Talk:Yamashita's gold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Yamashita's gold is part 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 quality scale.
Japan To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Japan Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics Japanese strategic planning for the Pacific (1905-1940) List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Ōishi Yoshio Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Organization of the Imperial Japanese Central China Army Organization of the Imperial Japanese North China Army Sangaria Shaken Takefuji Vote: Talk:Dokdo#Rename vote Watch this list — Edit this list

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Japanese military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

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

Contents 1 Bias 2 The major rewrite 3 Experiment fails 4 Note to szatmary

[edit] Bias

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)

[edit] The major rewrite

This is a very great improvement, Grant65. Well done. I have a few suggestions to maybe make it even better. As a reader, I think it's maybe too fuzzy about the seemingly contradictory conclusions. Did Marcos steal it from the hidden treasures recoverer, Roxas? Or did Truman, Hirohito and the CIA use it to fund covert espionage? Also maybe it should be made clearer at the top of the article that there is as much legend as there are known facts surrounding the 60 year old story of Yamashita's gold. (This would help readers understand from the top why there are two different accounts later in the article telling about what happened to it.) And I think it would be good to restore some of the sections of older versions which tell about the hunger and adventures of so many 'gold hunter' treasure seekers over the years, trying to put their hands on the hidden gold.Professor marginalia 15:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and comments. I agree that the article can still be vastly improved. The stuff about concealment methods, treasure hunters, etc seemed too POV/unverifiable and/or too general, being about treasure hunting in the Philippines in general, rather than the loot actually concealed by the Japanese in 42-45

As for the "fuzziness", i.e. the Roxas/Marcos and CIA theories, well both could be true. There is nothing to say that the CIA found all of the loot after all. Grant65 | Talk 16:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The treasure hunting discussion wasn't worth saving in that form. If that issue is as noteworthy as the earlier text suggested, suitable references could probably be found. I'll see what I can do with it. But again, kudos. It's in very good shape, quite a change from the shape I found it yesterday. Professor marginalia 01:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Update-judging alone by the number of companies selling How-to books and consultant services available on the internet who are selling to the Philippine treasure seekers, it is noteworthy. Unfortunately all the references I find seem to be commercial, or at the very least the huge number of them are making it very hard to hunt through any other references that might be out there. Professor marginalia 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The current article by "Professor" marginalia is completely biased in that it appears to be a commercial promotion of Seagraves Book, representing it as an authoritative work, when in fact is it on the main speculative and supported by little fact. The "expert references" at the bottom direct the reader to newspaper articles and media sources, including the Seagraves’s Book which is for sale. The references cited are not academically authoritative and reliance by potential Treasure Hunting Investors on the article by Professor marginalia should be treated with extreme caution. The billions have already been recovered a long time ago and proof will come soon.User: s129162 01:22, 12 January 2007 (USQ).

The recent major rewrites have been done by me, not Professor marginalia. Your attacks on the sources are a little hard to understand. A large proportion of the references used in Wikipedia are "for sale"(!), or they are online magazines/newpapers, or even both. The quotes/references from/to the Seagraves and other historians are an accurate reflection of what they say in well-referenced and academic books. The London Review of Books does not expend >10,000 words on a glowing review of mere "speculation". I agree that it is likely "the billions have already been recovered a long time ago"; the article doesn't say otherwise. Grant65 | Talk 16:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And there I was just beginning to shake off my bad mood from my last wiki frame-up. I'm surprised the subject of this article is controversial. Iron-clad, diff verifiable, vindication doesn't buy one fair and honest judgement if one is caught on the battlefield of a controversial article, as I'm finding out. But I'll give it a try here, once, as an experiment.

1. I haven't written a single word of the article.
2. I haven't read any of Seagraves books. I don't have any relationship to them. I don't sell them. All I know about them is what I googled in order to fix titles in another article wikilinked from this one
3. Books similar to those Seagrave has published are used as sources throughout wikipedia, even though their authors are paid when people buy them. The fact that they're for sale in bookstores doesn't mean they're unreliable sources. But if they are unreliable or badly researched that could disqualify them, but it takes more than personal accusations from individual editors. Your accusations against me were completely unjustified, completely baseless. Your accusations against Seagrave's books may be just the same.

I'm thinking about changing my name to "Professor Mistaken Identity". It fits my job description. Professor marginalia 16:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Take note that I am offended that you should take it upon yourself to remove references of the highest order as would be the academic community worldwide. For these reasons, you will do a great service to the Philippines and their citizens to allow and not interfere with the progression of my line of writing which is supported by almost every research program and academic worldwide. The reason is that we are going to present absolute proof which will lead to the development and advancement of the Philippines community and raise living standards by the programs shown on my web site at http://www.islemining.com

This IMX IPO project is long term, in the interests of the community and treasure hunters alike. I simply need the opportunity to complete it and I respectfully ask you to consider one commercial reality: I am an academic and an authority. I will present proof in the coming weeks and I will also bring to all treasure hunters and PI landowners huge resources to commercialize their properties into water resources, farming and agricultural resources together with education and health programs.

I have taken serious consideration of emails from many treasure hunters in the Philippines who have been offended by my writings. I respect their concerns and have changed my approach. I ask that you do the same and give me the opportunity to have exclusive use of this Wikipaedia project and I promise you, that you will be pleased with the result. I promise not to offend anyone and I will change the way I write. But I do need this site to complete my work in attracting the financial resources that are described on the IMX web site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:S129162 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Experiment fails

Even at the wikipedia where [the fingerprint DNA to] every activity is just a click away, computer recorded and immediately accessible, fantasy and self-interest whomps reality. signed -The Going-Nutty Professor. Professor marginalia 06:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC) revision from 05:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(***(page blanked by [User:S129162] [1] restored Professor marginalia 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)***)

Discussions should be limited to dealing with the topic in question. Now this discussion page is cleaned up, comments should relate to the issues WITHIN the range of information that will appear within the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:S129162 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Note to szatmary

Please sign your contributions here. That's important because it gets confusing otherwise who is talking to who. Also, do not blank talk pages. That's not okay to do. It makes wikipedians suspicious about motive. I have experimented with different ways to edit to keep your message while restoring the page you blanked, but can't find a way to do it with audit integrity since you didn't even sign and date it. I'm sorry but I'm putting the page back and if you wish to add back your message you posted after blanking this page please do so, only under the rest. Not in place of this. Thank you. Professor marginalia 08:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Lastly, take a breath.

(***page blanked by [user:S129162] [2] restored Professor marginalia 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC) ***)

Unless the contributions on this talk page have substance and add value to the quality of this project, it has no sensible purpose. The information previously posted (all of it) does not achieve this objective or any part of it but defeats the intent of Wikipedia. It is best that we promote integrity of fact and use other means, to resolve disagreements. Robert Szatmary (date: Revision as of 15:24, 12 January 2007 added by Professor marginalia)

I ask you again to please stop blanking this page. I will refrain from further flip remarks--I apologize for sullying the page with them. But all the comments, including all of mine, have to stay here now and you cannot edit or remove other people's comments on talk pages like this. This is wikipedia's policy regarding talk pages.

The article has been rewritten again and there are obvious problems with the edit. For example, the article now claims Italy and Japan were victors in World War II. It's full of unattributed statements, and I suspect some of them can't be fact referenced, but I don't know, just my sense. For example, the claim that war prisoners buried the treasures and were then entombed with it. The article as is does not comply with wikipedia's standards in a number of respects. I'm going to restore the noncompliant tag which should stay there until these major issues are better resolved. Professor marginalia 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(***Another Page blank [3] restored by Professor marginalia 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)) ***)

You are most certainly a "Professor" of "marginalia", who seems to insist on placing irrelevent material on this discussion page. It must be removed and I say again, if you wish to disagree you are more than welcome to contact me personally at your convenience. Othwerwise, your comments and most particularly those of Gary, serve no purpose nor do they add to the quality of this project. Please conduct yourself within the confines of academic and social propriety and WikiPedia rules. Robert Szatmary 16:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Telephone :+61 419668676 Email admin@islemining.com