and strength. Modern Japanese swords for export are usually mass-machined in China from plain stainless steel, and are universally weaker and less structurally sound than the swords hand-made by Japanese artisans. There are no legitimate sources posted on "katana vs. helmet", and I doubt if any exist. So I don't see how we can jump to judgement. 24.29.58.38 20:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

From Japanese Wikipedia: 日本刀の性能　日本刀で人間を100人斬ることは不可能だとの指摘がある。当時の日本刀は指揮官用の指揮刀としての性格が強く、人を一人斬っただけでも刃がガタガタになってしまうものもあったが、軍刀は将校の通常装備品として多数戦場に存在し、「百人斬り」に必要な本数を調達するのは困難ではなかったとも言われている。しかし、わざわざ「百人斬り」の為に必要な本数を調達する事は現実問題としてありえないとも言われている。

And you're wrong about the studies. Although I've seen one study saying that it would in fact be possible to kill 100 people with one of those swords, I've also seen another saying that there was no chance in hell that they could have cut through an army helmet. I don't think it takes a genius to see that if this story had even the slightest bit of truth to it (which it may or may not), it was obviously exaggerated for the sake of "heroism". Like the guy standing in the hail of bullets at the end of the story. Regardless of whether or not this contest took place, I don't think it's possible for someone to slice through a steel helmet and bring the sword straight down all the way through someone's body in one stroke. Bueller 007 13:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And here you are again. Your personal credulity has no effect on anything. If the article is "exaggerated" how many beheadings would make this a war crime, and an example of a mentality that would have led to others? Again, I withold my personal opinion of your way of thinking in 2007. TheCryingofLot49 (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the events at Nanjing, it is likely that their victims were largely Chinese peasants without helmets. Remember that one of the Japanese official justifications for the killing of civilians in Nanjing was that they claimed that Chinese soldiers had shed their uniforms and tried to disappear amongst the general populace. --Torasap 15:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The copy "In 2000, an academic study of the affair concluded that although "the killing contest itself was a fabrication" by journalists, it "provoked a full-blown controversy as to the historicity of the Nanking Atrocity as a whole."" should either cite or link the study or the paragraph removed as hyperbole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crbrown (talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

its the same cite/link as the next sentence. Feel free to fix it yourself. Given the vociferous nationalism I had to deal with the last time, I'm sure no one will mind if I don't bother. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

I added {{contradict}} template to the article because the lead makes no doubts that the contest happened, but last paragraphs make it convincing that it actually didn't happen. Nikola 05:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, then added it back because I realized it does belong.

What seems clear is that (a) the contest was reported in newspapers, and (b) the contest is notable, given the events that followed (executions for war crimes, controversy, lawsuit). So the questions are (c) how strong is the evidence as to whether it actually occurred or not, and (d) if fabricated, did the military and newspapers cooperate on the story (to improve military and civilian morale, to sell newspapers)?

It would be very helpful if the sentence that includes "the killing contest itself was a fabricated story" were elaborated on - Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi presumably had specific reasons to conclude this was a fabrication, and presumably why it was fabricated. In particular, that the story served as a positive influence in Japanese culture, making the Japanese more aware of some of the wartime atrocities appears to be a comment about events from 1971 onward; it offers no insight into the actual fabrication (if such was in fact the case).

It's perfectly okay to say, in the article, that the reality of the contest is disputed by historians, or (if this is true) that historians today generally agree that the contest never happened, despite the newspaper coverage. If the contest never took place, that makes the article more interesting to the reader, who would want to know why the military and newspapers would collaborate for such a thing. (Speculation by editors, in the article, is not encouraged.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

--

I've just cleaned it up, the contradiction that was rather obvious to me as well. A check of my cleanup would be appreciated.

I hope the idea that it was a fabrication is more evident now, but I don't think it would be kosher to speculate on why the fabrication occurred (even if the reasons for it might be plain).

