Talk:Prince Chichibu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do: edit purge Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Ōishi Yoshio Okinawa (stub), Ryukyu Islands Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Sangaria (soft drink) Shaken Takefuji Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] Using a single source conspiracy theory

Is the use of a single source conspiracy theory accepted in a biography? More reliable sources, which are verifiable, should be used when such accusations are included in a person’s biography.

The article itself should not have a debate within the article. “These allegations are contrary to official versions”…then why are the allegations in the biography?

Jim (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You ride again JimBobUSA... As we write you many, many times, you may think what you want of the Seagraves, the fact is their book is published and this section gives the TWO versions in a fair way. This is NOT the use of a single conspiracy theory and your tag is irrelevant !! --Flying tiger (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be asserting ownership by removing my tag without discussion. Find another source that supports the accusations and the conspiracy theory, other than a novel (fiction) Jim (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I also suggest getting rid of the weasel words and phrases. This is a classic example:

Prince Chichibu has been implicated by some historians in the abortive February 26 Incident in 1936. Jim (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You are using the wrong tag. You simply object to any reference to the Seagraves book...--Flying tiger (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Seagraves' novel "Yamashita's Gold" is about a urban legend in the Philippines. The conspiracy theory about Prince Chicibu is strickly fictional to enhance the story line in that novel. Hence...single source conspiracy theory. Keeping in mind...anyone can write/print/publish a book. Jim (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be a fan of the imperial family or hate the Seagraves for personal reason but the point is you have NO authority to decide that a book published as an historical essay is a novel and that, for a year, you have not provided ANY proof for this. However, as a compromise I propose this section tag which I think is more appropriate to your personnal claim. --Flying tiger (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the compromise, but no need for the hostilities.

Like you, I would like this to be a cleanly written article. The article is a biography, not a story or a debate. There are no references given for the allegations that Prince Chichibu was involved in “stealing treasures of countries invaded by Japan during World War II”.

You have given a wiki-link to the article Yamashita’s gold (urban legend in the Philippines), but have failed to supply a reference (verifiable, reliable source) that supports the claim(s) made. Using a wiki-link to an article on Wikipedia is not a verifiable reliable source.

You need to supply a reference from a third-party source, where the allegations made have received peer-review and has confirmed that Prince Chichibu was involved in “stealing treasures of countries invaded by Japan during World War II”.

Trying to use the Seagraves’ book, as the only reference is ‘original research’…and that is a no-no. Jim (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I must answer that you are wrong. This is not the Wikipedia definition of "original research" which include "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation and ideas".[[1]] The Seagraves essays are published research that can be analysed and commented. (I already wrote that I was not impressed by Gold Warriors.) In fact, your persistant personnal claim against the Seagraves is indeed "original research" as "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences or arguments"... --Flying tiger (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to have misunderstood what I said…

You need to supply a reference from a third-party source, where the allegations made have received peer-review and has confirmed that Prince Chichibu was involved in “stealing treasures of countries invaded by Japan during World War II”.

Trying to use the Seagraves’ book, as the only reference is ‘original research’…and that is a no-no

What this means is, the Seagraves’ are the creators of the conspiracy theory about Prince Chichibu being involved in the looting. Therefore, you need to supply a source other than the creator of the conspiracy theory. That is what “original research” is. Jim (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Ah! Ah! Ha! That' amazing... You argue for a year that this is a conspiracy theory without ANY proof and I should provide a third-party source ??? Golden Lily is not MY theory... I objectively report the theory of a third-party without any personal comment while your theory is that it is conspiracy !!! As user:Relata refero, user:Grant65 and I wrote many, many times,[[2]], you just have to provide your sources. So far, the Seagraves essay is a published source and worth refering to. --Flying tiger (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You do not seem to be grasping simple explanations. The Seagraves’ created this conspiracy theory about Prince Chichibu. When you use the works of the original creator of a theory…that is same as using their research.

Are you really not understanding this…or, simply cannot find any third-party sources that agree with the Seagraves’ conspiracy theory? Jim (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no point to this meaningless conversation. Pray Amaterasu, she may inspire you... --Flying tiger (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The conversation is only meaningless because it does not fit your agenda. If you cannot supply a reliable reference that supports the Seagraves conspiracy theory that Prince Chichibu was involved in “stealing treasures”, why not just simply say so. Jim (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)