Talk:Yamashita's gold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yamashita's gold article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
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:
MILHIST 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.
This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Jan 2004–Jan 2008


Contents

[edit] Removed Fiction Book as Reference

Removed the book “Old Soldiers Sometimes Lie: What Happened To Hirohito’s Gold?” by Richard Hoyt from the Reference section. The copyright page reads:

“This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this book are either products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously” Jim (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference: The Philippines Under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction

Might any of the other editors have a copy of this publication? The internet offers very little about the content. Book reviews are short, and claim the book uses “new perspectives of the Occupation based on Japanese and other hitherto unused primary sources.”

It would be most interesting to read some quotes from that publication, pertaining to this article. Oddly enough, the article lacks any quotes from this book, even though it is used as a reference. Jim (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed False Referencing: The Philippines under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction

The book “The Philippines under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction (Ikehata Setsuho and Ricardo Trota Jose, editors) does not support the following claims in the article:

  • Yamashita’s gold existed
  • Yakuza gangsters organized looting
  • The Japanese government would use loot from Southeast Asia to finance the war effort
  • People who knew of the loot were killed during the war, or later tried for war crimes
  • The loot was concentrated in Singapore and later transferred to the Philippines
  • The United States recovered much of the loot and used it to finance the Cold War

Jim (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Conspiracy Theory

Removed conspiracy theory that the US military found much of the “loot” and used it to finance the cold war. The conspiracy theory was generated from a novel, and has not been referenced too by any other reliable sources. Although mentioned in a book review, no further citations, reliable sources or references have been supplied by “other historians” to support this conspiracy/fringe theory.

Extraordinary claims of this magnitude demand extraordinary reliable sources to support it. Please source “other historians” and provide citations of other organizations supporting the claims made if other editors feel the need to include this in the article. Jim (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBobUSA (talk • contribs) 13:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Try discussing this first. You have been warned enough times. It won't be too hard to find someone to block you next time you do this. Grant | Talk 13:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed conspiracy theory due to lacking references (again) Jim (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was reverted to include the conspiracy theory. Reason given was: "This what is alleged by the Seagraves - We do not have to decide if it is true or false.." This says editors can contribute false information. Jim (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe Wikipedia is still suffering through this nonsense. It's fine to discuss the Seagraves's elaboration of this tall tale, and their silly books, but we owe it to the readers to keep some distance. Enough of this "many credible historians have argued well-documented" weasel worded crap. If the Seagraves claim something, say "the Seagraves claim X" and put it in a section called "According to the Seagraves," stop with the puffery and WP:FRINGE theory pushing. <eleland/talkedits> 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Grant, you need to stop with the frivolous warnings on my talk page. Because you have a stake in this article, you need not abuse your administrative duties. Removing the conspiracy theory you champion is not grounds to have me blocked. I have now received six warnings for removing false references and other materials you champion. Apparently, editors have to get your permission before removing dubious and false material you support.
Grant’s latest threat: This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Grant | Talk 13:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)...that ain't rightJim (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It won't be me that blocks you. Just keep on doing on what you like to do, and you will find out how the WP community views the kind of negative and disruptive behaviour that you habitually engage in.
You have refused to accept consensus with other editors, and ignored my offers of compromises and mediation. Life is too short for me to waste time discussing anything with you any further. Grant | Talk 08:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2002 ruling

There is a problem with including the later ruling: we are relying on our own interpretation of the ruling. Please find analysis in independent reliable sources before re-inserting that paragraph. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 09:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilawyering and templatemania

For the benefit of reasonable, non-recalcitrant editors who may be interested:

I will leave the {{totally-disputed}} template for now, even though it has never been justified, except by untruths and half-baked lawyering. However, I have just removed many other spurious usages of templates.

Apart from anything else these instances are covered by {{totally-disputed}} (even though I "totally dispute" any need for it). Grant | Talk 09:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You appear to be asserting ownership. I removed some material and adjusted some other material due to lack of independent evidence of significance. Please find references from outside of the walled garden of the Seagrave conspiracy theories. In particular, please show evidence of discussion of the supposed CIA link in independent reliable sources - discussion in major national and historical journals, for example. Right now you are supporting "several historians" being in support of this theory, but all that is evident to the disinterested observer (I have no history here and am not American) is an amusing conspiracy theory promoted by two people who happen to be historians. There is no evidence of proper historical rigour, and no evidence of peer-review through journal or textbook publications. This applies particularly to the 2002 court finding, where you draw directly on primary sources without the benefit of analysis in reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:ATT, WP:V, WP:RS, and note that this seems to be Grant65 versus all comers, which is never a good sign. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Favourable review" - so what? That's not peer-review. This is a one-source conspiracy unless and until you provide corroborating sources, and corroborating sources does not mean book reviews saying what an interesting conspiracy theory it is. A review would be valid in the context of an article about the Seagrave book, but this is not about the Seagrave book. Or rather, this is not supposed to be a statement of the Seagrave's thesis without the benefit of other context. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Locking this article does no good. Last time locked, the main character (Grant56) refused any discussion, and resumed defending the false referencing…. even adding more dubious materials. Wikipedia needs to take a serious look at the abuse of administrative positions in this article. Grant has succeeded in starting another edit-war and causing the lock-down. Jim (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • What's clearly needed is more references. Most of this article appears to be drawn from Johnson's review of the Seagraves' book. Where are the other sources that make this a notable conspiracy theory? Guy (Help!) 09:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


JzG, I can only quote George Orwell: "sanity is not statistical".

Please don't insult me with spurious accusations of "ownership" or attempt to patronise me by referring me to irrelevant policies.

I have just included (and you have deleted) a mention of the long and generally favourable review by prominent historian Chalmers Johnson, in the London Review of Books. You don't seem to be aware that any book review is a source in itself. Especially a lengthy one in the LRB, by a respected historian.