This issue is unfortunately not directly addressed in Wakabayashi's article.

But perhaps it is mentioned in Powell's contemporaneous My Twenty-five Years in China, which is listed in the article's bibliography but is not referenced anywhere in the article itself.

-- Fullstop 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Significance

Isn't the significance of this event more directly related to the fact that the story of this "contest" (true or false) appeared in the official wartime media? It begs the question, "how aware was the average Japanese person of the atrocities being committed against Chinese civilians?". A similar controversy exists in Germany between those who maintain that the average German had no idea where all those Jews disappeared to and those who believe that most of them knew what was really going on. 60.242.126.65 (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But the truth is that average japanese at that time thought that it was acceptable to kill as killing was the message from the japanese emperor to clean the racially inferior china. Until now, there are still people and historians in japan who try very hard to deny any atrocities committed by their ancestors. I am sad to see that the english version actually include the japanese arguments which deny the crimes. This is what some japanese are trying to do, as always,to pick up details or small mistakes or unknowns to deny the bigger crimes committed by their ancestors. --Gomeying (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We might as well say, hey, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings didn't happen. I'm almost certain that some people will deny the bombings, form their own little groups and try to deny any evidence that the bombings happened. Well that's what some Japanese are doing, denying/reducing the claims of the massacre. The filth are also actively fabricating evidence; it has been starting since the days surrounding the end of the war, where there were numerous attempts at destroying the human experimentation facilities by the Japanese to cover their tracks. In short, people should take the Japanese nationalists as seriously as Holocaust deniers. There are quite a few reasons why people still take Japanese nationalists seriously, as opposed to the equivalent Holocaust deniers: 1. The whole of the Nazi regime was either executed or mysteriously disappeared. The Japanese emperor at that time and some of his group, however, weren't. Their views therefore were able to survive into the present day. 2. The E.U. has made Holocaust denial illegal. No such law exists in Japan; therefore, the nationalists are constantly giving birth to myriads of garbage that some people are silly enough to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.169.226 (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Honda Katsuichi's articles were in the Asahi Shimbun, not the Mainichi. As to how the story was seen in Japan at the time: I think the idea was that these were men fighting with swords against guns. The odds were stacked against them and showed how brave they were! The stories appeared in the Osaka Mainichi and the Tokyo Nichinichi which were sister newspapers, not in any other Japanese language newspapers. It's questionable how many readers took them seriously.219.161.58.196 (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)219.161.58.196 (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

How were they executed?

^Topic ScienceApe (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

not only how, but when were they executed?

the text about one of the officers admitting that he didn´t kill most of his "victims" during battle implies that he held that speech years after the war, yet it is stated that the were executed right after the it--62.154.195.115 (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Chicken or the egg

I've left the assertions in place that it was the subject of the contest which caused the controversy and the Nanking Massacre controversy followed it, for the time being. But I really, really think that needs to be either sourced or removed, because 1) it's a rather counter-intuitive assertion and 2) it has the unfortunate implication that the credibility of the Nanking Massacre depends on the credibility of the contest. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Motivation?

This is a good article, but nowhere can I find any information on the personal motivations of the accused. Even if historians have trouble attributing a specific motive, there still has to be some speculation on this topic. --67.184.93.111 (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't deny that the Contest happened, but...

I've been doing alot of research lately with regard to Japans war crimes and while I highly believe that the contest was real i've heard that Japan back than had tight regulations with regard to censoring information to prevent people from knowing what was going on in China as mentioned here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_propaganda_during_World_War_II#Against_Atrocity_Claims http://www.nankingatrocities.net/Terror/terror_01.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Empire_of_Japan#Early_Sh.C5.8Dwa_Period_.281926.E2.80.931945.29

As mentioned before I believe the contest happened however it is questionable to believe Japanese newspapers where allowed to make artcles about stuff like this since such a photograph of the newspaper could be fake for the sake of extra evidence(again i'm not denying anything). I am aware of how brutal Japanese soldiers where(mainly due to the training) however I can't imagine Japanese civilians tolerating such a thing happening. I some how think a large edit might needs to be made to this page that removes the newspaper referances for the sake of continuity. However I strongly believe that it is only fair to discuss it first. Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 02:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Year further up the article?

