Talk:John Rabe

Untitled

I would like to post a question that has been nagging me since I first read about this subject. Has John Rabe's diary ever been tested for the age of ink, paper and glue like the (forged) diary of Hitler was tested? If there is any information I would like to know. 219.163.12.72 08:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)Oscar_the_Grouch

---

Hey Oscar, Since Rabe was questioned by the Nazi authorities after his return in 1938, cheaper than tests could be to search for documents of his interrogation in the German Archives. Start with the Bundesarchiv which is probably still in Koblenz. If they have records of his 1938 interrogation or if you can find his de-Nazification file of 1945, you'll know.

I would have been happier if the quotes from these diaries would have had a note "in translation from German". People so often forget that one thing or the other is not the original as it was written or spoken, and sometimes it matters. 121.209.50.162 (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to post a question to anybody who may chance upon this site and has read about John Rabe. What was John Rabe's reaction after being turned against by the Nazis? Was he appalled? And did he immediately stop his writings on the Japanese atrocities?

Isabella

According to the book The Good Man of Nanking his disillusions about the Nazis grew towards the end of the war. Apparently Rabe lost all interest in them in his later years. Let's just add that he joined the Nazis initially because he needed to in order to open a school (or something like that - if my memory serves me true) in China, that he was a fervent nationalist and that he had absolutely no idea what Hitler was doing in the period leading up to the war (he was in China throughout).

Rabe was forbidden to exhibit or lecture about the Japanese while the Nazis were in power but he kept documentations in case they could one day come in handy. Mandel 22:09, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

On some sources Rabe was credited with saving 250,000 - on wikipedia it's 50,000. Which is correct? Wikipedia seems to be the only one quoting 50,000. -Hmib 04:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He protected 250,000 civilians in the International Zone from harm, whether that is saving all 250,000 of them is ambiguous. However I doubt every single one of them will be slaughtered if the Zone was not drawn up. Wikipedia probably refers to the figures in Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking. Mandel 09:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

food and money parcels

I'd just like to make certain whether the packages that Rabe received while in poverty came from the Chinese government, as this article says (and also whether any "money parcels" were sent. This wikipedia article is the only one I can find that asserts so). At http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/rabe.html it states that the packages came from colleagues (and that they were cut off in 1949). http://www.ideajournal.com/articles.php?id=22 says that he survived by bartering away his collection of chinese art for food, and http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/1197web/nanking.html just refers to "those in Nanking". Is it possible to find out exactly where the money came from?

The Chinese wikipedia says the support was cut off after the ROC government retreated from Nanjing.--Skyfiler 03:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Question about the Amazon link

As far as I can judge, it seems to me that this article is pretty good - and the destiny of this man pretty wild... The exact origin and duration of the support parcels should be clarified, though, I agree with the previous editor. My only reservation is technical : next to the title of Rabe's book, there is a link to its Amazon details. Although Amazon description pages are usually of good quality, is it ok to link to a commercial site from a non-profit venture like Wikipedia ? - Fils du Soleil 01:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Although I don't think there's normally anything wrong with referencing commercial sources, the correct format for books is to cite an ISBN link. That takes the user to a number of sources.

I'll take a further look at it tomorrow if you don't get to it first.

-- Randy2063 02:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. - Fils du Soleil 19:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Man of Nanking

Though it would only be logical to assume thus, I would like to ask someone in the know whether Rabe's war diaries were published (or indeed, written) originally in German, or English? --Ishikawa Minoru 19:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It was originally written in German, my edition is translated to English by John E. Woods (ISBN: 0316648078) 222.152.144.152 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Year of Death

German Wikipedia says he died in 1950, what is correct ? 85.178.25.253 07:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Allied Hypocrisy

Rabe's poor treatment by the Anglo-Americans shows how little real concern they had for their wartime Chinese allies and the principles they (the Anglo-Americans) claimed to have fought for. His "denazification" took a whole year, and afterwards he was ignored and allowed to live in a state of unemployment and poverty. If the Anglo-Americans had had genuine concern for "universal human rights" they would have found Rabe a perfect person to employ in their administration of Occupied Germany. It is reasonable to assume that the stress of first internment, and following that poverty and forced idleness, likely contributed to his death from stroke.

Just consider: his record of activism on behalf of human rights was far superior to that of nearly all winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.Falange (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.146.160.51 (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unknown IP, you need to refine your shoah-business. Currently it is too obvious and thus not very effective. regards, 89.204.135.52 (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize winner - completely agree ! Rabe and a handful of the individuals who chose to risk their lives in order to save more all deserve Nobel Prizes and high regard. They were all under the extremely horrible conditions created by the Imperial Japanese Army. Salute to them all http://www.library.yale.edu/div/Nanking/about.html Meanwhile, as pointed out by H.J. Timperley (British author/ reporter for the Manchester Guardian) in Feb 1938, It was just easy to imagine the plight of the populace of other invaded cities and areas where Rabe and others did not happen to live in. http://divdl.library.yale.edu/ydlchina/images%5CNMP0093.pdf Friend2008 (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"who used his Nazi party membership for humanitarian purposes"

This statement begs more questions than it answers and shouldn't be in the lead. 220.255.7.179 (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Try reading the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.125.84.175 (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In the docu last night they explained that they wanted to establish a German School (Deutsche Schule) in Nanjing, and in oder to get funds from Germany, someone had be a member of the Nazi Party. Rabe decided to be the one. Without having been in the party, and as an observer very far away, he had sympathies for the Nazi Party. As my parents told me from Berlin at the time, the street fights between NAzis and Communists could simply not have gone on forever, and Hitler was seen as the one who could prevent them. The industrialists were also in favour of Hitler and funded him/them, fearing the communists would nationalise the factories. That would have hit Siemens as well, so it is not surprising that Rabe and many others supported the only force which seemed to guarantee order and prevent nationalisation. Once he could see that party membership could influence outcomes, he used it. 121.209.50.162 (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

When did he join?

When did he join the Nazi party? --Error (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

John?

His first name seems to be consistently given as "John", even in German. That's a bit surprising; is there some explanation? Did he have English ancestry? Was he originally born as Johann or Johannes and adopted "John" during his expatriate years in China? --Saforrest (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

John is an old Low German variant of Johannes, particularly popular in Hamburg, Rabe's birth place. Teodorico (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then it shouldn't be pronounced like in English,more like [joːn]! --Popolfi (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The docu last night said that he was named John, even though this is not German, after an uncle in Australia. 121.209.50.162 (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

no references footnotes

There are no references, so I added {{noref}}{{nofootnotes}}. If someone has a bit of time on their hands, this bbc article can be used to add info as well as back up some of the text already included. -M.Nelson (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Georg Rosen (Diplomat)

According to Florian Gallenberger's current film about John Rabe, the idea of a safety zone came from Georg Rosen, a German diplomat of partly Jewish anchestry. A German diplomat of Jewish background in 1937 - at first sight this sounds unbelievable and owed to typical film genres such as the typical Nazi Fließ in this film, an imaginary figure at the location, created only for the purpose of showing the difference to the member of the Nazi party John Rabe. But Georg Rosen was no artificial character! He really existed and made desperate efforts to show his government, what happened in Nanking.

He also sent a detailed report with a copy of John Magee's film to his government and demanded, it to be handed over to Hitler. It's hard to say, what he expected. Like Rabe, a great deal of his knowledge of Nazi Germany originated from propaganda newspapers, which drew Hitler as a superman or a kind of a messiah. I think, he didn't really believe this, but made an attempt, to be sure. He more clutched at straws. The only result of his efforts was, that he was fired.

As my English is not good, I'd suggest, someone creates an article about Georg Rosen (diplomat) . There is already a short article existing in German language.

[1] [2] [3]

--Henrig (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A new article was launched today on the English Wiki, (based on a translation from the former German one which has been deleted): see Georg Rosen (German diplomat & scholar, 1895–1961). Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine. In my opinion the article will now, after the film, scarcely be deleted again. --Henrig (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Chiune Sugihara

I've corrected the explanation at "Chiune Sugihara" from

"Japanese vice-consul in Lithuania who helped thousands of Jews, escape the Nazi-occupied country." to

"Japanese vice-consul in Lithuania who helped thousands of Jews, to escape the then Stalinist- (but afterwards Nazi-) occupied country."

Religious Jews were terrified of Stalinist oppression and persecution, but as a result of the Nazi occupation afterwards, they in the end were saved before the holocaust.

This doesn't reduce Sugihara's earnings in the slightest way! He just tried, to help human beings, who felt in danger.

--Henrig (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Excessive cross-linking in "see also" section

I have considerably pared down the "See also" section on this page, as it was clear that many of the links had no cirect relevance to either the events in Nanking in general, or Rabe in particular. William James Wanless, for example, seems to have never even set foot in China, yet on his page there are many of the same exceptionally tenuous links. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to the guidelines set up in the MOS section WP:See also. Quote: "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."

The guideline was created to help readers expand their over knowledge of subjects tangentially related to the article they were reading, and thus benefits many lay readers. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nick Cooper that all these "see also" links to people who had no connection with the subject are inappropriate, and I just re-deleted them from the Wanless article. The wording under WP:See also does allow for subjects "only peripherally related" to the one in question, but the connection between these people is not merely peripheral, it is almost nonexistent. If the idea is to give people a way to learn more about medical missionaries, or about missionaries in general, or whatever these people are supposed to have in common, then an article or category should be created - for example Medical missionaries. --MelanieN (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of these people merit categorisation, but not cross-referencing on the individual pages. "Medical missionaries" would certainly be a start, but there could be seen to be a need for a category for similar actions of mass rescue/protection of this type by non-missionaries, whether religiously motivated or not (e.g. Schindler, Winton, etc.). Nick Cooper (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The narrow interpretation of WP:See also guideline that you've created is doing a disservice to Wikipedia's lay readers. Nothing within the body of the article is saying that Wanless, Bethune and the others had a connection to Rabe. The addition of those links is allowed within the 'See also' section in order to encourage readers to look at other articles 'peripherally related' to the one they've just read, which is the intent of the passage: "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."

Rabe was a humanitarian and is thus categorized as a German humanitarian; each of the other 'See also' links refers to other foreign humanitarians serving far from their homes. Allowing readers to explore peripherally related articles is the intent of the guideline for the 'See also' section, and deleting such links only creates a lesser article. For those reasons the See also links should not be deleted so long as they are relevant to humanitarians such as Rabe. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Humanitarians? Is that the connection you see? "Foreign humanitarians serving far from their homes"? Or is it more like "white people doing good things in Asia"? In any case, "humanitarians" is a real stretch and could include thousands of people. It could be OK to link someone like Rabe to others who also protected civilians during war or occupation - for example, Oskar Schindler and Raoul Wallenberg - and maybe an article could be written about such people, as Nick Cooper suggested, though I am not sure what you would call it. (Many of those who specifically helped Jews during World War II are already referenced at Righteous among the Nations.) But any connection between "Canadian missionary doctor in India in early 20th century" and "German businessman who helped protect Chinese people during wartime" is far too tenuous for a "see also" link. Same is true of most of the others you listed - Kotnis, Endicott, Bethune, Harrison - their inclusion here seems almost random. I think you may have to accept this consensus view even if you don't agree with it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Harry complains about a "narrow interpretation of WP:See also guideline," yet the corollary of that would obviously be an overly broad interepretation that, frankly, would not be tolerated on many pages on Wikipedia. What he seems to be advocating would - for example - be akin to listing every other Righteous Gentile on each page for a specific Righetous Gentile, and then on top adding in the likes of Nicholas Winton, for good measure! Nick Cooper (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's slow down. I see that HarryZilber restored the disputed list of "see also" links to William James Wanless - even as I was deleting it from the other articles. Please let's not get into an edit war. Let's not make any more additions or deletions until we resolve the question. Let's resolve it here at this discussion page, or if we can't reach agreement, let's ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

--MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No connection with the subject- Deleting ". John Rabe " from see also as he who had nothing to do with Sir Wanless or his work , Mr. John Rabe was a businessman and he work in war in relation to his business as businessman, whereas Dr. Sir Wanless was a medical missionaries providing quality health care to all irrespective of caste, creed, religion or financial means and living only on his missionary's salary sent by the Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church, while donating his personal staff salary to the mission. Very different to connection with the subject Business of mr. John Rabe.

Dr. Sir Wanless was working for:

• five hundredthousand to one million lepers in India.
• The total bed capacity of all tuberculosis sanatoria in India does not equal that of the Municipal sanatorium in Chicago.
• Fifty million people died of malaria and kindred fevers in India every year.

Not as a Business, nor as a businessman.

See [4] Medicine in India.-- . Shlok _{talk .} 17:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifty million people died of malaria and kindred fevers in India every year ??? What kind of fact is that? India would have ceased to exist at that rate within six years (in the 1920s). Alandeus (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know What kind of fact ( What it should be called) but it is from website of U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) free digital archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature. article about Medicine in India Delivered before the Section of Historical and Cultural Medicine, November 13, 1929. "Discussion" on page 128. , "See Also" This -[5]. . Shlok _{talk .} 12:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

MelanieN: You're a hard one to satisify!.... quoting you: "Foreign humanitarians serving far from their homes"? Or is it more like "white people doing good things in Asia"?"

White people doing good things in Asia?? It almost sounds as though you have an underlying bias against 'white people' receiving credit for their good works. You should recheck your own work as one of the links you deleted was for Dwarkanath Kotnis who was Indian and would not be mistaken as a white westerner.

Aside from that, you've chosen to rewrite a Wikipedia guideline, without actual rewriting it, except above where you state: "Is it appropriate to use the "see also" section of a biography article to provide links to numerous other persons, whose activities or biography may be similar in some way to the subject of the article?"

WP:See also quote: "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."

As you probably know, 'peripherally' relates to 'periphery': "...an area lying beyond the strict limits of a thing". Adding a link to a like humanitarian in an article about a humanitarian complies to the guideline you're seeking to change without consensus, so I'd suggest it is you who is acting outside of Wikipedia's norms by deleting such edits (please, lets skip the semantics debate).

If you'd like to discuss the number of links that are appropriate to the article (yes, 40 would probably be too many), or who should be included as a 'like' humanitarian, I'm more than open to suggestions; however please do not redefine Wikipedia's operating guidelines and policies on your own since that would obviously lead to anarchy. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

with whom you are talking.?, I ( also any one) don't deleted Dwarkanath Kotnis Link. . Shlok _{talk .} 17:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sachinvenga, I was in a dialog with MelanieN, who had posted a comment to me a few paragraphs up. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Harry, we are clearly at an impasse. You and I have very different interpretations of what is the norm here. I would point out that your extremely broad interpretation of the guideline which allows links that are "only peripherally related" to the subject in question has been challenged by three people here - myself, Nick Cooper, and Shlok. I would also say that in my four-plus years on Wikipedia with more than 5,000 edits, I have never seen anyone else use the "see also" section in this way. Take a look - do William Shakespeare, John Milton and Walt Whitman have "see also" links to each other, or to other poets? Do John Steinbeck and Ernest Hemingway have half a dozen links to other novelists? Do athletes have links to other athletes, musicians to other musicians? But let's get some more opinions, since Wikipedia operates by consensus. I will go and ask for a WP:Third opinion as I suggested above. Let's see if there is any consensus or support for the way you have been linking all these not-very-closely-related people, ranging from medical missionaries in India to socialist activists in China, about whom who find some kind of similarity. We have two questions here:

My summary of the question at dispute here:

• Is it appropriate to use the "see also" section of a biography article to provide links to numerous other persons, whose activities or biography may be similar in some way to the subject of the article?
• If so, how strongly connected does the linked article have to be? Can it be anyone who worked in the same field or the same country? Can it be as general as "humanitarians"?

For the information of any third-party consultant, we are talking about the mutual "see also" links that you have set up (and repeatedly restored after others have deleted them) among the following:

• Dwarkanath Kotnis, an Indian physician who served, and died, in China during the Second Sino-Japanese War, along with Norman Bethune.
• Jakob Rosenfeld, a Jewish Austro-Hungarian physician who served in China as Minister of Health under Mao Zedung.
• James Gareth Endicott, a strident Canadian socialist and missionary to China.
• John Rabe, a German businessman who helped establish the Nanking Safety Zone in China during the Second Sino-Japanese War.
• Norman Bethune, another Canadian prominent in medicine, and who also made a significant impact in Asia, along with Dwarkanath Kotnis.
• Tillson Harrison, a Canadian physician who served during several wars around the globe, principally in China.
• William James Wanless, another Canadian-born physician prominent in Asia

--MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

MelanieN: Pointing to articles that fit your interpretation hasn't proven your point since the guideline doesn't require the inclusion of peripheral articles, it 'permits' their inclusion –thus the use of the word '....including...' in the guideline. Numerous examples of peripheral articles in See also sections that don't fit your template can be provided if you need to see them.

Those who believe they're entitled to avoid using established WP guidelines because they have ... "four-plus years on Wikipedia with more than 5,000 edits" are essentially saying they can delete other people's work because "I don't like it", a weak and feeble argument. What you're now seeking is validation of your deletion of peripheral articles.

Following WP's existing procedures, guidelines, policies, etc... isn't open for debate here, just as a gang of editors can't arbitrarily decide that fringe material doesn't need to be cited in reliable sources in order to be included. You can debate those guidelines on the relevant guideline Talk pages and see if your proposed changes will stick. If you find my inclusion of 'peripheral articles' on other humanitarians in the See also sections of John Rabe and William Wanless objectionable, please apply for arbitration.

Returning to an earlier point you made, are you seeking to downplay recognition of good works performed by 'white people' in Asia? Your comment was disturbing. HarryZilber (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was commenting on your selection - trying to puzzle out what you found to be in common among these disparate people. I thought that might have been one of your selection criteria, which remain baffling. (For example, why the bias toward Canadians? Why no "humanitarians" serving in Africa? etc.) But I'm not going to argue the point further, since as I said I feel we have reached an impasse. I listed our dispute, as neutrally as I could, at Wikipedia:Third opinion and let's see what others say. Of course the "third opinion" process is not binding, but it is simpler and friendlier than going to WP:Dispute resolution. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Harry, you don't seem to appreciate the inherent problem in the approach you are taking. If there were only a small handful of people doing the sort of thing Rabe did, then it would not be inappropriate to include all or some of them. Fortunately for humanity, theer ahev in fact been a lot of examples of such actions, in a variety of places and for a number of personal or religious motivations. That being the case, it is inapropriate to cherry-pick examples, many of which have little in common with Rabe's circumctances. The result scatter-gun effect is messy, and - as I have said before - would not be tolerated on the vast majority of other pages. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion request

Hi, I saw this listed at WP:3O (copying here for the convenience of the poster):

Talk:John Rabe#Excessive cross-linking in "see also" section Disagreement about what kind of links are appropriate for the "see also" section of a biographical article. Two points at issue:

• Is it appropriate to use the "see also" section of a biography article to provide links to other persons whose activities or biography may be similar in some way to the subject of the article?
• If so, how strongly connected does the linked article have to be? Can it be anyone who worked in the same field, or the same country? Can it be as general as "humanitarians"? How should we interpret the Wikipedia guideline that says a see-also link can be "only peripherally related" to the subject of the article? 03:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to consider this issue further and try to give a third opinion about it, but first I have to ask if only two editors are involved in the dispute right now. WP:3O is really meant only for disputes between two editors, so if more are involved here and you are all at an impasse, you may wish to consider instead another means of dispute resolution.
Or, if you prefer, we could proceed more-or-less as described at the 3O FAQ, here. Is the conflict primarily between MelanieN and HarryZilber right now? If so, do you both want to proceed with the 3O per the FAQ, or not...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing the issue solved in 3O. Personally, I don't care for ballooning of article with hardly relevant data. In this case specifically, I'd say the 'see also' should be narrowed to those who 'rubbed shoulders' with Raabe; i.e. those in the very same situation. Alandeus (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. There have been four editors involved in the discussion here, but there are only two sides - which seems to be allowed under the FAQ section of WP:Third opinion. The two sides are: HarryZilber (who wants to link these half-dozen articles under the "peripherally related" guideline) vs. Nick Cooper, MelanieN, and Shlok (who all independently found the half-dozen articles to be inappropriate for a "see also" listing and tried to delete them). I was the one who took it to Third Opinion, but I don't know whether HarryZilber agrees with the Third Opinion approach or not. --MelanieN (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your summary of the issue, MelanieN, and for the comments you have made above. I agree with and support the argument you are making here. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Alandeus and WikiDao: thank you for your concern. I'm uninterested in compromising Wikipedia's core values. If MelanieN were to create a new article called 'Stinky socks soup' saying that its recipe had won numerous culinary awards, and then not supplied reliable sources to back up her article, notability aspects aside, we would not be arguing her article in WP:3O –because Wikipedia's guidelines and policies are not open for debate unless you'd like to do so on their relevant topic pages. Similarly, the tactic of ignoring the part of the WP:See also guideline that says "...including subjects only peripherally related...." is not open to debate. The guideline either makes that statement or it doesn't. If you're alluding to the guideline not really saying "...including subjects only peripherally related....", then you're only kidding yourself ––you get a failing grade in English comprehension and absolutely need some remedial grammar school work. Kicking this around in 3O would therefore be patently silly.

Unfortunately MelanieN, who dismissed my links as irrelevant to the articles that she deleted then from, is unwilling to discuss suitable alternatives to them, having complained that my links reflected 'white people doing good things in Asia'. MelanieN will not reply whether she has an anti-Westerner agenda. Unexamined, since all the listings she deleted were males, is whether she has an anti-male agenda. As discussed above previously there's no objection at all to considering links to other humanitarians, be they black, female, Asian (as was the Dwarkanath Kotnis article she deleted), Latino, African, Guatemalans, Russians, Bolivians, etceteras.... if the proposed links concern humanitarians, then they're fair game, and about 10 links for each article would not be an unreasonable number. The point to adding links to the See also section is to allow readers to expand their knowledge of peripherally related articles similar to the one they just finished reading. I'm also more than happy to furnish examples of other WP articles which reflect the WP:See also guideline (and to which I have never made any edits) to counter her claim that 'my list of articles doesn't do what you just did'. That tact is called cherry-picking as well, b.t.w. If we'd like to stop wasting time and start fine-tuning the See also list, we can all accomplish this relatively quickly and then return to our collective efforts on improving or contributing to Wikipedia's endeavors. Saying that "if its not directly related to Article Name, then its not permitted to be here..." is elitist, not an option and will be contested in arbitration.

Can we get on with recommendations for improving the list of See also links, or will this need to be elevated to a higher level? HarryZilber (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Harry, you know, you can take this issue anywhere you feel it would be appropriate to take it. As far as my "third opinion" goes, it is that I agree with the case Melanie and others have made here. And the present version of the "See also" section seems fine to me. If you would like to propose additions to the list for consideration on a case-by-case basis, I'd be happy to weigh in on those, too. I think it is pretty clear what the consensus is now, though. Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiDao, besides your third opinion actually being misplaced to the wrong venue, kindly visit this Wikipedia policy article to review what consensus is and isn't. Consensus was, unfortunately, not achieved on the redefinition of "...including subjects only peripherally related....", so you obviously shouldn't proclaim it by fiat.

Respecting the same policy on consensus, we are all obliged to observe that (emphasis is mine): "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope".

WikiDado: at what point did you or any of the others above convince the broader community that "...subjects only peripherally related..." is no longer a part of the WP:See also requirements, or are like groups of editors now just making up new rules as they go along? Nothing says that can't happen, so long as they first storm Wikipedia's head office and depose of Mr. Wales and the Board of Directors. Until then, it looks like we all need to respect the existing rules, n'est-ce pas?. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Harry. I apologize if I am somehow missing the point. Would you mind too much re-listing the additions you would like to make, with a very brief (one- or two-line) justification as you see it for the inclusion of each in this section of this article? I think that is really the point of the issue here, right? If so, let's try to stick to it.

Please note, btw, that 3O's are entirely informal and non-binding. If you would like to achieve a broader-community consensus on the issue(s) you feel are most important here, you are, again, welcome at any time to pursue any other means of dispute resolution, or request comments from the appropriate projects or categories, or even take it up on an administrator's noticeboard. Further discussion under the heading of this "3O" is entirely voluntary on your part, and you can discontinue and/or ignore it at any time. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiDado, let's clarify the salients: the integration of improved quality links into the See also section was never contentious on my part, as was stated twice previously.

Please refer to the first comment at the beginning of "Excessive cross-linking of...." where MN states: "the links had no cirect relevance to either the events in Nanking in general, or Rabe in particular". MN repeatedly chose to ignore the 'WP:See also' guideline and attempted to circumvent it with WP:3O commentary, to which you are party.

