User talk:Blue011011

I reverted because I did not understand your edit summary. I realize that your English is poor, but to justify deleting the categories (which I also previously deleted) you would have needed to state your edit summary opposite of what you have said. mirageinred 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I want to say that the aspect of affairs of So Far from the Bamboo Grove stired up by Koreans are a Korean Historical revisionism of their past acts. But it isn't a matter being fully discussed with such view, so I think we should delete the categories now. Sorry for my lack of talk. Thanks! Blue011011 00:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go over my latest edit to the page [1].

Please make sure this is what the source says.

We need to accurately portray these criticisms. If they are coming from Ikuhiko Hato we must say so. I ahve also removed some very POV hyperbole from the paragraph such as "obviously", and "even Yoshimi".

My main concern is - Does Hato specifically mention Yoshimi in relation to Kaneko?

One final point is, I really do think these inconstincies are valid points for Hato to be making, however, they are not unexpected when dealing with an aged war veteran. Memories do get hazy, and reporters (especially when dealing with a translator) are prone to misreporting testimony. Kaneko may have participated in other certain events, but possibly not the Naking massacre of 1937, or worked with specifically Unit 731.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, his name is Ikuhiko Hata, not Hato. And It is true that no historian, even Yoshiaki Yoshimi who accuses the Army, adopts Kaneko's story as evidence, because it obviously contradicts the historical facts. Ikuhiko Hata (and also Yoshimi) is one of them. How hazy the Memoriies are, historian can't adopt the story that was physically impossible. Ikuhiko Hata is one of them who said the "fact".Blue011011 (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]