I think it would make more sense to give the purported date of the event in the lead, rather than leaving it to the body of the article somewhere. Do people agree? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Quoting" of this "article"

Is there a reason for the quoting of "contest" and other words. It reads very unnaturally, and there's no doubt that this was an actual contest, despicable as that competition might have been. Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, and as no-one has answered you in over a year, I've removed all scare-quotes around the word "contest". I've left other quotes in, as they appear to be represent actual quotes. Iapetus (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The contest itself didn't take place. The argument at court was whether the newspaper were justified in reporting as they did. The judge said that since the two protagonists said what they did the newspaper wasn't unreasonable to print the story. Scare quotes around "contest" make good sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.98.234.36 (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Doubt about the accuracy of Translation on the topic: Lawsuit

The topic Lawsuit includes some wrong translations which may cause great misunderstandings.

Actually, there were three major issues disputed.

1) The credibility of the original articles published in Nichi-Nichi-Shimbun

- Adjudgment (excerpts) :

A) It’s uncertain as to whether or not the hyakunin-giri actions were actually perpetrated like what were described as in the (original ) articles.

  「本件日日記事にある「百人斬り競争」をその記事の内容のとおりに実行したかどうかについては，疑問の余地がないわけではない。」　― 一審判決　第３争点に対する当裁判所の判断　４-ウ-(ア)の１ 

B) There is no reason to believe the contents of (original) articles, in terms of its reality (of the situation, of the methods, etc...) and of the number of killing, that is to say, it is rational to think that, the record described as the result of so-called hyakunin-giri action in the article, is woefully doubtful.

  「[ 南京攻略戦当時の戦闘の実態や両少尉の軍隊における任務，1本の日本刀の剛性ないし近代戦争における戦闘武器としての有用性等に照らしても，] 本件日日記事にある「百人斬り競争」の実体及びその殺傷数について，同記事の内容を信じることはできないのであって，同記事の「百人斬り」の戦闘戦果は甚だ疑わしいものと考えるのが合理的である。」―最高裁判決文　第３ 「争点に対する当裁判所の判断」　1-(12) より、 原判決文に対する、上記４-ウ-(ア)の１の訂正箇所　

C) However, even if the actuality might be different from what were described in the articles, in light of the following points, it has to be considered like - one cannot yet completely deny the case that Noda and Mukai had a sort of competitive actions, to/with which they did not seem to felt a sense of discomfort with their coverage on the paper, then-being described as so-called hyakunin-giri at that time(=when the original articles were published) , thus, one cannot regard the articles of Nichi-Nichi-Shimbun as just a fabrication made by the writer-side and completely false.

  「しかしながら，その競争の内実が本件日日記事の内容とは異なるものであったとしても，次の諸点に照らせば，両少尉が，南京攻略戦において軍務に服する過程で，当時としては，「百人斬り貌争」として新聞報道されることに違和感を持たない競争をした事実自体についてまでは否定することはできず，本件日日記事の「百人斬り競争」を新聞記者の創作記事であり，全くの虚偽であると認めることはできないというべきである。」―最高裁判決 ４-ウ-(ア) 続き

- [ case] : 「事実」in Japanese does not mean in this case whether or not it was a true story. Rather it means the item submitted by a defendant, which passed the fact-finding process in court, as a counterargument.

- [the following points] meant as followings (excerpts from the documents of court decision)
C-1) The articles were sparked by their (Noda and Mukai) telling the stories of so-called hyakunin-giri to the newsperson including Asakai (the writer of the article).
C-2) It can be gathered that Noda at least made some talks as admitting to so-called hyakunin-giri after the articles were published.

2) Wether if Honda’s writings in his books have a large inveracity (deviating from the norm of discussion upon the historical argument) , either have some expressions that might cause the wrong social valuation upon Noda and Mukai :

- A demandant side claimed that, C-1, C-2 mentioned above and many other points introduced in Honda’s book were false, either or the exaggeration (as Honda used the words such as “Murder -Game”「殺人ゲーム」 or “Bloodshedding-Contest”「虐殺競争」) and represent a great departure from the scope of historical argument, and cause the wrong social valuation upon Noda and Mukai.
- Honda refuted like: His books don’t exceed the scope of historical argument, either they are not to directly pointing to the cases that Noda and Mukai actually did hyakunin-giri or killed the captive soldiers.
He also provided some documents (of interviews he made, other books) which he used as the basis for his writings.

- Adjudgment (excerpts) :

These stories (about the quotes Honda introduced) are not supported by solid objective documents, thus, there is no more but to say that may or may not be true. However, they can be still regarded as stories that have some details and specifics as spoken from his own experience, thus, one can not promptly consider them as just a false, neither can say that they go beyond the scope of discussion (upon the historical argument).

  「これらの話も，客観的資料に裏付けられているものではなく，その真偽のほどは定かではないというほかないが，自身の実体験に基づく話として具体性，迫真性を有するものといえ，これらを直ちに虚偽であるとまではいうことはできない....論評の範囲を逸脱したものとまでいうことはできない。」―最高裁判決 ４-ウ-(ア)

3) Libel decision- if Honda and Mainichi-Shimbun (old Nichi-Nichi-Shimbun) have to be charged in the libel and slander to injure Mukai and Noda’s reputations and their families lights.

-Judge concluded not to accept the plaintiff's case that insists the libel and slander cases with following reasons:

・It’s not possible to conclude yet that the original articles were all fabricated (as mentioned in 1)).

・Regarding the truth or falsehood of an assertion upon hyakunin-giri story, until today, there have been complicated arguments between affirmants and denials as many documents have been still published, thus, it is still in the situation where the precise evaluation,as a historical fact, is not yet established.

  「「百人斬り競争」の話の真否に関しては，前記２(１)トで認定したものも含めて，現在に至るまで，肯定，否定の見解が交錯し，様々な著述がなされており，その歴史的事実としての評価は，未だ，定まっていない状況にあると考えられる。」―最高裁判決 ４-ウ-(ア)

・Regarding the historical arguments, even if they might be taken as injuring the social reputations of the dead, when one deal with them after quite a long period of time, it has to be understood that the scrupulous attention to the freedom of historical investigation and to the freedom of expression is required as well.

  「たとえ死者の社会的評価の低下にかかわる事柄であっても，相当年月の経過を経てこれを歴史的事実として取り上げる場合には，歴史的事実探求の自由あるいは表現の自由への慎重な配慮が必要となると解される。」―最高裁判決 ４-ウ-(ア)

・The claims can be addressed only if it is immediately obvious that the content of the books of Honda’s apparently suggest the defamation (as mentioned in 2).
・The personal rights of the dead (privilege and privacy) were expired. / the bereaved’s names were not mentioned in the documents.

-Thus, judge dismissed the compensation claims and requirements for suspending Honda’s books.

---

You see that the adjudgment was just to reject the compensation claims and requirements for suspending Honda’s books, and does not say at all that judge admit that [ the contest of killing 100 people] actually happened.
Judge even said that these historical issues are still under the debates.

These translations in this article are not precise enough and very much biased, thus need to correct.
- Judge Akio Doi dismissed the suit on the grounds that "[the contest] did occur, and was not fabricated by the media"
< This is just one part of issues submitted by the defendant.
- the officers admitted that they had raced to kill 100 people and "it is difficult to say it was fiction."
< This is not true. The officers did not admit that it actually happened. The decision just said that “it is not possible to determine that they are apparently a fiction that may be taken as the actionable statement”
Sarbador 3 (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Your objections appear well grounded. I've looked over the original ruling:

On your last objection specifically, this part of the ruling appears to be what was originally quoted in the Wikipedia article: 以上によれば，少なくとも，本件日日記事は，両少尉が浅海記者ら新聞記者に「百人斬り競争」の話をしたことが契機となって連載されたものであり，その報道後，野田少尉が「百人斬り競争」を認める発言を行っていたことも窺われるのであるから，連載記事の行軍経路や殺人競争の具体的内容については，虚偽，誇張が含まれている可能性が全くないとはいえないものの，両少尉が「百人斬り競争」を行ったこと目体が，何ら事実に基づかない新聞記者の創作によるものであるとまで認めることは困難である。

To paraphrase: Because the officers had, in fact, been interviewed by the journalists, "it is difficult to say that the story was entirely fictitious". Thus, it cannot be said that the story was "entirely made up" by a news reporter without access to facts.

The judge in the preceding section argued that "entirely false" standard should be used specifically for judging whether the books infringed on the plaintiffs' affection for and admiration for the two lieutenants. (It is implied by the court that in a defamation case brought directly by the defamed member, a different (harsher) standard would be used, in which some exaggerations would be sufficient for upholding a defamation claim.) The specific "entirely false" standard is reaffirmed later: "以上の諸点に照らすと，本件事実摘示に含まれる両少尉の社会的評価を低下させることとなる本件摘示事実が，その重要な部分において全くの虚偽であると認めることはできないというべきである"

IMO, the best short description of the judge's rationale is that "an infringement of the plaintiffs' rights" was rejected because the news account was "not entirely false". The original Wikipedia quote "it is not fiction" is certainly a poor translation. Ceconhistorian (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Contest to kill 100 people using a sword. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140806170836/http://www.47news.jp/CI/200705/CI-20070517-6456278.html to http://www.47news.jp/CI/200705/CI-20070517-6456278.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225011506/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/08/japanese-court-rules-newspaper-didnt.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/08/japanese-court-rules-newspaper-didnt.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Malicious edits

This appears to have been a well-sourced article up to academic standards until it was butchered by a series of what can only be described as malicious edits from an (apparently) Chinese-nationalist account: User:Dbaba selectively removed sourced content (for example, the Honda book contained two quotes of Japanese soldiers; one quote was kept and the other was removed without explanation), added and deleted words from quotes, and made up new claims without adding a single supporting citation (instead, he simply moved sources around to give the perception that his claims were sourced). These are dreadful editing habits.

This series of edits can be viewed here.

Sensitive topics deserve careful editing and careful sourcing. These edits contain neither. It's bizarre that these edits were not spotted and reverted sooner. I've now attempted to revert the original content; others should help and notice if anything's missing. Ceconhistorian (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Dbaba stopped editing in 2011, but their various edits in other topics should be examined for neutrality. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There's more. This edit falls under the same strategy of "making shit up by moving shit around". The two Western academic sources cited in the article, Askew and Fogel, characterize "denialists" as those historians who have a low estimate of below 10,000 deaths. User:Dbaba instead moved the Fogel source after his self-written paragraph that "Many scholars have accepted the figure of 300,000 dead as an approximate total" and that any estimate below the 300,000 figure is "denialist". This is flat out absurd, considering both Askew and Fogel have rejected the 300,000 estimate as far too high, so they would be calling themselves "denialists" by that definition. Askew goes as far to say that no serious scholar accepts the 300,000 estimate, and that it is mostly a creation of Chinese propaganda. Askew's summary was curiously removed by User:Dbaba, though he kept a reference to it to support a different statement.

I'm not sure if I could go ahead and undo these edits without being flagged as a denialist myself. That is the genius of these Chinese propaganda efforts. It's hard to spot them and even harder to revert them.Ceconhistorian (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)