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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 09:24, May 11, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
The "silence about rapes" subsection appears to mostly be repeating with slightly different phrasing things that are said earlier in the main section. In particular it stands out how the "fewer than 10 rapes reported before 1946" statistic is stated for the second time. Either this should be deleted or these lines should be removed from the previous main section. Overall, the whole section lacks structure, as if a random order was given as different editors added material piecemeal from different sources without revising things into a more coherent whole.--68.92.94.195 (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rape allegation are based on witness testimony and not physical evidence[edit]
Reliable sources do not call into question the fact that rapes occurred during the occupation of Japan; as such, nor should we. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Witness testimony is evidence. If you have any RS that cast doubt on the existence of rapes during the occupation, by all means suggest them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By changing wording to "said to have committed", "allegedly", etc. you are casting doubt on the existence of rapes at all — which, again, does not reflect sourcing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are the ones who can evaluate witness credibility, not random Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia needs to reflect the sourcing, not individual editors' opinions on credibility of rape victims and witnesses. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not change the fact that the original material — the book — is unpublished. It's also WP:UNDUE to treat the claims of one (unpublished) book as superseding all the other sources.
Can you clarify where Though no documented evidence exists is being sourced to? I'm not seeing it in the source provided. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Book blurbs on a publisher's website aren't an appropriate source. If you'll notice, all of those comments on that page are emphasizing how Walsh is countering the accepted narrative. Wikipedia documents the accepted narrative. When Walsh's book is published, if it generates enough attention and is cited enough to become a significant viewpoint, Wikipedia should include it. See WP:DUE. Schazjmd(talk) 19:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any more sources than just one unpublished book for this claim?CycoMa1 (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In June when the book by Brian P. Walsh comes out, we should look to book reviews to see how Walsh's findings affect this topic. We should examine whether topic experts re-evaluate their stance. The recent changes are not the right way to do this. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with the emerging consensus here--this is definitely an WP:UNDUE change, and probably will be even after the source has passed editorial controls and been published. The one forthcoming source certainly doesn't constitute, even before we can review the nature of its specific claims, enough WP:WEIGHT to override the wealth of sources which support an unqualified claim that at least some rapes occurred. And attempting to unilaterally force the claim is certainly a violation of WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD, and WP:EW. All of that said, I'm a little mystified how so many experienced editors chimed in to reject the IP's position without realizing what the crux of the confusion was for this (presumably much newer) editor and took the time to try to educate them on the fundamental policies which are leading to the disconnect here. 2601, you might find WP:OR and WP:VNT to be elucidating to understanding why your preferred approach here is getting so much pushback. Rather than allowing the article to state that such rapes occurred (consistent with the wording of existing sources), you want the article to say that there were reports of such acts, because in your idiosyncratic, subjective view, that is the more accurate way to describe the situation. But that is not how such editorial issues are determined on this project. That is a form of "original research" on your part, with you wanting your more "accurate" (as you see it) language in place of that that which has been borrowed from the sources for stable version of the article. But on this project we do not construct content based on our own personal views on what would be the most accurate way to describe a subject. Rather we report what WP:reliable sources have to say on the matter. And we do so in proportion to the weight that given perspectives have in the sources. Most of the sources here say that rapes occurred (unqualified with the language about a dearth of 'documentary' evidence that you would like to focus on). You may very well have problems with the methodologies of the sources, the rigor of their reasoning, or the foundation of the evidence they used to arrive at their conclusions, but your role as an editor on this project is not to fact-check and correct them and substitute your own reasoning, no matter how valid or superior you feel it is. The tone of this article, including the nuances of certainty and the value of evidence, must map as closely as possible to what the sources suggest, in the aggregate. I know this is one of the less intuitive of the basic editorial rules on this project, but it is very much fundamental to our process and something you will need to internalize to your process if you are going to contribute constructively here. Regardless, edit warring to keep your preferred version in, against consensus, is strictly forbidden and likely to get you blocked quickly if you don't WP:drop the stick in a hurry. SnowRise let's rap 02:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concurring here that the reliable sources indicate that the rapes occurred. I would suggest to the IP that they note there is a difference between "verifiable" and "true" and Wikipedia is concerned with "verifiable." As verifiability is derived from reliable sources and since reliable sources do not question that the witness testimony is accurate, it is not the place of Wikipedia to editorialize, even if an editor believes a more skeptical formation would be more true. Simonm223 (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
