Talk:Yamashita's gold/Archive 1

message: Some even say that the gold doesn't exist.  What do you think?  It's obvious that gold was taken from Asian nations, in fact, more was taken from South East Asia then was stolen from the Jews by the Nazis.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jsonitsac (talk • contribs).-->03:48, 24 January 2004
:Answer: Since the article offers legally binding proof of the existence of Yamashita's stolen gold, it cannot be denied that it did exist. However, it is NOT obvious that more gold was taken from South East Asia than stolen from the Jews by the Nazis. That is at best, speculation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by S129162 (talk • contribs).-->07:15, 7 January 2007
::The article offers no "proof", legally binding or otherwise. Written sources are at best evidence, but never conclusive proof. So one can indeed doubt its very existence. At least, in the form of Yamashita's personal treasure - there is no doubt that the Japanese looted from mainland Asia.Tsuka 09:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "History is a set of lies agreed upon."-Napoleon Bonaparte.  WP doesn't pretend its content are "proven".  Because no such "proof" is available.  It does, however, place demands that the claims made by editors in articles are verifiable.  Professor marginalia 05:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I failed to find any "legally binding proof" that thousands of tons of gold were buried on the Philippines, per the Yamashita gold treasure/myth/legend proponents. Jim 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Did anyone notice this article is biased? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.30.96.207 (talk • contribs).-->02:38, 19 December 2006 
:Answer: The artcile is not biased because it's sources are quoted together with references, offering verifiable proof by an indesputable authority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by S129162 (talk • contribs).-->07:15, 7 January 2007
The article is full of biases and insufficiently verified claims.  It is also in serious need of spell checking and grammar editing but I won't proofread and fix POV or otherwise suspect statements.  This article needs attention.  Professor marginalia 05:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: U.S. Courts rule Yamashita’s treasure is a legend.
"Roxas worked as a locksmith in Baguio City, the Philippines. He was also an  [**1219]   [*101]  amateur coin collector and treasure hunter. In 1961, Roxas met a man named Fuchugami in Baguio City, who claimed that his father had been in the Japanese army and had drawn a map identifying the location of the legendary “Yamashita Treasure.” The treasure purportedly consisted of booty, which had been plundered from various Southeast Asian countries, during World War II, by Japanese troops under the command of General Tomoyuki Yamashita and which was allegedly buried in the Philippines during the final battle for the islands in order to keep it out of the hands of the Americans."
http://uniset.ca/other/cs6/969P2d1209.html
Jim 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read that article in full Jim; it is Imelda Marcos disputing the court's finding that her late hubby was one of the most successful thieves in history. Grant | Talk 05:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the transcripts in full, Grant. There is no ruling that the Yamashita myth/legend is factual. Jim 11:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. To quote a subsequent decision in a related case, the damages were removed by the appeal court, but the import of the original decision was not: "The Hawai’i Supreme Court has allowed Roxas’ judgment against Imelda Marcos to stand, while holding that the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos could not be bound by that judgment."UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Merrill Lynch v ENC Corp., John K. B. Burns, The Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos et al. (2002)  Grant | Talk 12:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, Grant…the link provided does not support the statement, “A U.S. Court ruled the Yamashita treasure exists”Jim 14:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roxas looking for legendary "Yamashita Treasure", allegedly buried in the Philippines

message: During 1996 the largest amount of damages awarded to a plaintiff winner among the sampled cases in the 45 counties involved a case with Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos as defendants. In this tort claim Rogelia Roxas alleged that the Marcoses had confiscated crates of gold bullion allegedly found by Roxas.
A jury in Honolulu awarded $22 billion in compensatory damages that after the jury verdict had increased with interest to over $40 billion. The jury did not award punitive damages.  The case took nearly 8½ years to process from the time it was filed in March 1988 to its jury verdict in July 1996. The actual jury trial lasted 15 days.
On November 17, 1998, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the $41 billion judgment against Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos. The court found insufficient evidence that Roxas had actually discovered the gold bullion while treasure hunting north of Manila in 1971.
Source: Roxas v Marcos, 89 Hawaii 91, 969 P. 2d. 1209 (1998).
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ctcvlc96.pdf
Jim 12:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest damage award reversed on appeal

message: The article is very unbalanced with the references to the Seagraves fictional novels. No other sources referenced. Jim 14:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gold Warriors is not a novel. It is a serious, academic work which includes references and significant documentary material, as described in this article. If you know of a serious, academic source which completely disproves the Seagraves' argument then please provide it. Grant | Talk 12:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of this discussion is not to discredit those who write these novels, but to verify claims used in the article. If a statement or claim is used in the article, as a direct result of these publications, it needs to be verified and the documentation used to support the claim/statement readily accessible and available to all. Jim 15:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bunched all of Seagraves claims into one paragraph and removed non-verifiable statements used from their publications. The article appeared to be centered around these publications, and not within the realms of factual verification or NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBobUSA (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulk of this article centered on fictional novels 

message: Discussion section to list “Other Historians” that main Article failed to mention Jim (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Historians 

message: Two editors cannot agree on the interpretation of legal rulings regarding matters that are the subject of this article. 04:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: has a US court ruled that "Yamashita’s gold" existed? 