MN then further denigrated the deleted links with her comment: "Foreign humanitarians serving far from their homes"? Or is it more like "white people doing good things in Asia"?" which I personally took offense to, and for which she has neither accounted nor apologized for.

Now, let's move forward. To repeat what's been been described above, here are links deleted by MelanieN:

• Dwarkanath Kotnis, an Indian physician who served, and died, in China during the Second Sino-Japanese War, along with Norman Bethune.
• Jakob Rosenfeld, a Jewish Austro-Hungarian physician who served in China as Minister of Health under Mao Zedung.
• James Gareth Endicott, a strident Canadian socialist and missionary to China.
• Norman Bethune, another Canadian prominent in medicine, and who also made a significant impact in Asia, along with Dwarkanath Kotnis.
• Tillson Harrison, a Canadian physician who served during several wars around the globe, principally in China.
• William James Wanless, another Canadian-born physician prominent in Asia

The link I would first remove from this list (leaving five remainers) is that of Tillson Harrison, who led a somewhat convoluted life. Beyond Harrison, all the others are very worthy examples of other humanitarians who are unrelated to the subject of John Rabe.

I hope we're still in agreement that its acceptable to have links in John Rabe's See also section that are unrelated to him, because a huge part of the debate above centered on that single point alone. There's no sense to continuing this exercise if that issue is not respected.

Of the people above, all are male, five are Canadian, one's Austro-Hungarian, the last person is Indian, and all served in China except for Wanless who devoted 40 years of service to the peoples of India, and of those four of them served the Chinese during the Second Sino-Japanese War. If you or others would like to nominate a few women and/or other nationalities to replace some of those on this list, please do and we can see which of the article links make the best fit. If no one cares to nominate other humanitarians unrelated to Rabe, then I'll use my best discretion. Regards: HarryZilber (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

To the general question here, it is a matter of where precisely to draw the line for what does and does not qualify for inclusion in a "See also" section of an article. That guideline states: "However, whether a link belongs in the 'See also section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a "See also" section at all." The disagreement here is about what "seems best" to each of the editors involved. At this point, what "seems best" in this case is the list in its current form to every editor who has expressed an opinion about it so far except for you. I did see that MelanieN listed the removed entries already above; thank you for copying that again into this section, but I was curious to know why you think each one of those entries really needs to be in that section of this article. A long "See also" section can be distracting and in other ways be a nuisance or detract from the quality of the article. The present list seems of sufficient scope and length. Why must it be lengthened with those names, in your view? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You've asked a somewhat philosophical question in: "Why must it be lengthened....". That's very interesting, sort of like asking: "Why should Wikipedia have 3.4 million articles?", or "Why should the John Rabe article be more than 50 words long". If the entire article were made more concise, it would say only:

"John Rabe (November 23, 1882 – January 5, 1950) was a German businessman who is best known for his efforts to stop the atrocities of the Japanese army during the Nanking Occupation and, failing in those efforts, his work to protect and succour Chinese civilians during the event."

Most people would likely respond to your query: "Why WikiDao, I liked the longer article because its better...", to which you might follow up, "But what makes the longer version better?", to which they might reply: "A more complete article makes both it, and the encyclopedia more comprehensive and authoritative." Similarly, an English encyclopedia composed of 3.45 million articles is likely more comprehensive and authoritative than one with only 1,500 articles. Do you recommend lopping off 99.9x% of this work for the sake of brevity?

I agree there's a difference of editorial opinion on what's the best length for this article's See also list, but your minimalist rational provided is underwhelming to me. Let's rephrase your questioning: Why must the list be shortened? Why would a list of 13 items denigrate the article, or distract from it, especially when they're provided after the complete body of the article? Whom would it harm? So far you haven't offered anything other than personal opinion, so it appears we have equal viewpoints. As my edit approach complies to WP:See also and hasn't harmed a single known user, and may have actually benefited some of them, why are you objecting? HarryZilber (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Where to draw the line: Including dozens of "Humanitarians" or not. We can also include or not include countless people who are/were significant for China. Think of an onion with many layers. The further away you get from the core, the more mass there is to a layer. The more mass the periphery has the more difficult it is to get to the core. According to this analogy, too many minor (i.e. peripheral) details distract from the central significant details. In this case, people who helped in Nanking or at least China in those times, so that would include the aforementioned list of six, but no more. Alandeus (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Harry, I really think this is becoming a case of you not getting the point. We cannot have articles with unlimited content. The question is what limits make sense and serve WP's primary purpose of being an online encyclopedia of the highest quality achievable by its many diverse volunteer contributors. My opinion at this point is that you should just let go and move on. There is no need to object to that opinion at great length – it is, again, informal and non-binding. But there it is. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Alandeus: thank you for your input and recognition that other humanitarians who helped in Nanjing, or at least in China would be acceptable additions. I understand your concern of not overloading the See also section as to overwhelm it and there was never any intention to do so -the only number of links I mentioned previously were for a total (in the list) of between 10 to 13, up from the current 8 items (thus an addition of 2 - 5 of my suggested links). My original edit to the list on October 5th was the addition of six items which were then completely removed by the editors noted above on the basis of not being relevant. Subsequent to that MelanieN also removed two other links of humanitarians previously provided by other editors (I don't know at what point): A Japanese diplomat in Lithuania (ironically almost all of the people he saved ended up surviving WWII in Shanghai), plus the highly notable Oscar Schindler, who had no connection to either Nanjing or China. I was therefore not the first editor to have made similar additions of humanitarians not directly related to John Rabe, but which have always been permitted by the WP:See also editing guideline. Prior to October 5th MelanieN and Nick Cooper had never contributed to this article.

