This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 17 September 2008, this talk page was linked from 2channel, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi, about Golden Lily, the current wording : «These allegations are contrary to official version, as told in her memoirs by Princess Chichibu (Setsuko), according to which the prince retired from active duty after being diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis in June 1940, spent most of World War II convalescing as major general at his villa in Gotemba...» is exactly doing that. -- Flying tiger ( talk) 13:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I am here to offer a third opinion. I have looked at the "Yamashita's Gold" page and the "Seagrave" page. There I find In its review of Gold Warriors: America's Secret Recovery of Yamashita's Gold, which dealt with allegations that post World War II the CIA had misappropriated billions of dollars of Japanese war loot, [1] BBC History Magazine noted that whilst "numerous gaps remain.... this is an important story, with far-reaching implications, that deserves to receive further attention". [2]
Now, BBC history magazine is certainly authoritative and notable enough to support "receiving further attention" here. And it seems quite wrong to call such a book a "novel". It also seems easy to find notable skeptical sources. Can someone explain why a balance cannot be reached, please? Without saying "because of the other person"! Redheylin ( talk) 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and effort. Regardless, a book review about a conspiracy theory is still just that…a book review about a conspiracy theory. The reviewer saying it is an interesting theory is not peer-review or corroborating sources for the conspiracy theory. Jim ( talk) 08:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Redheylin,
Thanks for your email. Yes I did review this book although it was quite some time ago and that sentence could well have been what I wrote. The book is obviously very controversial and some of its conclusions may perhaps be a little fanciful but it did bring up some interesting issues which would benefit from further investigation. I don't know of any peer reviews of the thesis and although I do have a good general knowledge of history I have not done a sufficient amount of research on this to attest to the validity of all the arguments the authors make.
Best wishes,
Rob
-- Rob Attar Section Editor BBC History Magazine 9th Floor, Tower House Fairfax Street Bristol BS1 3BN England
To make sure I am clear on your opinion…in your opinion that because the BBC did a Book Review on the Seagraves book (regardless if the review was pro or con, or the subject matter), it is notable. I am not clear on how a book on notable conspiracy theories becomes popular modern history, and not political science. The book cannot be taken as historical truth, popular modern history (1937 is modern?) does not require peer review. Very confusing, but I accept what you have said.
My question was about using a single source conspiracy theory in a biography, and I though more reliable sources, which are verifiable, should have been used when such accusations are included in a person’s biography. Thank you for your opinion on the matter. Jim ( talk) 23:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Redheylin ( talk) 00:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Prince Akishino which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 18:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 17 September 2008, this talk page was linked from 2channel, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi, about Golden Lily, the current wording : «These allegations are contrary to official version, as told in her memoirs by Princess Chichibu (Setsuko), according to which the prince retired from active duty after being diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis in June 1940, spent most of World War II convalescing as major general at his villa in Gotemba...» is exactly doing that. -- Flying tiger ( talk) 13:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I am here to offer a third opinion. I have looked at the "Yamashita's Gold" page and the "Seagrave" page. There I find In its review of Gold Warriors: America's Secret Recovery of Yamashita's Gold, which dealt with allegations that post World War II the CIA had misappropriated billions of dollars of Japanese war loot, [1] BBC History Magazine noted that whilst "numerous gaps remain.... this is an important story, with far-reaching implications, that deserves to receive further attention". [2]
Now, BBC history magazine is certainly authoritative and notable enough to support "receiving further attention" here. And it seems quite wrong to call such a book a "novel". It also seems easy to find notable skeptical sources. Can someone explain why a balance cannot be reached, please? Without saying "because of the other person"! Redheylin ( talk) 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and effort. Regardless, a book review about a conspiracy theory is still just that…a book review about a conspiracy theory. The reviewer saying it is an interesting theory is not peer-review or corroborating sources for the conspiracy theory. Jim ( talk) 08:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Redheylin,
Thanks for your email. Yes I did review this book although it was quite some time ago and that sentence could well have been what I wrote. The book is obviously very controversial and some of its conclusions may perhaps be a little fanciful but it did bring up some interesting issues which would benefit from further investigation. I don't know of any peer reviews of the thesis and although I do have a good general knowledge of history I have not done a sufficient amount of research on this to attest to the validity of all the arguments the authors make.
Best wishes,
Rob
-- Rob Attar Section Editor BBC History Magazine 9th Floor, Tower House Fairfax Street Bristol BS1 3BN England
To make sure I am clear on your opinion…in your opinion that because the BBC did a Book Review on the Seagraves book (regardless if the review was pro or con, or the subject matter), it is notable. I am not clear on how a book on notable conspiracy theories becomes popular modern history, and not political science. The book cannot be taken as historical truth, popular modern history (1937 is modern?) does not require peer review. Very confusing, but I accept what you have said.
My question was about using a single source conspiracy theory in a biography, and I though more reliable sources, which are verifiable, should have been used when such accusations are included in a person’s biography. Thank you for your opinion on the matter. Jim ( talk) 23:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Redheylin ( talk) 00:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Prince Akishino which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 18:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)