message: Reliable Sources / Original Research / Fringe Theories
I contend that the publication Gold Warriors: America’s Secret Recovery of Yamashita’s Gold does not fall under the protection of Wikipedia policy of Reliable Sources. There are no third-party sources referenced in support of this publication. It can be argued that a book review, whether pro or con, can be used as a Reliable Source. There may also be Self-Publish issues, as the original publication was printed by the Authors, before the story was bought by the present publisher. 
I also contend that the opening lead “Yamashita’s gold, also referred to as the Yamashita treasure, is the name given to the loot allegedly stolen in Southeast Asia by Japanese forces during World War II and hidden in caves, tunnels and underground complexes in the Philippines.” Is in direct violation of Wikipedia’s Fringe Theories. The perviously mention novel uses this as the main story-line. It is not Wikipedia’s policy to become the notability-validating source for these non-mainstream theories and does not support Original Research. Yamashita’s treasure has been known as a urban legend and myth pre-publication. To not include this information in the opening lead (legend/myth) is not NPOV and consealing.
See WP:SOURCES  - “Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.”  Jim (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Gold Warriors used as a reference?  I think only a review of the book was, and the question is whether the reviewer's description gives the real life YG background for reviewing the book, or whether the reviewer is describing details which are taken from the book.  I read it as the former, but if it's the latter it is not a WP:RS.  Go ahead and get rid of it-and use in its place the ref I found above, which is a WP:RS.  You are very much mistaken if you think it is this book where the idea originated that the treasure existed.  As you can see from the court case, this idea has been around a long time.  Don't get confused this has much at all about Gold Warriors.  We have another source to replace where is used the book review of it.  As far as I can see (just looking quickly), isn't that the only cite related to Gold Warriors?  This lead sentence, as I've already explained, is not in violation of WP:FRINGE.  If you'd like to try a rewrite, do so.  But this is an encyclopedia, not a disclosure statement, so don't get carried away thinking the article needs to take one side or another.  It needs to describe, not advocate. What would help is to read carefully the sources which are used and give up this crusade against Gold Warriors.  Gold Warriors is not cited as a reference here.  Professor marginalia (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Howdy Professor…as you read the article now…was my last edit. I am the one who removed the Seagraves/Gold Warrior references, and one of the reasons we are at this point. I am not contending that the origin of this urban legend was started from this publication, as I noted before, the urban legend/myth is pre-publication and needs to be identified as such in the introduction. I did that once, and it was promptly removed. I have no problem with the mention of the Seagraves/Gold Warrior in the article. What I do, and did have a problem with before my edit(s) is that every paragraph had a mention of the Seagraves or their novel. It is more than obvious that previous edit(s) to the article are constantly changed when the scales are tipped back into the neutral alignment. Jim (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks-I didn't understand that ref started the edit war.  You're absolutely right then.  A work of fiction shouldn't be used as a ref in this article.  James Clavell wrote a novel about samurais but it can't be used as a fact source for history in Japan. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points of Dispute: Reliable Sources / Original Research / Fringe Theories 

message: I have rewritten the opening lead, as the previous one omitted any notation that Yamashita’s gold derived (was born) out of legend, or the possibility. Although “alleged” (or fashion thereof) was mentioned, who or what that alleged the events were not present. 
Feel free to make corrections, if needed. I do request that legend or legendary remain in the opening lead. Jim 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I request that it does not. And why delete the subsequent paragraph? Grant | Talk 01:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing to compromise and discuss this, after all...that IS the purpose of the talk page. What is your reasoning for NOT wanting to mention that Yamashita's gold is based on a urban legend, dating back to the 1950s? Everything should be out in the open. Jim (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't an urban legend. And you know it. Grant | Talk 02:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot see the willingness on your end for a compromise. Give me something else to work with, other than “It isn’t a urban legend. And you know it”. It is more than obvious that I think this to be an urban legend. Good grief.  Jim (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you not believe the sources? Have you read them? I have. Grant | Talk 14:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For instance, Chalmers Johnson is a serious historian and used to work for the CIA. He has no reason to make stuff up about his former employer (and could get into serious trouble for it). Neither does he have any reason to write glowing reviews of works that you call novels, for the London Review of Books. How many novels come with references or original documentary material attached? Grant | Talk 14:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessary to "believe the sources".  What's necessary at WP is to cite them. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening lead re-write 

message: Editors cannot agree if article is based on urban legend or historical fact.  02:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Urban Legend or Historical Fact  

message: I gave the article some sections. Likely these are not the ones that we should end up with, entirely. The pov questions of the article and the evaluation of fringe theory weight seems ok. I'm concerned that the whole subject might be light on notability (independed review and writing) and certainly it's got potential for a lot of original research. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed Fiction Book as Reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed Fiction Book as Reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference: The Philippines Under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed False Referencing: The Philippines under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction