Talk:Yamashita's gold/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Controversy

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Legend exploited by scammers trying to relieve the gullible out of their hard earned cash. Jim 12:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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 15:23-15:54, 11 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S129162 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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 05:23-06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

→ S129162 (talk · contribs) blanked the talk page at 07:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC), then left the following message.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S129162 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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] [1] 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by S129162 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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 [2] 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

→ S129162 (talk · contribs) (Robert Szatmary) repeatedly blanked the page until blocked for 24 hours.

The fleecing of the Gullible

Although Yamashita was a factual person, the fabrication of untold wealth buried in the Philippines is just not true. The proponents of this swindle claim to be “treasure hunters”, when in fact, they are just seeking out gullible individuals to “finance” them.

Not the first plausible bit of evidence has ever been supplied to the existence of Yamashita’s Legend. However, the solicitation of funding is plentiful.

Historically, these Yamashita treasure myth/legend discussions turn into a bickering assortment of problems. The one(s) starting these threads continually fail to provide plausible evidence that this myth/legend exists, and that they (the proponents of this myth) are actually looking for the treasure. They have been termed as Internet Café Treasure Hunters, because they do not seek treasures by digging…but, by soliciting on the internet.

Jim 15:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Jim a US court has accepted that a substantial treasure existe, so I have reverted your edit and added a statement/reference in the introduction to that effect. There is also reams of documentary evidence -- see the Seagraves' Gold Warriors. Regards, Grant | Talk 04:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to Roxas vs Marcos, it was a trial by Jury. The US Courts did not make a ruling, one way or the other, as to the existence of the treasure. Keeping in mind, that no treasure was entered as evidence. The Roxas vs Marcos ruling was that of Human Rights issues.

The Seagraves political science novel is fictional, and like other myth/legend proponets falls short of offering any plausible evidence (other than hearsay and rumor) that this myth/legend exists.

Jim 11:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You made add to the article arguments by historians who refute the existence of the gold but adding "myth/legend" as a proven fact in the lead is simply POV. --Flying tiger 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Roxas vs Marcos appeal was not a jury trial; as the reference says, it was before judges Moon, Levinson and Nakayama. "Opinion of the Court by Levinson, J." Grant | Talk 15:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to the belief of the Yamashita myth/legend proponents, plausible proof (evidence) has never been brought to light pertaining to this myth/legend.

The Roxas vs Marcos case does not prove, one way or the other, that Yamashita’s myth/legend is factual.

Jim 17:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Roxas looking for legendary "Yamashita Treasure", allegedly buried in the Philippines

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)

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)

Read the transcripts in full, Grant. There is no ruling that the Yamashita myth/legend is factual. Jim 11:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Largest damage award reversed on appeal

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)

Bulk of this article centered on fictional novels

The article is very unbalanced with the references to the Seagraves fictional novels. No other sources referenced. Jim 14:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Dispute of POV: A United States court has ruled that Yamashita’s gold did exist

Please provide the documentation that supports this claim. Be specific as to the page number, sub-section header (if applicable) and/or paragraph. If documentation is not available, then the POV: “A United States court has ruled that Yamashita’s gold did exist.” Should be removed. Jim 20:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The reference has already been provided. You have mentioned it yourself. The overturning of a case on technical grounds by one appeal court, does not erase the previous findings, it merely removes their legal power.

In any case, this is irrelevant to your main contention that the treasure was "mythical/legendary". Marcos said that he found some of the treasure; Roxas also said that he found some and Marcos stole it from him. Neither side in the case was arguing that the treasure did not exist.

BTW, there is no need to create a separate sub-heading, using the "+" button, every time you post here and it makes the discussion difficult to follow. Grant | Talk 12:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant…can you please provide the requested information. The reference you support does not show where the U.S. Courts made a ruling on the validity of the Yamashita treasure. That is the reason for this dispute, please stop editing the dispute tag until this issue is resolved.Jim 14:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it is possible to satisfy you. I have provided the references you requested. You do not seem to understand the nature and use of academic/scholarly referencing. The only real disputes concern your removal of referenced material from the page and your ludicrous and recalcitrant references to the work of the Seagraves as "novels". (Perhaps you should inform Chalmers Johnson, who gave Gold Warriors a long and glowing review in the London Review of Books.) Such practices are against Wikipedia policy. Grant | Talk 04:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Grant. As you previously mentioned, the referenced material is actually the appeal to the Roxas v. Marcos trial. The appeal does not show where the U.S. Courts ruled that Yamashita’s gold did exist. That is the real dispute.

I would be very satisfied if the documentation were provided and verified. Perhaps you are trying to inject a personal opinion, or interpretation of the appeal rulings, when using the statement “A United States court has ruled that Yamashita’s gold did exist” for dubious reasoning or personal gain. Jim 12:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[Removed comment I made to another Editor after reading WP:AGF guidelines. Sorry about that. Jim 17:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]

I have provided what you asked for. You seem to be overlooking the fact that the nature of the legal dispute between the Marcos family and Roxas was not whether the treasure existed, but whether or not the existing treasure was stolen from Roxas and whether or not the estate should pay Roxas. Marcos himself claimed to have found the treasure.

You have also just violated WP:AGF, through your aspersions on my character. I haven't checked but I'm guessing that you are new around here. In future, please try to edit more cooperatively, obey Wikipedia policy and do not assume that you are always right. Grant | Talk 06:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, Grant…the Roxas v. Marcos appeal has no such ruling that Yamashita’s treasure does exist. Therefore, you are assuming or interpreting this as a fictitious ruling…as it is not in writing.

You have not provided what I have asked for; instead, you keep referring to documentation that does not contain where a United States court ruled Yamashita’s treasure did exist. One could argue that the documentation you point to shows the verdict was reversed because there was no evidence (proof) that Yamashita’s treasure existed.

I am new to wiki, but not new to life. I know that you cannot use a personal opinion, or interpretation of what you think may or may not have happened when writing/editing NPOV articles. Verifiable evidence has to be presented to support the text supplied. I apologize if you feel I am attacking your character.