Of the six humanitarians I added to this article, five served in China, all during the Second Sino-Japanese War, so I'd say they're at least loosely connected to the John Rabe article, which concerns the same war. Nevertheless for the sake of conciseness I won't readd Dr. Tillson Harrison who, while a humanitarian who treated hundreds or thousands of Chinese during the war, led a somewhat mercenary life outside of China. You can add him in regardless if you prefer, but I'll limit myself to four of the original six.

WikiDado: your interpretive comments have been noted. Be aware that MelanieN also deleted the entire See also section, not just the links I submitted, in another similar article as shown here, so my discussions above pertained not only to the additional new links in John Rabe, but to the principle of allowing See also links to exist in other articles. While you may view my comments as tendentious, I would refer to them as persistence in article improvement and I felt that six new links in an article that had ten existing ones was not excessive. Note that at no time did I suggest that other people's work should be removed or replaced with mine, and I offered to allow some of my additions to be replaced as MelanieN objected to the inclusion of 'white people'. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What, exactly, are you trying to say by stating, "Prior to October 5th MelanieN and Nick Cooper had never contributed to this article"? I would also note that Melanie removed the "see also" links from William James Wanless for the same entirely logical reason I did, i.e. that Wanless is notable for his work in India, whereas the only people listed aren't. As I have said several times before - but which you seem to have chosen not to address - the interpretation you are trying to push for the purpose of "see also" sections would simply not be tolerated on other pages. They're not meant to be a random scattering of other vaguely similar things/people in the manner you are advocating. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears the debate here has run its course. So based on this discussion, I am going to delete the controversial links from William James Wanless. If someone just HAS to have See-Also links at that article, they could list some of Wanless’s contemporaries such as John Lawrence Goheen, but I don’t really think that is necessary; people who wish to learn more about Wanless and his milieu can follow the links within the text of the article. I’m also going to remove the less relevant See-Also links from Jakob Rosenfeld. This is in line with the Wikipedia guidelines for See-Also links, which suggest “a reasonable number of relevant links,” but state that “peripherally related” links are also permitted, subject to editorial judgment and common sense.

Thank you, WikiDao and Alandeus, for sharing your opinions and helping to clarify Wikipedia’s guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and happy editing all around! :) Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

HOLD ON, I've just returned from a work assignment. WikiDao: just to let you know, the four links reinserted in this article were done with the concurrence of Alandeus, who's made nine edits to this article since May 2009. Quoting him: "In this case, people who helped in Nanking or at least China in those times, so that would include the aforementioned list of six, but no more." The four people added all served in China during the Second Sino-Japanese War; thus I think leaving these here are more than warranted.

I can appreciate that we have different interpretations of what makes a 'best' article, as in what's the best content, what's the best layout, the best formatting style, and the best writing style, with all the different items and styles being within the boundaries of the MOS. For example, this section shows a quotation in Teletype font, which might occasionally annoy an editor who deletes that typeface. However, when you check the MOS you'll see its not only not prohibited, its acceptable for use. It's visually appealing to many readers as it helps them discern quotations from printed sources; however on occasion you will see another editor summarily deleting an alternate typeface because 's/he doesn't like it'.

Similarly some editors only appreciate See also sections directly related to the article subject, while others appreciate the additional scope provided by peripherally-related articles, such as in the following sample articles list:

Main article ----------> See also

• United States public debt ----------> Global debt & Fiat currency
• Gustaf Philip Creutz ----------> List of people on stamps of the United States
• Gustav III of Sweden ----------> Swedish slave trade
• Lynching ----------> Hate crime
• Gibbet ----------> Pillory
• Pillory ----------> Judicial corporal punishment, Jougs, Scold's bridle & Shrew's fiddle
• Republicanism in the United States ----------> First Party System, Second Party System and Third Party System
• Whig (British political party) ----------> Foxite
• Polymath ----------> Philomath, Polyglot (disambiguation), Competent man and Opsimath
• Postmaster ----------> Mail carrier
• Invention ----------> Mind's eye, Mad scientist, List of Russian inventors, List of Chinese inventions, List of United States inventions, List of inventions named after people, Lemelson-MIT Prize, List of inventors, Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions ....etceteras....
• Mind's eye ----------> Nous, Third eye, Binding problem
• Nous ----------> Demiurge and Buddhi
• Cultural studies ----------> Queer theory, Orientalism, Culturology, plus several other peripheral types of studies, plus a list of approximately 35 people not mentioned in the article
• Theology ----------> Heresy, Perfection and likely several more
• Industrial revolution ----------> Deindustrialization, Scientific Revolution, Dual revolution, Industrial growth in the Muslim World, etceras...
• Automaton ----------> Centre International de la Mécanique d'Art and Cuckooland Museum, plus others

I have not been involved with any of the above articles -all the links were added by other editors under the provision of WP:See also, and it would be unwise to suggest that such peripheral links are not 'tolerated' as they obviously are. The sample list of articles that make no mention of the noted See also links took less time to find than to copy out here, so there are multitudes of others. Additionally, two of the See also links in this very article (John Rabe) that were deleted for being unrelated were inserted by other editors at some point in the past.

