Jump to content

Talk:Iwane Matsui

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleIwane Matsui has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
June 27, 2015Good article nomineeListed
September 30, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 3, 2016Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Needs additional citations


After reading countless articles by history professors, newspapers and eye witnesses I understand to a great extent what occurred during the invasion of Nanjing, the atrocities that were committed and a shallow understanding of who was involved. However i seem to have run into a problem; the International Military Tribunal for the Far East sentenced General Mastui Iwane to death for war crimes on the basis that he deliberately and recklessly disregarded his duty to take adequate steps to prevent atrocities, this is clear but there is no evidence that anyone has clearly stated except for the fact that he was the commanding officer therefore he is responsible. There seems to be very few statements that he made regarding his orders given to the troops. How was he sentenced without any hard evidence such as letters, eye witness accounts or written orders to troops, commanders, etc. It's understood that the troops committed a very large number of atrocities however Matsui himself only committed that of not doing anything. For me this doesn't seem to account for a death sentence. Can anyone please give me references regarding any specific accounts, orders or evidence relating to General Matsui's involvement and any material regarding the War Crimes trial he underwent it would be greatly appreciated. thankyou—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:46, 3 April 2005.

This entry should be moved


The Wikipedia convention is to list modern Japanese people with Western name order (personal name then family name), unless they are on record as preferring the other order. Matsui is a family name. I will move the page later if no one objects. --Carl 10:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flipped it. --Carl 15:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)



The first edition of The Rape of Nanking, by Iris Chang, followed the IMTFE's lead in blaming Matsui for the massacre, as Matsui planned the invasion of Nanking and was Asaka's commanding officer during the Rape. James Yin and Shi Young's book of the same title, however, blames Asaka for the massacre, and portrays Matsui as a helpless figurehead stuck between a prince and an emperor. The truth is a matter of continued debate.

The article needs info on later editions. I read a non-first edition of The rape of nanking and Chang's argument seemed to me to be that Matsui took the fall for Asaka because Matsui was loyal-unto-death to the royal family. She says the worst of the violence and atrocities ceased once matsui arrived on the scene; she seemed to stop short of suggesting that if Matsui hadn't been holed up with tuberculosis miles away when the city fell, that there might not have been a massacre, but IMO only just short. Nateji77 08:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I strongly suggest expanding this section, or deleting it entirely. Chang's book has come under significant criticism, and I would suggest that this section should have other viewpoints, or else removed entirely. Furthermore, Chang was not trained as a historian, rather, a journalist. This makes any claims by her doubtful, but not necessarily incorrect, which is the reason for this post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute: An Illegal Murder

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Posted by POV-pusher. No reason to keep this open. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of a crime and killing them is murder. Iwane Matsui had a kind look, but was very strict. His name belongs in the Murder victims category. The article needs changing. It was on his orders that no bullet was fired in the Safety Zone. User:NipponSun7

Actually, being accused of crimes, and then executed for them is precisely the opposite of murder. Claiming that he was a "murder victim" is using charged terminology to POV-push.Zmflavius (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a school of thought which claims as much, and it has its place in the article (under historical assessment), provided you can link it to reliable sources which state as much (it certainly is not the most widely accepted viewpoint among scholars or historical consensus, which means it should not be presented as such). Stating this POV as fact in the lead, when, as the historical assessment section itself already shows, the claim has far from universal acceptance among historians and reliable sources, and actually quite a bit of opposition, is POV-pushing. Finally, even if we were to assume that the generally and widely accepted viewpoint (which it is not) is the claim that Matsui was the victim of wrongful execution, the charged terminology that existed beforehand is nevertheless still entirely inappropriate, which is clear if you were to compare it with actual examples of victims of wrongful execution.Zmflavius (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On several anti-Japanese articles you have brought up the issue of POV-pushing:
"Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them." ~ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LoveJapanChika (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are not addressing the main issue; which is to say, your proposals fall outside the consensus of historians and scholars and revolve around battling "anti-Japanese articles" rather than improving the articles you claim to have issues with.Zmflavius (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat what I said above. Your classing of historians and scholars into "anti-Japanese" and "pro-Japanese" is not an attitude which contributes to the improvement of wikipedia. This is because wikipedia is, as you do not quite seem to grasp, about synthesizing correct information, not pushing a political viewpoint. This means that scholars and historians should be considered for usage as sources based on their reliability, accuracy, and scholarly acceptance (and not whether they are "anti-Japanese" or "pro-Japanese"), which, for academics, is the degree to which their ideas are accepted by the consensus of the wider scholarly community. A scholar whose ideas are widely accepted are probably very reliable, one whose ideas are only marginally accepted is probably only marginally reliable, one whose are not accepted at all is probably a fringe lunatic who has no place on wikipedia. A brief googling of Arimasa Kubo suggests that he falls into the third category. Your obsession with whether sources and articles are "anti-Japanese" or "pro-Japanese" suggest that, however, you are overly concerned with the political slant of sources (and whether or not that political slant suits you) rather than actual accuracy.Zmflavius (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly don't engage in personal attacks, especially not mis-representing the actual events. However, at this point, I must seriously question the value of engaging in any further discussion with you on this and other pages.Zmflavius (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the violent culture of the victors that caused his murder. Japanese soldiers did not have such a culture. User: NipponSun7
(NPOV dispute moribund; in addition, good faith of add-er called into serious question on other talk pages)
The dispute is far from moribund; we are still debating. Please refrain from removal of active NPOV boxes. LoveJapanChika (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An active NPOV dispute presumes that the parties are actively attempting to resolve the dispute constructively and in good faith, which is not the case if there is no comment on said dispute for two weeks, or little to no evidence of constructive attempts to point out POV issues.Zmflavius (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iwane Matsui - Class-A war criminal?