Grant, I ask again. Please verify (point too), specifically, where the United States Courts ruled that Yamashita’s treasure did exist in the documentation (Roxas v. Marcos appeal) you have referenced. If the court made a specific ruling (such as claimed), then it should be in writing and not left to interpretation. Jim (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it does not seem that we will resolve this any other way. I am creating a WP:RfC (see below). Grant | Talk 04:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It will be very interesting to see a neutral party point out where the court made a specific ruling on the existence of Yamashita’s treasure in the Roxas v. Marcos appeal that is being used for this reference. Jim (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not an administrator, but referred from AN/I. Grant, you said yourself that"...the nature of the legal dispute between the Marcos family and Roxas was not whether the treasure existed, but whether or not the existing treasure was stolen from Roxas and whether or not the estate should pay Roxas. Marcos himself claimed to have found the treasure" and this is exactly JimBob's position - that the ruling never determined existence, only recompensating the victim. After reading the court finding I would agree. It looks as if you accept that the ruling does not make any judgment nor was it asked to make a judgment on whether the treasure exists. So what exactly is your backing to make the assertion that the court made a decision on existence, Grant? I'm more than slightly confused on where you're coming from, seeing as how you seem to accept the above premise. In addition, Jim's version seems better balanced - "Several historians have documented that Yamashita's gold was substantial..for example X" reads like it's covertly trying to push a POV, though that may not be the case. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, Woot and thanks for your comments. Until you posted the AN/I link, I had no idea of the bizarre allegations brought up against me. In all actuality, I am the one who inserted the Neutral tag on the article, the fix POV tags, the dubious tags, citation needed tags and created various sub-categories in this discussion page to talk about those infractions. The article history clearly shows how new edits are treated, by constant reverts.

Grant said: Can someon take a look at Yamashita's gold? User:JimBobUSA is unilaterally deleting longstanding material, based on blatantly subjective reasons, regardless of discussion, in addition to adding material pushing his own POV. This has being going on for some days now. I have tried to reason with him and have created an RfC, regarding one issue, but he insists on continuing with controversial edits rather than discussing them. I am out of patience with him and would block him myself but am personally involved. My warnings to him are at User talk:JimBobUSA. Grant | Talk 05:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jim (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Other Historians

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

Removed “other historians” references. Use historian’s names to verify. Jim (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Investigative journalists are not accredited historians. Please use only accredited historians when using the term: Several Historians Jim (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Using the reference source supplied in the article [3], these journalists do not meet historian status:

"The Seagraves’ narrative is comprehensive, but they are not fully reliable as historians. They have a tendency to overreach, exaggerating the roles of Japanese gangsters and ex-military American bit-players when the bankers, politicians and CIA operatives are scary enough. They know the Philippines well, but are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese. The book is full of errors that could easily be corrected by a second-year student of the language – the ship they repeatedly call the Huzi is accurately romanised Fuji; the important Japan Sea port is Maizuru, not Maisaru; tairiki is not a Japanese word: they mean tairiku ronin (a ‘Continental adventurer’ or a ‘China carpetbagger’); and their mysterious Lord Ichivara is an absurdity – no one was ever called ‘Lord’ in postwar Japan and Ichivara is an impossible name (it is surely Ishihara)."

Jim (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: has a US court ruled that "Yamashita’s gold" existed?

{{RFChist}} 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)

{{RFCsoc}} Two editors cannot agree on the interpretation of legal rulings regarding matters that are the subject of this article. 05:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

For 1 week, or until editing disputes are concluded. --Haemo (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Haemo. In addition to the dispute above regarding interpretation of the Roxas-Marcos related litigation, two other editors have undertaken the following controversial changes:

• removal of reference to the litigation in the introduction
• removal of references: Ikehata Setsuho & Ricardo Trota Jose (editors), 2000, The Philippines under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction (Ateneo de Manila University Press/University of Hawaii Press, 2000) and Richard Hoyt, 2002, Old Soldiers Sometimes Lie: What Happened to Hirohito's Gold (St Martin's Press)
• mention of the Seagraves' CD-ROMs with Gold Warriors containing 900 megabytes of documents
• deleted the sentence "Many of those who knew the locations of the loot were killed during the war, or later tried by the Allies for war crimes and executed or incarcerated. Yamashita himself was executed for war crimes on February 23, 1946."
• deleted the sentence "The Seagraves and other historians have claimed that United States military intelligence operatives located much of the loot; colluded with Hirohito and other senior Japanese figures to conceal its existence, and; used it to finance US covert intelligence operations around the world during the Cold War." You claim, incorrectly, that "See, for example, Johnson, Ibid is an unacceptable reference.
• added an unreferenced statement by Ocampo. (Or is the reference the one in the following sentence? If so it belongs with the previous sentence.)

While it is acceptable to add templates questioning material or to request citations, such unilateral changes are controversial and inflammatory. Grant | Talk 08:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I thank you as well, Haemo.

In all apperances, one editor (Grant65) refuese to let others edit out blantant lopsidedness that is only supported by novels written by the Seagraves. References mentioned that were removed were those from those novels, and those novels only. Grant65 also wishes to use a CD-ROM as a reference, that is non-verifiable, unless you purchase the CD.

The article should not be biased or centered around one source. Especially when the one source is a contaversital novel. Various coments/statements from these novels were used throughout the article, and not verifiyed.

Professor Ocampo’s quote is referenced with a working link (Note 6) Jim (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

Grant said: You or the other editor have also removed:

1. references: Ikehata Setsuho & Ricardo Trota Jose (editors), 2000, The Philippines under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction (Ateneo de Manila University Press/University of Hawaii Press, 2000) and Richard Hoyt, 2002, Old Soldiers Sometimes Lie: What Happened to Hirohito's Gold (St Martin's Press)
2. mention of the Seagraves' CD-ROMs with Gold Warriors containing 900 megabytes of documents
3. deleted the sentence "Many of those who knew the locations of the loot were killed during the war, or later tried by the Allies for war crimes and executed or incarcerated. Yamashita himself was executed for war crimes on February 23, 1946."
4. deleted the sentence "The Seagraves and other historians have claimed that United States military intelligence operatives located much of the loot; colluded with Hirohito and other senior Japanese figures to conceal its existence, and; used it to finance US covert intelligence operations around the world during the Cold War." You claim, incorrectly, that "See, for example, Johnson, Ibid is an unacceptable reference.
5. added an unreferenced statement by Ocampo. (Or is the reference the one in the following sentence? If so it belongs with the previous sentence.)

While it is acceptable to add templates questioning material or request citations, what you are doing is unilateral, controversial and inflammatory.

The nature of your edits also constitute POV-pushing as it deletes some evidence while adding contrary evidence. I will now add a further formal warnings

Grant, once again, with all due respect...

The Yamashita’s gold article was lopsidded and biased beyond belief. Whoever created, or last edited used the Seagraves’ novel(s) quotes and references in almost every paragraph. I am still stricken back as to how hard you are trying to use their novel(s) as the single source of reference.

That said, below is my response to your concerns above.

1. the references where only mentioned in the Notes, and nowhere else in the article. They were referencing…nothing
2. the Seagraves’ CD-ROM is not readily avalible to verify. It cannot be a reference source
3. non-varified quote from Seagraves’ novel
4. non-varified quote from Seagraves’ novel
5. the statement is referenced in Note 6 and placed after Ocampo’s quotes

Hope this helps. Jim (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see what others have to say about this before I respond further. Grant | Talk 13:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dearest Grant…thanks for being so understanding and civil in this matter. I would like to point out, however, that the above opinions were expressed by me, for me. I cannot speak for the other editor who removed portions of the text under the context of POV pushing on the opening lead.

Thanks again, Jim (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to give here my point of view on this war edit. First, I only read Seagrave's Gold warriors, without the CD, and I must admit I was not very impressed...

However, I see no reason to dismiss their work and most of all I do not see how we can justify the deletion of all the other references such as Ikehata Setsuho and Ricardo Jose's and Hoyt's.

So, a simple compromise would be to keep the neutral additions of JimBOBUSA with the sources in the list first added by Grant65...--Flying tiger (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor edit

Could somebody fix "church (building)|churches" to make it a link? Corvus cornix (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy reply to Flying Tiger

Greetings Flying Tiger and thank you for your comments.

When editing the article, I did not dismiss the Seagraves works, but rather placed the appropriate references to Yamashita’s treasure in one area. Previously, almost every paragraph either mentioned the Seagraves, the Seagraves and “other historians” or contained a passage from their book(s). To be honest, the article appeared to be one big book review and a sales pitch to buy the CD.

You mentioned a compromise, and I concur. The article should be widened to include actual verbiage (quotes/reference) from other authors on the subject matter. Not simply a mention in a footnote generated by the statement: Several historians have made well-documented cases that Yamashita's gold was substantial.

(footnote)See, for example, Sterling & Peggy Seagrave, 2000, The Yamato Dynasty: The Secret History of Japan's Imperial Family (Corgi); Ikehata Setsuho & Ricardo Trota Jose (editors), 2000, The Philippines under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction (Ateneo de Manila University Press/University of Hawaii Press, 2000); Richard Hoyt, 2002, Old Soldiers Sometimes Lie: What Happened to Hirohito's Gold (St Martin's Press) and; the Seagraves' 2003 book, Gold Warriors: America's Secret Recovery of Yamashita's Gold (Verso)

I do not see how mentioning the other publications are referencing for this article, in the above application. The several historians who made well-documented cases that Yamashita’s gold was substantial needs to be verified to be used as references…I thought. We need to find out who those other historians are, verify their work and get it in the article!

Again, thanks for you comments and great suggestions…keep em coming! Jim (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I guess we can keep points 3 (I use your numbers) from Grant65's list by adding «According to the Seagraves...» at the beginning.

For point 4, simply deleting «other historians» or adding their names with refernce.

For point 2, it could be included in the footnote about the complete reference of the book :«Gold warriors, (...), 2003, with documents on CD-ROM» , as the CD is available with the book. (I didn't had it because it was a used book...)

For point 1, maybe Grant65 has already read some of those books and can add details. This list of books does not come out of nowhere...

--Flying tiger (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Flying Tiger, Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to reply.

In all honesty, your compromise sounds a lot like a revert. You think putting more “Seagraves said this or Seagraves alleged that” is the way to go? I thought the Seagraves were getting their fair share of spotlight in this article. I could be wrong. Why not add some text from the “other historians”

Lets put our accumulative brainpower together on this and we can all surly work out a neutral point of view for this controversial article.

Get-er-done! Jim (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening Lead

I hope that we have many pairs of neutral eyes during this time of dispute recognition, as I query about the opening lead of the article.

The opening lead reads: 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.

The reference given is that of a book review and opinion by Chalmers Johnston."The Looting Of Asia" Typically, book reviews are opinions offered by one person, their point of view. That said, a book review does not necessarily mean the contents is accepted by academia or lends credibility that the book factual.

Might we find a credible opening lead, by either academia or mutual consensus of verified documentation of actual events that took place? This entire Wikipedia article cannot hinge on myths, legends, rumors, hearsay and personal opinions about what might have happened to the “loot” stolen in Southeast Asia.

Comments? Jim (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No significant problem with lead except the term "loot" is a colloquialism. The bones of the claim itself isn't really disputed. If you need a better ref then maybe work from this: "There are many versions of the tale, but the main elements are pretty standard. Beginning in the late 1930s in Manchuria and China, Japanese teams pillaged the countries they colonized, stripping them of the most precious metals and jewels. Ultimately, this hoard was loaded onto a Japanese ship, which sailed for the Philippines. The ship made land in the Philippines, the story goes, and Yamashita hid the riches on the island of Luzon in tunnels guarded by trip mines and gas canisters. After the war, the Japanese are said to have funneled the gold back to Tokyo." US News Online [4] Professor marginalia (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Howdy Professor Marginalia and thanks for the comment!

I am not sure replacing a non-verifiable point of view; with another non-verifiable point of view is exactly what I had in mind. Aren’t there some verifiable references within academia that mentions Yamashita’s treasure(s) and its origin?

There has to be something more definitive to this, than a few novels and a movie. That takes us back full circle to Yamashita’s gold (treasure) just being a myth/legend.

Still lookin’ Jim (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not necessary to find anything else to verify that particular sentence. We're writing a descriptive article here, not issuing a definitive verdict. Obviously some think it's legend, some think it's not, but let's describe what the story is first. We have a source that says, "the main elements are pretty standard", which I think is a true statement whether it is legend or not. After describing the account, then describe the controversy about whether there is any truth to it. If we can find good sources to augment this, that's obviously better. But this is enough to source the introductory sentence, isn't it? I'm not sure what the dispute over this is about - YG is the name given this large stash of gold that was supposedly stolen by Japanese and hidden in the Philippines in WWII. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Greetings again, Professor!

I guess you are right, I am overanalyzing this. I’m new to Wiki, and assumed that a more encyclopedia approach was in order. I didn’t think the “mission” of this article was to debunk or debate a myth/legend, but to present facts to its existence. Gads…overanalyzing again…LOL

Anyhow, I am in hopes that we will get some more input. Thanks again! Jim (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to get more help with references. We all just work with the best references that we have, but it may not be an easy task to find academic quality refs on this topic. Once an article's subject has been demonstrated as notable (and this one's is), we just do the best with what we have. If the subject isn't notable, that's another issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your comment(s) Professor. I do find it rather odd that the “other” main player in this edit war has refused to join in this discussion after sounding the alarm bells. As I pointed out previously, the opening lead to this article was created from a book review POV, and omits other variations of “known as”. Mind you, the book reviewed is the only source for the text generated in the opening lead. That makes it very biased and POV pushing from the start. Yamashita’s gold is known for being a legend and/or a myth, that should be noted as well to maintain a balanced (and neutral) beginning to the article.

Comments? Discussion from the warring factors? Jim (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment on dispute

This content dispute debate appears to be moving along ok now but I'll add my outside opinion...The references used to support the argument that Yamashita's Gold existed in some form or another appear to be reliable and verifiable, especially Seagrave's book. I can't decide on the court ruling. When the appeals court threw-out the judgement, what was their reasoning for doing so? Did they reject the idea that the treasure existed or just that the plaintiff had suffered no damages with relation to it? Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Cla68…there is a section on this discussion page titled “Largest damage award reversed on appeal”. The link there takes you to a Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin with their opinion of the reversal.

While I’ve got you on the horn (so to speak)…when you read the Seagraves’ book about this article, did you get the thee CDs with all the documentaion on them? If so, (briefly), what did the documentation refer too? Jim (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with Seagrave's book? I checked and the book meets both the verifiability and reliable sources policies in Wikipedia. It isn't self-published and has been reviewed by reputable journals such as London Review of Books and Library Bookwatch. Therefore, the book's opinions on this subject are allowable in this article. If you have verifiable and reliable sources that disagree with Seagrave, then they can be used in this article also, along the lines of, "Although Seagrave claims that the treasure exists..... so-and-so claims that the tales of treasure are complete fabrications, citing through his/her research that.... (state that author's argument)" If both views are presented in a neutral and balanced manner, with reliable and verifiable sources, then there shouldn't be any reason for a content dispute. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. What a tongue lashing for a simple question! Actually, the English version of the book was self-published before it was sold to Verso, according to Mr. Seagrave. I was simply asking if you had the three CDs and could comment on them. Short version would have been…NO Jim (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What is it about the CDs that you would like to discuss? Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What is on them? Anything pertinent to the article about Yamashita’s gold. Jim (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed the appeals court case document. The court ruling doesn't dispute whether Yamashita's Gold existed are not. It affirmed that Roxas had suffered damages from Marcos but said that he wasn't entitled to any more compensation than any other member of the overall class that had been damaged by Marcos' actions and that it was the Republic of the Philippines' duty to recover the rest of the money stolen by Marcos and then distribute it to Marcos' victims as appropriate. Anyway, I don't know if the court definitely confirms that Yamashita's Gold existed, but the court accepted as fact that Roxas suffered damages and that they included money that he had apparently gained by discovering Yamashita's Gold. It can used in the article in this context, I think. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Cla68 you said: "Anyway, I don’t know if the court definitely confirms that Yamashita’s Gold existed….”. That is what the POV dispute is over. You reconfirmed my assessment that a U.S. Court did not rule that Yamashita’s gold existed. The written text “A United States court has ruled that Yamashita’s gold did exist.” Is a POV and not factual or verifiable. Jim (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the appeals court definitely didn't discuss whether the gold existed or not, but did the lower court discuss it? Is the lower court ruling record available on line? Cla68 (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that we are on the same sheet of music (so to speak), see the above section Dispute of POV: A United States court has ruled that Yamashits’s gold did exist. where I request further documentation as well. I was constantly refered back to the same documentation we have both concluded does not support the statement “A United States court has ruled that Yamashita’s gold did exist.” Jim (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Issues - Where does it go from here?

Ok, being I am a self-confessed wiki-newbie…where does it go from here? What happens now? There is not a lot of discussion from the Yamashita treasure/myth/legend proponents as how the article is POV pushing as it now appears, or how the article should be changed to please them. After the page is unlocked, is it simply reverted back and existing edits wiped out again?

I am not sure how this is typically handled. Comments/help/hello? Jim (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My previous comment was made in resp to question about introductory sentence. I see from reading further up the talk page, the divisions go much deeper. If the page is locked due to edit warring, then it would be helpful if all the participants in the edit war would come to the talk page to work to sort things out. From my experience of edit wars, both as an editor involved in the article and as an uninvolved editor offering independent comment, it's essential to use the talk page to focus on specifics in the dispute. Uninvolved editors forced to do too much research on their own to understand the issues involved in the dispute tend to take a pass and the RFC will generate much less input. Without outside input, there's less likelihood the involved parties will budge much. So simply reverting after unblock is problematic unless consensus was clearly demonstrated on each issue specifically.

In trying to recreate the story, it looks like you added "treasure/myth/legend" and another editor responded "court has ruled that Yamashita's gold did exist". What both of you have written, it appears to me, oversteps a bit too far past "explain the subject" to "issue a pronouncement". And the claim "the court ruled YG did exist" is borderline original research if it is sourced here [5]. That document states the district court the ruling was that Roxas had treasure stolen from him that valued such-and-such. Roxas believed it was YG, but if that objective fact was proven in court, the link to the judgment in the defendant's legal appeal doesn't show this, so it's an inference only from this particular reference source. Source it first to confirm the appropriate information, and write the intro paragraph so it goes something like this. (This is just a rough sketch--needs to be sourced, of course, and written encyclopedically.) "This is YG. The claim to its existence first came to public attention when. Yamashita and other Japanese officials were captured, imprisoned, executed whatever when, and they never confirmed the existence of the treasure. After the Americans took P from the Japanese, they did what to find what and determined what. Whether or not YG ever really existed has remained a hotly disputed issue ever since. Nevertheless, YG has inspired both treasure hunters and their aftermarket profiteers for decades. One such treasure hunter, Roxas, claimed to have successfully recovered YG after being tipped to its location by a former military(?) whoever who confessed to Roxas he helped hide it in WWII. Roxas accused Philippine judge and later president Marcos of stealing the treasure from him in what court. The jury found in Roxas favor in when, and awarded him 22 and lots of zeros compensation, although whatever was its outcome (I presume Roxas never collected his 22 bil)." Something along those lines tells the most notable elements of the story. All editors need to be careful not to interject any sly /skew/ to one side or another. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Professor for your valuable input. I myself was under the impression that the editors disputing the material in the main Article would utilize this Talk page to discuss their differences. I have made every attempt to do so. So far, it has proven to be a frivolous effort. One of the main arguments here hinges on a political science novel and not academia, in my humble opinion. Jim (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempting to give an outside opinion here. I belive that Seagrave's book is fine to use as a source that the treasure existed, and the other sources listed in the article are fine to use to argue the opposite. So, as far as I can see, you just need to resolve how to present both sides of the issue in a fair, neutral, and balanced way. That shouldn't be too hard, because it's a win-win for both sides, because both get presented. I would suggest that a Background or History section begin with a sentence of something like, "Although the existence of the treasure is disputed, it has been suggested by those who believe that it existed that..." and then explain where the treasure supposedly came from and how it came to the Philippines and how it was supposedly discovered by Roxas and stolen from him by Marcos and/or whatever else happened with it. Then the next section could be titled, "Arguments against the existence of Yamashita's Gold" or something like that with sourced arguments by those who claim that the whole thing is a fabrication. The last section could explain how the legend has influenced many people to go trekking through the jungles of the Philippines looking for it, paying sometimes exhorbitant fees for "guides", and killing or injuring themselves in the process. Then the article should be complete and balanced.

Does this sound ok? If both of you agree then I think the protection can be lifted. Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of a political science novel that is not accredited by any educational institution, falls way short of being a believable reference. The article in itself will become a battleground of Real Facts and Real History provided by accredited Professors, Historians and institutions of higher-education verses a conspiracy novel written by an investigative journalist and only supported by book reviews. That is not balanced nor is it neutral. If Wikipedia has a section for legends and myths, that would be more suitable for this article, rather than trying to force non-actual events guised as History. Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof does apply in this situation. I do not agree to your terms of using the Seagrave’s publications as a reliable source. Thanks again, Jim (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Seagrave's book is acceptable under Wikipedia's policies, as I explained above. So referenced info from that book stays. As I said, you can provide sourced evidence that takes a contrary position if you want to, but both sides get presented here because both sides are supported by acceptable references. There shouldn't be any reason for intransigence on your part, because you still get to present your side. If that's not acceptable to you, then I suggest that this go to the next level, which is an RfC. That's the hard way, which I don't advise because it's unnecessary. What I do advise is the easy way and that's compromise, which shouldn't be that painful in this case because you're still getting to present your side. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow JimBob!! For a guy who wrote above to me that he did not want "to dismiss the Seagraves works", you change your mind easily... or was it not always your opinion that this book should be discarded from the article? Anyway, I think we all wrote the same thing. We agree to look for other corroborating or dismissing sources but the reference to this book should stay. If you want to dismiss Gold warriors, I suggest you write your own book and we'll add it to the article... --Flying tiger (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Flying Tiger…the Seagraves book is still in the article (the present view was my last edit), it simply is not mentioned several times. Do you feel the need to have the same reference throughout the article? Let me know. Jim (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidently not; and I am mostly interested in what those other historians wrote... However, we must write about what we have read and it looks noboby has read these ones. So, for the moment, we have the Seagraves... --Flying tiger (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Points of Dispute: Reliable Sources / Original Research / Fringe Theories

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)

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)

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)

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)

Important

Which editors have actually read the book, "Gold Warriors"? Is it a novel or non-fiction? Straight up explanation please. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I read it, without the CD. It is neither very convicing on many points, neither a great academic work like Wetzler's Hirohito and War or Dower's Embracing defeat but it is a work like many other journalistic inquiry and thus certainly NOT a fictional novel. --Flying tiger (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be obvious what my answer is. As an American, I am appalled at the accusations made in this novel against the then President of the United States (as well as following Presidents), General MacArthur and various heads of other State Departments. As a ‘history buff’, I find the inaccuracies amusing. As a money miser, I find it hard to believe that China, Korea and other Southeast Asian countries had thousands of tons of gold, and that some of it has already been found by Americans, Marcos and there is still thousands of tons still left to be found.

To think educated people would be so gullible as to believe Japan would ship the valuables it “looted” from Korea, China and other Southeast Asian countries to be hid on the Philippine Islands is ludicrous at best. It maybe fun to poke at us Americans (occasionally) and dream of finding thousands of tones of gold, but there comes a time to put your money where your mouth is. Or what we say here in the States….Don’t pee on my leg and tell me its raining.

It would be interesting to see how many other editors have read this publication, and see why they believe such a conspiracy exists. Jim (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Jim, that's not exactly a straight answer. You've claimed the book is a novel and yet you haven't read it, is what I'm guessing here. I know that you're a newbie so may not understand how important it is at WP for editors to put aside their own opinions and let published sources determine what is written in the articles, despite our own opinions. Editor opinions don't count much. You've got the right idea--getting better sources is the way to go. But we don't get to throw away sources we do have for personal reasons. There's no reason for you to believe any of the editors here believe there has been a conspiracy. But editors are admonished not to share their personal opinions of the subject of the articles on talk pages. It just gets in the way anyway. (Righting great wrongs) Professor marginalia (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is not obvious what my answer is. I did read Gold Warriors, and have been researching Yamashita's gold for several years. Like I said before, I am new to Wiki...not new to life. Sorry for any misunderstandings. Jim (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking in retrospect…why would you assume I have not read Gold Warriors, if I did not answer yes or no (specifically). That is just wrong. Jim (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. The way you worded the answer led me to believe you were curious about the book too. I haven't read it, and assumed from some of your first arguments you were claiming the book was a novel. Do you agree then this book is not a novel? If you've been researching Yamashita's gold for several years, we shouldn't get sidetracked with opinions or guessing. Just share the titles of books or other publications you've consulted with us, because this article would benefit enormously by relying upon the best references available. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The book is a mixture of real people as well as fictional people. It is a mixture of real historical events and unsupported conspiracy theories. In my opinion, it is a novel.

Nov-el (noun)- A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters. Jim (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Professor…the options you presented were “novel or non-fiction”. Were you implying, in this case, that a novel is fiction? That is how I understood it to mean. I was under the impression you wanted opinions (Straight up explanation please), and then I get the “not to share opinions” lecture. Any explanation given is going to be an opinion. The conspiracy I mentioned earlier pertains to the book, and not my fellow editors. Honestly, you've got me so confused right now as to what you are considering as important and what you are actually wanting or expect to accomplish from this section of the discussion. Jim (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes, novel means fiction. I wasn't looking for our opinions, I was asking how the publisher designated the book. I've been confused as well. First, what does this have to do with the introductory sentence? Not much. Then, why the big deal about the book since it wasn't used to source claims? You then explained it's because you edited the refs out. After I think I get it, that you were saying the book was published fiction, and in that case it would indeed be unallowed. Then there was another message offered here, saying no, it's published as non-fiction. I wanted a straight answer to that. Not to our opinions. Clavell wrote fiction and the publisher acknowledged it was fiction. There's no reason to prolong this line of questions. I misunderstood your answers, and it's understandable that you wouldn't know none of this is supposed to have anything to do with our opinions about the reality of YG, or our personal offense at accusations against US government, etc. So when I ask questions, as others should also, they're only about the reference materials, not about any of our feelings personally.

The point has been raised many times already. All these problems will be largely resolved with good sources. You say you have researched it for several years so you must have references to refer to here and recommend to other involved editors. Focus there, on bringing in that information, because it is much more productive than personal opinions over some US conspiracy. As I said, personal opinions aren't useful. In fact, when talk pages go in that direction, the personal opinions are frequently just deleted by another editor who leaves a stern reminder to stop using talk pages for posting personal opinions. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can understand your concern. I reread my subsection above Opening Lead, and noticed I did omit some information. The lead reads; “ 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 under ground complexes in the Philippines.” Before another edited it out, it also included “A United States court has ruled that Yamashita’s gold did exist.”

Two sources theorize the above took place:

• Local Philippine Islands mythology (geographical urban-legend)
• Story-line (story centered around) of Gold Warriors: America’s Secret Recovery of Yamashita’s Gold.

We know by reading the appeal of Roxas v. Marcos, that others were “treasure hunting” for the legendary Yamashita’s gold before the writing of Gold Warriors. Therefore, the local inhabitants of the Philippines also know Yamashita’s gold as a legend or myth. Justifiably, the opening lead should read: Yamashita’s gold, also referred to as the Yamashita treasure/legend/myth….” or a fashion thereof. The opening lead needs to include all references to its “known as”

Another editor removed the “A United States court has ruled that Yamashita’s gold did exist”, citing that: (including this information in the lede is clear POV pushing by selective emphasis. the decision was overturned on the basis of insufficient evidence. mention it in the body.) Jim (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Haemo…you protected the Yamashita’s Gold article on November 19, 2007. The other party in the “edit war” has made one statement directly after that on the 19th, as well. Other than that has not commented, discussed or made any positive forward motion to help find a resolution. I request you keep the article protected until these editing disputes are concluded. (Posted on talk:Yamashita’s gold and talk:Haemo) Jim (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The conduct of JimBobUSA

I withdrew from this debate because I was losing patience with JimBobUSA. He continues to show himself unable to listen to/understand advice from experienced editors regarding normal scholarly practice, WP policy, consensus editing and continues to abuse/disregard reputable sources. I find this very disappointing and he needs to be aware that deliberate vandalism/abuse are not the only reasons why disciplinary action is used against some editors. Poor etiquette also justifies such action. I would block him myself, but that would constitute a breach of policy on my part.Grant | Talk 12:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dearest Grant,

Using your own quote from your Admin request Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Grant65 when asked: “Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?” Your answer: “Patience, patience and more patience is the answer to both questions. I have learnt that WP:Assume good faith is a great rule. Edits/talk page posts which at first glance seem to be trolling or blatant POV-pushing, may in fact seem reasonable to the person concerned.”

You also mentioned in your request: “Among the other articles I have substantially researched and written are Patrick Stanley Vaughan Heenan, Battle of Vevi (1941), Koombana, Yamashita's gold and Oldest football club. I had little knowledge of any of these subjects, before I did the research for these articles.”

Article history clearly shows the many ‘reverts’ when others, including myself, add too or remove non-verified contents or blatant use of WP:OR. One could argue your intentions may be pure to try and protect your work(s), but falls way short of “patience, patience, patience” when continuously reverting back to your version, when you in fact, admit to having little knowledge of the subject. I find it hard to believe you would block an editor because they attempt to correct inaccuracies, especially when you plainly have a vested interest in that article. Jim (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

JimBobUSA, why do you continue to ignore all the advice given? You continue to explore dead ends while ignoring the straight path ahead to resolving most of the conflicts. Identify the sources you are using or have used. Without them, without specifics, this dispute is just going to deteriorate. Stop looking for motives. Stop forum shopping for opinions you agree with. Editors will only WP:AGF to a point. By ignoring advice, by "single focus" template tagging all over WP, and by emphasizing personal views or motivations instead of references to support content changes, it looks exactly like POV pushing. Your opinion doesn't count. You need to ID and reference sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Professor…I appreciate the comments added in behalf of the article, but your tongue-lashings are seriously starting to worry me. You have no earthly clue as to what I choose to ignore, or how I chose to use advise given. I am not the only editor who has sat in the “hot seat” of this controversial article. If you read this discussion page (lengthy, I know), you will see other positive comments to my concerns. I will briefly scan over them, again.

• The US Courts did not say, specifically, that Yamashita’s gold exists
• Yamashita’s Gold is a legend and myth started in the Philippines and should be noted as such in the opening lead. Omitting it simply omits the fact of why Yamashita’s Gold started
• Terms like “Some historians” and “Many historians” are misleading, and not verifiable

I do not think my requests are outlandish, nor is my thinking outside of the box on this article. I have supplied ample references to support what I have listed. You can accuse me of “ignoring advice” if you wish, that is your opinion. In addition, yes, I have “tagged” a few articles that link to the Yamashita’s gold article. I do not think the Confederate Gold article has anything to do with this, nor do I think copy/pasting information about someone from a court document warrants a Biography page on Wikipedia. Jim (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The following has been repeated several times: the introductory sentence at present acknowledges this whole episode is "alleged". It is already stated in the opening lead. If you want to remove any doubt, and offer this alternative account that it is a "legend and myth started in the Philippines", SOURCE the claim. You continue to argue over a distinction for which there is no real debate over now. It has settled out. There was a court case. Its plaintiff claimed he had been robbed by agents of F Marcos of a treasure which he said he recovered and which he understood to be Yamashita's treasure. The court found in his favor and awarded him to be repaid billions of dollars for the value of the treasure. A later court overturned the award saying there was insufficient evidence to the nature or value of what was supposedly taken from him. Neither court ruled explicitly that YG existed. One ruled, the other overturned it, that a lot of treasure was taken from the plaintiff that he testified he was told was YG. The issue was understandably confusing, but it's all clear now. Dispute is over, done, and with more careful language for the article the whole thing is easily cleared up. There is no sign here this still an issue of contention except you keep pretending it is so.

