Editorial Policy

Our Commitment to Historical Accuracy

The events surrounding the Rape of Nanking and the life of Iris Chang are not abstract topics for us. They involve real people — survivors who endured unimaginable horrors, families who lost everything, and a writer who gave her career to ensure the world would remember. We hold ourselves to a high standard of accuracy because anything less would dishonor that history.

Every factual claim published on this site is cross-checked against reputable sources. We rely on a combination of peer-reviewed academic research, primary documents from the period, recognized historical archives, survivor testimony records, and established works of journalism and scholarship — including, but not limited to, Iris Chang’s own meticulously sourced research.

Source Standards

We hold our sourcing to the following principles:

• Primary sources first. Whenever available, we reference original documents, photographs, diaries, and testimony transcripts from the period. The historical record left by figures like John Rabe, Minnie Vautrin, and others who witnessed the events firsthand forms the foundation of our factual claims.
• Scholarly consensus matters. We align our coverage with established academic consensus. Where historians disagree on specific details — such as exact casualty figures — we present the range of credible estimates and note the debate rather than committing to a single number.
• Attribution is non-negotiable. When we reference another writer’s work, research findings, or original reporting, we attribute it clearly. We do not present others’ conclusions as our own.
• We avoid unverified claims. Rumors, unsubstantiated anecdotes, and social media posts are not sources. If we cannot verify a claim through credible channels, we do not publish it — regardless of how compelling the narrative might be.
• Transparency about limitations. We are documentary enthusiasts and independent writers, not professional historians. When a topic exceeds our expertise, we say so and direct readers to qualified scholars and institutions.

Handling Sensitive Material

The Nanking Massacre involved mass killings, sexual violence, and systematic brutality. We do not shy away from these realities — Iris Chang herself believed that silence was the greatest threat to historical memory. However, we approach graphic material with care and intentionality.

Our guidelines for sensitive content:

• Purpose over shock value. We include disturbing historical details only when they serve an educational purpose. We never use graphic content for sensationalism or to generate clicks.
• Respect for survivors and descendants. Every account of suffering represents a real person and a real family. We write about survivors with dignity and avoid reducing their experiences to statistics or data points.
• Content warnings when appropriate. Articles discussing graphic violence or sexual assault include clear warnings so readers can make informed decisions about whether to continue.
• No exploitative imagery. We are thoughtful about which historical photographs we use and how we present them. Context always accompanies any disturbing visual material.

Independence and Conflicts of Interest

This site operates independently. We have no financial relationship with any film studio, distribution company, political organization, or government entity. Our coverage is not influenced by advertisers, sponsors, or outside pressure of any kind.

We do not accept payment for coverage. We do not publish sponsored content. If a potential conflict of interest ever arises in connection with a piece we publish, we will disclose it transparently.

Corrections and Accountability

When we get something wrong, we fix it — openly and promptly. Our corrections process works as follows:

• Reader reports. Anyone can submit a correction or raise a concern by contacting us at [email protected]. We review every submission.
• Verification. We investigate the reported issue against our source materials and, where necessary, consult additional references.
• Transparent updates. When a correction is warranted, we update the article with a clear note indicating what was changed and when. We do not silently alter published content.
• Standing corrections. Significant corrections remain visible on the article permanently. Readers deserve to know that an update was made.

Our Perspective on Historical Denial

We acknowledge that the Nanking Massacre has been subject to denial and minimization by certain groups. Our position is straightforward: the massacre is an extensively documented historical fact supported by overwhelming evidence from multiple independent sources — including contemporaneous accounts from Western nationals who were present, Japanese military records, photographic evidence, and the testimony of thousands of survivors.

We do not give platform to denial. This is not a matter of “balance” or presenting “both sides.” There are not two legitimate sides to the question of whether the massacre occurred. We follow the same principle that responsible journalism applies to other well-documented historical atrocities.

Questions About Our Standards

If you have questions about how we approach our editorial work, or if you believe we have fallen short of the standards described on this page, we want to hear from you. Accountability is only meaningful when it is open to scrutiny. Reach us at [email protected].