I have spent months here trying to reason with User:JimBobUSA, who cannot sustain his lawyerising criticisms with any substance, and seems impervious to consensus and policy, let alone reason. Then you wade in. Anyway, I have a life to attend to and I no can longer afford the time required to fight this agenda-driven bullshit. Have a nice debate between yourselves and do whatever you like to the article. Grant | Talk 10:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I think you will find that the LRB is peer-reviewed. Anyway, I'm gone for good. Grant | Talk 10:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Saw this on AN/I, and thought I'd look in, as I like Neal Stephenson as much as the next chap.
Guy, Grant65 is correct, a book review in the LRB that discusses the theory would be an additional independent source, as book reviews in such locations are frequently only incidentally about the book.
Grant65, unfortunately that doesn't help you to demonstrate notability in this case, as Johnson actually says that "The Seagraves’ narrative is comprehensive, but they are not fully reliable as historians" and "The authors seem to sense that they might have a credibility problem."
That being said, nowhere does Seagrave directly challenge the role of the CIA, for example, even though he adds 'presumably' before Truman's name to indicate that he isn't sure. Johnson's not a fringe opinion about postwar Asia. Relata refero (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've looked into it further. There have been a couple of TV series that have mentioned the theory as well. Channel 4 has an archive of one. I've read one novel based on the theory that was a worldwide bestseller, and there appear to have been at least half a dozen others. Objectively speaking, I can't claim that I think it is non-notable enough to not be mentioned as a well-known conspiracy theory in an article about the mystery. Relata refero (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure. My main problem here is that the article has very few sources, the conspiracy theory seems to have only one real source of origin and no great currency. I'd like to see more sources and - more importantly - I'd like to see less appearance of advocacy in the content itself, which is why I toned it down a little. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Right. Well, do we have a reliable source that specifically addresses the theory to debunk it? There's a place to start. Relata refero (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Likely not - most governments react to such obvious nonsense by ignoring it. It's a long-standing problem in conspiracy theory articles that the subjects of the theory very often do not dignify the theory with an authoritative official response. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't need an official response, we need an article or discussion by someone of equivalent stature to Johnson. Relata refero (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This conspiracy theory lives in two places. It was born in the Seagrave’s novel and mentioned in Johnson’s book review. I think this falls way short of notability and cause for anyone of authority to try and “debunk” something so wild and crazy. Jim (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. This is a page on something notable only for inspiring crazy theories. This is a notable crazy theory and belongs on the page. Fight this battle elsewhere. Relata refero (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn’t? Perhaps you can step-up to the plate and provide some citations or reliable references that support the Seagrave’s conspiracy theory that the US military found much of the “loot” and used it to finance the cold war. I thought the Talk Page was the “battleground” to resolved these issues, while the article is locked down from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBobUSA (talk • contribs) 09:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Two have been provided. That is sufficient for a mention in this article on a footnote in history. If you can find any that discuss it to debunk it, bring them here. Relata refero (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I read the Seagrave’s book (Gold Warriors) and evidently, Chalmers Johnson did too. His book review is a mirror image of the book he read, and reviewed. The things most important missing from the Johnson book review is documentation(s) and references other than from what he read in the Seagrave’s novel. Johnson’s references are the same as the book reviewed. Redundant source. Redundant source.
Fun-Filled Factoid: Seagrave’s London based publisher Verso (who was known as New Left Review) and London Review of Books are located less than one mile from each other in London. Jim (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No. The source isn't redundant, because its a major review from a well-known authority that backs up the speculation. And what precise references are you interested in? Its speculation, man! Get over it. Its notable enough to be in here, and you're achieving nothing keeping it out. Focus on the precise text, and we'll get somewhere.
And I lived one mile from the LRB as well. Your point? Relata refero (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Anyone have a copy of Asian Loot: Unearthing the Secrets of Marcos, Yamashita and the Gold by Charles McDougald from 1993? Seems to also be on this topic. Maybe it's been discussed already. I meandered here at random today, and my first glance at this article left me feeling that it's a fringe theory but most of the most outrageous claims are tempered now and pointed out as contested. this was probably a result of tremendous effort and work here by the editors. Also sounds like it has been a quite painful process to get here. I for one think it's fine to have wacky theories in the encyclopedia if they are notable, but it is a real shame that more scholars have not critiqued this one with more effort so we're just left with ambiguity. (though i fear some weasel words still reduce the quality of the article and that would be good to fix still) Perhaps as this theory gains notability over time it will also consequentially gain more useful scrutiny and this article can continue to improve. But if credible scholars and historians ignore it, then we're left without much resolution. My favorite quote though was "it was a lot of hogwash" from this reference... - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hogwash would be a correct term. The Yamashita gold urban legend has already been “debunked” by the top historians in the Philippines. What would be the logic in trying to “debunk” a conspiracy theory in the Seagrave’s novel? A conspiracy theory based on an urban legend should be written as such. Jim (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said, feel free to change the tone or style, not the content. Relata refero (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your permission to continue editing the article, Yamashita’s gold. Since the article is supposed to be about Yamashita’s gold, it (the article) needs to be more centered on the actual legend/myth itself, and not from one publication that was spun-off from the myth. I have protested from the beginning that the article was more of an advertisement and book review for the Seagrave’s novel, than about the actual legend/myth itself. The other novels and movies just have a mention in the “popular culture” section of the article, and they do not publicize selling additional CD-ROMs to support their agenda, like the article does for the Seagrave’s.
Yamashita’s gold is an urban legend in the Philippines, and the article should reflect upon that knowledge. Every attempt made by myself, and other editors, to include that pertinent bit of information has been futile. It would be nice if the article got back on track, added some truth to the matter. This urban legend pre-dates the Seagrave’s novel by decades, but for reasons unknown, many of these facts have been omitted from the article. Can the weasel words, the “sly-editing” trying to make something out of nothing and allow editors to include the fact that Yamashita’s gold is known to be an urban legend in the Philippines.
Maybe the Seagrave’s wacky anti-American conspiracy theory of how General Macarthur and the president of the United States (and succeeding presidents knew, too) found billions of dollars in gold bullion and financed the cold war (skipped over the Korean War) could be another Wikipedia article. Or, maybe the conspiracy theory of how Emperor Hirohito appointed his brother head of a secret organization in charge of the looting. Why should this article be a playground for conspiracy theories and continually leave out pertinent facts. Jim (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Why? Because, as you note, this topic is notable only as a breeding ground for conspiracy theories. Thus such notable speculation as the two you mention should be front-and-centre. Relata refero (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is a breeding ground for conspiracy theories due to poor editing and hidden agendas, in my humble opinion. I agree with Guy (above): "Where are the other sources that make this a notable conspiracy theory?" as well as: ""Favourable review" - so what? That's not peer-review. This is a one-source conspiracy unless and until you provide corroborating sources, and corroborating sources does not mean book reviews saying what an interesting conspiracy theory it is.". I have probably typed this a few times on this page, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources to support it. A book review falls short of being an extraordinary source. Not exactly following the fringe theory guidelines set by Wikipedia now, are we?
The article needs to get back on track. The article is about Yamashita’s gold, firstly. The article is not a book review for the Seagrave's novel or a forum for promoting fringe theories. Jim (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yamashita's gold is a fringe theory. By all means quote a historian saying it doesn't exist.
And as for the claim that Seagrove's book is a single source for the CIA theory, well, possibly: but it has receied non-notable coverage in multiple reliable sources, including the London Review of Books. That makes it notable enough for a page on a fringe theory. Relata refero (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)