I'm going to try the direct approach again. You say you have researched the issue for years. If you have knowledge of reliable published sources to use in improving the article, use them. If you don't, just say so. Understand, however, that you will need them to source the claims you're attempting to make in the article. Any overstatement of claims taken from sources still present in the article can be addressed on their own terms. But editors cannot put in content sourced from thin air either, so find sources. Do not accuse editors of ignoring "ample evidence" when so far this "ample evidence" hasn't been produced here. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good references for the article

I recommend that instead of relocating the unresolved issues to other articles, issues should be more adequately resolved first here. My plate is full with other articles I'm working on so I won't tackle this myself. For those interested in editing article with interesting and broadly balanced sourced content rather than personal POV bellowing, here are some sources I found which are worth notice.

Good overview of all sides-this here is a copy of article taken from very respected French news agency Agence France-Presse. Copy should be legitimated by tracking it to AFP.[6]

Leaning strongly toward "legend": [7]; [8]

Is find part of the treasure? [9]; [10];

Played a role in shady international intrigue: [11]

Treasure seeking victims/perpetrators: [12]; [13]; [14]; [15]

More on Roxas: [16]. Professor marginalia 17:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If one can produce reliable sources from the National Historical Institute in the Philippines, University of the Philippines and the National Museum of the Philippines citing Yamashita’s gold as legend and/or myth…there needs to be equal citations noting that Yamashita’s gold is factual. How does constant references to newspaper articles, citing the same material (some word for word) qualify as balanced (or equal too) higher-education sources, such as noted.

Both camps in this article accuse each other of POV pushing, when the Burden of Proof clearly lies on the shoulders of those who claim Yamashita’s gold as factual. It is not a POV that Yamashita’s gold is a legend or myth, but pure fact, until the Burden of Proof has been satisfied. IE: Show me the money. Jim 20:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point I've given up hope that you are going to "get it" how editors work around here unless you step away from this and find other articles to work on for awhile. Your own feelings about this subject are so strong you are tuning out the constructive advice given, not just here but in other talk pages where you've spread the battle. This is not a trial, this is an encyclopedia article. The only "burden of proof" required is the burden editors have to source content they themselves add to articles. I know nothing at all about this subject except what I have read in the sources. Except for some very basic cleanup edits I did over a year ago, when the article was abysmal in virtually every possible respect, I've had no hand in the writing the article. You've been asked to provide the sources you've consulted in your past few years researching this topic-and so far have ignored this request. I spent 1/2 hour trying to find good sources for you and other involved editors here to work with, to assist you in using good tools to resolve outstanding issues. If you want to be an editor, fine. If you're here to be a crusader, you're wasting your time at WP. That's not what we do here. Professor marginalia 20:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Crusader? Nope. Honest and balanced article? Yeppers. I see how “the old guard” works, and truthfully, it frightens me. Instead of tongue lashing me about how I don’t get it…why not take the same amount of time and answer my concerns/questions. I don’t want to argue and debate my fellow editors on a personal level, I would much rather discuss the references, sources or article issues.

You continue to lash out at me when I bring thoughts and concerns to the discussion table; I truly wish you would stop that. I have supplied sources and references, and they are even in the article right now, even as I type this. I haven’t ignored your request, they were here all along, you just didn’t know it. Let's just both agree that we disagree and, stop trying to demeanor me and put me on the defense. Jim 21:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you aren't hearing how this sounds. You are the only one here leaving strong personal feelings on the issue on the page, while pretending there is some kind of "agenda" to topple. There was a difference of opinion about the original Roxas ruling which was resolved long ago. You want to say definitively "this is a legend". The points of your complaints assume the article says "this is a fact". It never does so. While the article refers to it as a "myth" three times, describes it as an "allegation" four times, prominently addresses at least three good sources that don't believe it exists, and it identifies some who think or thought it real enough. The article is a long way from perfect, but the problem isn't that editors have stamped their own POV throughout the article. The problem is that it reads like an underdeveloped draft that would benefit from stronger wording and structure, as well as by the incorporation of much more information from other sources. When your response to these links is to turn this back into supposedly a contest between two opposing POVs and try to claim some imaginary "burden of proof" lies with one of them, that is not how to resolve the problem, it's to make it worse. In fact, that will probably lead to new edit wars and get the page locked back up. This commentary isn't about you as a person, but it is about how to learn to edit articles effectively at WP. Professor marginalia 22:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening lead re-write

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)

I request that it does not. And why delete the subsequent paragraph? Grant | Talk 01:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

It isn't an urban legend. And you know it. Grant | Talk 02:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

RFC: Urban Legend or Historical Fact

{{RFChist}} Editors cannot agree if article is based on urban legend or historical fact. 02:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious | Discuss and Fact tags have been prematurely removed

'dubious' and 'fact' tags have been removed without discussion. I will list issues here. Jim (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• “According to various accounts, the loot was initially concentrated in Singapore, from where it was later relayed to the Philippines.” [Jim 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]

Referenced. Grant | Talk 03:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

historical interpretation Jim (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• “The Japanese hoped to ship the treasure from the Philippines to the Japanese home islands after the war ended.” [Jim 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]

Follows from previous citation. This is a normal reference style, but the preceding citation can be repeated if you wish. Grant | Talk 03:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

historical interpretation Jim (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• “Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed” [Jim 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]

A plain statement of fact: they have stated that it existed. Six sources are given as examples. Grant | Talk 03:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

novel narrative Jim (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• “The Seagraves and other historians contend that looting was organized on a massive scale…” [Jim 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]

Referenced. They state that tens of bullions were involved. If correct, that is massive. Grant | Talk 03:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

historical interpretation Jim (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• “The Japanese government intended that loot from Southeast Asia would finance Japan's war effort.” [Jim 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]

Referenced. Grant | Talk 03:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

historical interpretation Jim (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this highlights a problem that we have had all along. You seem to want to remove all controversy and contradiction from the article(?) That is neither necessary nor normal practice for historical articles. For instance, I disagree with the interpretation that the court found "insufficient evidence that Roxas had actually discovered the gold bullion", but you have provided a source stating that, so the sentence may stand. That is not to say that a rival interpretation cannot be incorporated. In other words, if you have specific sources contradicting the above statements, then add them. The above statements may be re-worded if you wish, but there is no need for further citations. Grant | Talk 03:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. It is not my position to “disprove” or to provide “sources contradicting” other statements. The responsibility of supplying extraordinary proof relies on those making the claims. The sources provided falls short of delivering extraordinary proof that America recovered thousands of tonnes of gold from the Philippines after WWII, and utilized it on the Cold War.