Iwane Matsui was a Class-A war criminal executed by hanging. Apparently, user CurtisNaito does not agree. Please tell why I am wrong. STSC (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the body of the article itself, Matsui was declared not guilty of Class A war crimes. The sources for this are already appropriately cited in the article, but it should be obvious that he was not guilty of Class A war crimes simply on the basis of the fact that he was convicted only under Count 55, which dealt with negligence in preventing breaches of the conventional laws of war. Class A war crimes refer to involvement in a conspiracy to commit "crimes against peace", and obviously failing to prevent breaches of the conventional laws of war is not a conspiracy to commit "crimes against peace". Although the IMTFE did not formally distribute its counts into the categories of "Class A" and "Class B/C", the sources cited in the article did note the fact that Count 55 clearly falls under the broad category of "Class B/C" war crimes. Whether or not Matsui was a Class A war criminal probably depends on who you ask, but if you are asking the IMTFE which tried him, then the answer is "no", he was not a Class A war criminal.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on RS; we just follow what the RS tell us because lots of RS widely classify Matsui as Class-A war criminal. STSC (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources currently cited in the article are reliable and they say that Matsui was not convicted of Class-A war crimes. The fact is that Matsui was convicted only under Count 55, which had nothing to do with Class-A war crimes. If you can find a source which can explain how exactly Count 55 had anything to do with Class-A war crimes, then I suppose we can add that as an alternative point of view.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no links to the sources in the reference, you'll have to show us some texts of those sources that back up your argument. STSC (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is just one example of RS pointing Matsui as 'Class A' war criminal:[1]. STSC (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters here's a few that I happen to have with me right now. "歴代陸軍大将全覧"(page 146) says "He was charged with Class A war crimes, but among the fifty-five legal counts he was declared guilty only of Count 55 which involved conventional war crimes and crimes against humanity." Class B/C war crimes are "conventional war crimes and crimes against humanity", Class A war crimes are "crimes against peace" or "conspiracy to commit aggressive war". "「大東亜戦争」はなぜ起きたのか "(page 510) says, "Matsui was charged by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East on counts 1, 27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 54, and 55, but evidence pertaining to conspiracy and the execution of aggressive war against China was rejected and Matsui would be convicted and sentenced to hang only on Count 55, failure to uphold the laws of war concerning POWs and civilians". "The Politics of Nanjing" also notes that Count 55 was a Class B/C charge. There is a difference in quality between these three sources, all written by specialist historians working at major universities, and your source which is just an article in the Daily Telegraph. Your article doesn't explain how exactly Count 55 had anything to do with Class A war crimes. Apart from all the historians who say that Count 55 had nothing to do with Class A war crimes, it's also just a simple matter of reading Count 55. Where in Count 55 does it say anything about conspiracy to wage aggressive war?CurtisNaito (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is commonly known as 'Class-A war criminal' according to the majority of RS but I would compromise not to use the 'Class-A' label in my edit. STSC (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

28 indicted


Due to a recent change, the article now says that, "Iwane Matsui became one of twenty-nine individuals formally indicted before the International Military Tribunal for the Far East". I have a copy of the source cited for this sentence, and it clearly states that 28 individuals were indicted, not 29, so why is this change being made? There are other sources to confirm this. For example, Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking says, "The IMTFE commanded enormous media and legal attention, even though only twenty-eight Japanese military and political officials were prosecuted."Tessa Bennet (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the number is 28. And you should note that the same person is making this change in other places.[2]-AsianFire- (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nanjing Denial References


There are citations that are pretty obviously by Nanjing Massacre denialists trying to paint Matsui as a more ambivalent figure, especially 47 and 48.