Let's not be so quick to delete other people's work because we don't like it. HarryZilber (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sugihara

Hi All - I've returned to look at this article after I guess more than five years. I was the one that added the link to Sugihara. This person's case does not seem to have featured in the argument here about relevance/irrelevance of "see also" links. Sugihara was almost an exact opposite of Rabe, an official member of the Bad Japanese establishment, in another country, during the war, who used his official standing to help members of a group cruely persecuted by the Bad Japanese's allies, the Bad Germans. I respectfully propose that the case for the relevance of the Sugihara link differs from the case for case for relevance of links to the other foreign humanitarians that were discussed here. 115.64.142.162 (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

'Atrocities' at Nanjing are well document, not propaganda

Damiens.rf, you have erred by stating that the descriptions of the Nanking Massacre were not 'atrocities', which resulted in your changes being reverted. The atrocities, which you describe as 'actions' are well documented even within Wikipedia's various articles. For example, the introduction to Nanking Massacre reads: "The Nanking Massacre or Nanjing Massacre, also known as the Rape of Nanking, was a mass murder and war rape ...."

Mass murder and war rape of civilians are atrocities by any definition. Your revisionism is not compliant to Wikipedia's proscription of WP:Censorship.

If you can cite reliable sources that mass murder and war rape never occurred at Nanking during the war you are free to do so, but until then do not revise history. HarryZilber (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

HD in John HD Rabe

Has anyone any idea what the initials HD on John Rabe's tombstone stand for? DORC (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Heinrich Detlev - This according to a source given on Rabe's German page: * Gerhard Krebs (2003), "Rabe, John", Neue Deutsche Biographie (in German), vol. 21, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 063–063, http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0001/bsb00016339/images/index.html?seite=79 Alandeus (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Should we add it in the main article? DORC (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Tombstone Image

The image of the tombstone has two German words. "unvergesslich" means "unforgettable", and "unersetzlich" means "irreplaceable".

Toolsa (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Location of the Safety Zone

I would like to question whether the International Safety Zone included Nanjing University. It Certainly was located at Jinling Women's College which is now the Sui Yuan Campus of Nanjing Normal University.

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shangyien (talk • contribs) 01:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Birth and death dates changed

DOB and date of death switched around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.172.230.207 (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nanking was the Capital city, during this events

It is vaguely mentioned in the article, but I think this fact should be mentioned already where Nanking is mentioned the first time. I believe the reason for John Rabe's (and other European & Americans) presence in this particular city, was that it was the Capital of China. Boeing720 (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Rabe. 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/20090610073218/http://www.john-rabe.de/english/cv/cv.htm to http://www.john-rabe.de/english/cv/cv.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423225603/http://www.library.yale.edu/div/Nanking/Rabe.html to http://www.library.yale.edu/div/Nanking/Rabe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311111336/http://www.john-rabe.de/ to http://www.john-rabe.de/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Rabe. 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/20130722090333/http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/rabe.html to http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/rabe.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Nazi member - but moved to China in 1908...

I don't think Rabe was a typical NSDAP member. He worked for Siemens and arrived in China already in 1908. And even by 1933 or 1937 it wasn't a 10 hour flight home to Germany, but sooner a couple of months at sea - for a single journey. Presumably he joined the party without much knowledge about Hitler and the Nazists. It may well have been expected of him to join, from his employers as he was the company's primary man in China's Capital city of that time. Boeing720 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

"Nanking (now Nanjing)"

This phrase suggests that the name of the city was changed. In fact, Nanking and Nanjing are just different romanizations (Wade-Giles and pinyin, respectively) of the same Chinese characters. Nanjing is more modern and "correct" but Nanking is still used a lot in western literature. My suggestion is to change the phrase to "Nanjing (alternatively, Nanking)" or vice versa in the first mention and use the dominate one consistently throughout the article, but I'll leave it up to the editors.162.237.20.52 (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Done I've changed it all to Nanking to be time consistent Flalf^Talk 16:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Footnotes !?!

The footnotes provided in this article are few and far in between; most sections rely in one footnote only, and the section about his 'death and legacy' has no footnotes at all. Especially footnotes 12 and 13 come from apparently an NPR documentary, without mentioning the exact source. AFAIC, citing this particular organization (NPR) is in itself problematic given the organization's biased political affiliation (said as politically correct as I could). Xwpis ONOMA (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)