Talk:Yasuhito, Prince Chichibu

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)

Use of a single-sourced conspiracy theory in a biography

• Two editors cannot agree on the use of a conspiracy theory from a novel in a biography Jim (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Any use of the sensationalised and historically highly questionable Seagraves books should be in a separate section, clearly marked as unverified by third sources. --MChew (talk) 08:16, 28 July 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)

The article is a biography about a once living person. The artilce is neither the time or place to debate a conspiracy theory that was fabricated for the sake of a novel. Sensationalised and historically highly questionable is putting it rather mildy...good job User:MChew Jim (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I already wrote many times that I was not impressed by Gold Warriors and the Golden Lily file, as exposed by the Seagraves. I added myself here the reference to Princess Chichibu's diary, which I also read... The point is not whether one like or don't like Gold Warriors, the point is the book is published as an historic research and thus worth mention. As for JimBobUSA, for a year, he has been unable to provide any source against Golden Lily which we could have added to the articles and can only give is POV on the topic. --Flying tiger (talk) 00:29, 29 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)

Greetings Redheylin…somewhat hard to follow a citation to a magazine based in the UK. I have no idea what the review is, only the very small portion the editor posted. Rather odd this “review” has not been used in any of the other discussions pertaining to the Seagraves conspiracy theories.

As I note previously, this is supposed to be an encyclopedic type of biography. Obviously, the Prince is not here to defend themselves from this single sourced conspiracy theory. There is no evidence of proper historical rigorous, and no evidence of peer-review through journal or textbook publications. The Seagraves conspiracy theories should be battled out elsewhere, as it soils this article. Jim (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to contact the BBC? Redheylin (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I have emailed the cited author to ask for confirmation. Check the time and see how long it took. Better than bad faith? I think so. Redheylin (talk) 03:32, 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

Jim - are there any remarks you would like to withdraw before we carry on? So we know where we are up to, and accept the good faith of the other editors? Redheylin (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What? Withdraw any remarks? You need to point out, specifically, what “remarks” you are referring too. Jim (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I thought you might like to bring things up to date from your standpoint, because you said "regardless"; it seemed like a new topic. Let's get on. You write;

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.

The BBC magazine is the most notable and reliable general-reader history magazine in the UK, and it has some heavyweights on the team. The book in question is popular modern history and it will only receive such reviews. It is not an academic paper, subject to academic peer-review, and no such source has been brought forward. The book cannot be taken as historical truth; but it can certainly be said to be a notable circumstance surrounding the Prince today, and therefore merits inclusion with a balanced view. That is the opinion you asked for. Do you know of any more reviews of this book that should be included? Redheylin (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

The question was about the use of a "novel". There are two questions, two standards. The first is historical reliability: that has not been established. It is, as you say, just one team's hypothesis. And the second criterion is; "is this notable as regards the subject?" and my answer is; yes it is. These ideas are current, there is another "source" in the urban mythology of the Indies. Even if this WERE a novel it would be notable enough to be mentioned. But as history it should be attributed only to verifiable sources - I do not know whether the Seagraves cited their own sources, or whether an economic synopsis could be devised to "put the case" - and should not sound like an assertion of plain fact or an "accusation" on the basis of one such theory.

To answer your points; 1937 is modern history, there is no mechanism for a book such as this to be subjected to peer-review {though to be taken really seriously the authors ought to cite their own published papers), yes, the BBC is an adequate authority to determine the notability and reliability of popular history, no, this is not a "book about conspiracy theories" any more than it is "a novel".

Redheylin (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So, now we have a biography about a person that says: "Researchers have postulated that Prince Chichibu was involved in stealing treasures from countries invaded by Japan during World War II as head of an operation called Golden Lily"..accusing Prince Chichibu of stealing and making him the head an operation called Golden Lily....with zero verifiable sources. Jim (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As much as I am reluctant to get into this dogfight, I have edited the above line to be more specific. As with the author of "The DaVinci Code" and similar books in this genre, the Seagraves make use of historical persons and actual events to build a believable framework around a totally speculative and unverifiable assertion. Did "Golden Lily" even exist? Did Jesus Christ marry Mary Madeline and have offsping? Was JFK assassinated by the CIA? Did aliens land at Roswell? "Convincing arguments" can (and have) been made in each case. While the fact that an author wrote a sensationalist work which has created controversy about Prince Chichibu is indeed "notable", especially in light of political friction between Japan and other Asian countries over war crimes issues, it remains a work of unverified speculation, not supported by mainstream historians or the accepted version of actual events, and should be clearly labelled as such. I am sorry, but the fact that a BBC book reviewer found the work "interesting and worthy of further exploration" does not lend any historical credence or "reliability" than a review calling the Davinci Code "provocative". As mentioned above, this same reviewer also found the conclusions drawn by the author to be "fanciful". I am sure that most of us would object to inclusion into an article on the Egyptian pyramids the line "Researchers have postulated that the Great Pyramids were built by refugees from Atlantis", although certainly a section or line stating that "Some speculative theories regarding the construction of the Great Pyramids have included Atlantean refugees, etc" should not be objectionable. --MChew (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think one of the main problem is that, contrary to the life of Jesus of Nazareth about whom we even know almost nothing, not many if any historian has really studied this Golden Lily topic. However, to describe the Seagraves' work as "pure fantasy", we need sources, not just our POV...--Flying tiger (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that you did not waste even a second to revert most of my changes. Speaking of POV, per the above correspondence, the BBC book reviewer stated "I have not done a sufficient amount of research on this to attest to the validity of all the arguments the authors" and also called the conclusion "somewhat fanciful". Your edit makes use of BBC review, but ignores this correspondence, and thus gives an impression that the BBC reviewed the book and agreed that it was acceptable as "history" worthy of further historical investigation, and not as "speculation" worthy of further exploration. This may be splitting hairs, but it is this wording which is at the heart of all this discussion. I would suggest removing the BBC reference as non-relevant and adding fuel to this controversy. Certainly, keep the reference to Seagraves and "Golden Lily", but please do not treat as if this source were a true, legitimate historical source on par with standard historical reference works. --MChew (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am satisfied that the BBC is a competent authority and has evaluated the work as a valid popular historical theory. To say "researchers speculate" is fair and is in no way an ""accusation" on the part of the article. It is up to you to refute or add critique of the book. Supporters of the book ought to trouble to go to its sources direct. Redheylin (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It is strange that you should say this, when the original reviewer from BBC stated "I have not done a sufficient amount of research on this to attest to the validity of all the arguments the authors". And the BBC is media company, not a university, Asian Studies institute or recognized academic authority. But we are being draw off course. Debate on the amount of "historical accuracy" in the Seagraves book is more properly a matter of discussion for an article on the book itself. This is a biography of Prince Chichibu. I have not opposed mention of the reference to the book in the article, as the controversy it generates can be considered relevant. My one and only point is that a work of pseudohistory should clearly be labelled as such to avoid implication that it is on par with peer-reviewed academic history.--MChew (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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)