The lack of sources also fail to provide extraordinary proof that thousands of tonnes of gold were/are buried on the Philippines. It would take more than the three or four sources repeatedly used in this article to qualify as extraordinary proof. The sources provided do, however, provided proof that Yamashita’s gold is a well known legend on the Philippine Islands. Treasure hunters continue looking for the gold, moviemakers make movies about looking for the gold and novelists write books about looking for the gold. Jim (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

More Dubious | Fact issues to add, being not allowed to place them in article:

• "Many of those who knew the locations of the loot were killed during the war, or later tried by the Allies for war crimes and executed or incarcerated"

• "The Seagraves and other historians have claimed that United States military intelligence operatives located much of the loot; colluded with Hirohito and other senior Japanese figures to conceal its existence, and; used it to finance US covert intelligence operations around the world during the Cold War"

• "According to one intrepretation, the court found insufficient evidence that Roxas had actually discovered part of the Yamashita treasure."

• "In 2002, another US Judge stated that the Hawaii Supreme Court had allowed the judgment to stand, while holding that the Marcos estate could not be bound by that judgment"

Jim (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Jim (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ocampo

"National Historical Institute (NHI) chairman Ambeth Ocampo, writer, historian, and Ateneo de Manila University professor notes that most myths are harmless and quite amusing, but some really get people excited. “Two of the wealth myths I usually encounter are the Yamashita treasure and gossip that the Cojuangco fortune was founded on a bag of money…”

This passage is problematic for a number of reasons.

1. In WP we normally only give one or two positions occupation for a person and not their whole CV. It's as if I was to say "George W. Bush, US president, entrepreneur, air force pilot, and former Texas Governor..."
2. "...notes that most myths are harmless and quite amusing, but some really get people excited..." Is trite and non-NPOV.
3. The "Cojuangco fortune" needs an explanation or at least a redlink.

Grant | Talk 03:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it rather enlightening that you have included various passages, direct quotes from and reference links to the Seagrave’s workings no less than five times in this article, but yet condemn my edit/addition to a source that discredits the Yamashita legend. I would expect no less at this point. Jim (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

1. If it is a WP policy violation, make the necessary adjustments if need be.

2. Professor Ocampo’s stance is that Yamashita’s gold is a legend, and not supported by any means of proof or plausible evidence. Obviously, anything written by Professor Ocampo, will not have a neutral point of view (NPOV). That would probably account for him being under the “critics” portion of the article.

No problem with that, but what does inclusion of the phrase "most myths are harmless and quite amusing, but some really get people excited..." really achieve? Grant | Talk 02:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Professor Ocampo already mentioned it was a “wealth myth”, same as Yamashita’s treasure. I do not see the need to spin-off into another subject/topic about other myths. You may do so, if so inclined.

Jim (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sections

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)

Misinterpreted Court Rulings in Article Removed

The article states: “However, the exact legal interpretation is contested. In 2002, another US Judge stated that the Hawaii Supreme Court had allowed the judgment to stand, while holding that the Marcos estate could not be bound by that judgment.”

In actuality, the reference reads (under Parties and Proceedings): “The Estate of Roger Roxas and the corporation (collectively Roxas) won an initial judgment against Imelda Marcos and the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos. Roxas v. Marcos, 969 P.2d 1209 (Haw. 1998). 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. Id. At 1244”

This is a only a reference to the Roxas v. Marcos trial. If you refer to Id. 1244, (as noted in the reference), that is where this source was referenced. Another U.S. Judge did not make this statement in 2002…it was used as a reference in a different Roxas case. There is no legal interprtation contested. Although several appeals by the Plaintiffs, have been denied over the years. Jim (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Grant | Talk 02:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Point is you are trying to use a reference Id. as if it was a ruling or opinion. The US Judge DID NOT make a statement, nor did he make a ruling pertaining to the article. You have taken a reference source from one document, and are trying to give the illusion that it pertains, somehow, to this article. (false referencing) It is not a rival interpretation, as you so claim. Jim (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you are talking about? Have you even read the reference? The Judge is referring to the Roxas case. You making a false claim about the reference.

Furthermore you removed several other copyedits. Grant | Talk 22:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I read the reference thoroughly. In fact, I am the one who pointed out that you are trying to cite a reference Id. from an unrelated case. You insist that another Judge made a ruling base on the Roxas vs. Marcos case. That did not happen. The case you are trying to include in this article is a class action suite, that included Roxas. Jim (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Grant, could you be so kind as to provide a citation that claims the interpretation of the Roxas vs. Marcos litigation is contested in that class action lawsuit. Also note that you are trying to push your POV in saying that “in 2002 a US Judge in another case stated that the Hawaii Supreme Court had allowed the original judgment to stand…” when the source was only used as a reference in the class action lawsuit. Jim (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what "POV-pushing" is, or the Wikipedia policy on it, because you are still pushing a POV which has been opposed by other editors and you insist on deleting referenced material which contradicts your POV.

I never said that your interpretation was contested in the other lawsuit. It is "contested" in the common meaning of contradicted or placed in doubt. From Noonan's opinion:

p. 11089:

The Estate of Roger Roxas and the corporation (collectively Roxas) won an initial judgment against Imelda Marcos and the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos. Roxas v. Marcos, 969 P.2d 1209 (Haw. 1998). 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.

p. 11097:

As the district court held, Roxas’ tort judgment is against Imelda Marcos personally. It does not bind the Marcos estate. Roxas has no claim to be satisfied here.

Grant | Talk 23:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Grant...that is exactly what I said at the opening of this section. You just copy/pasted a reference in a class action suit. The US Judge did not make any changes or ruling to that reference. The class action case you are referencing was held in 2005...not sure where you got 2002 from. I have not seen any other editors chime in on the court ruling you are trying to inject into the article. This is exactly the same tactic you used when I proved you wrong earlier, when you used misinterpreted court information.

By the way, the Merrill Lynch v. Piment, Nos. 03-16742, 03-16743, at 3-4 (9th Cir. February 20, 2004 uses this same reference in its class action suit. The Merrill Lynch v. Arelma, Inc (2005) you are trying to use as an example was a spin-off of that suit. Jim (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The minor issue of the date aside, I don't see any substance to what you have said above about Judge Noonan's comments. Please explain what your objections are or desist with your obfuscations.

I will also ask a pertinent question again: what is your personal connection to the matters discussed here and in the article? Grant | Talk 00:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Grant...again...you are/have posted a reference to the Roxas v. Marcos ruling, that is being used in a class action lawsuit. It is NOT a comment or opinion of Judge Noonan. That is why there is an Id. number, showing the location of the reference in the Roxas v. Marcos case. Just because you are having a hard time understanding US law, does not mean I am trying to push my POV. I am trying to educate you in the trails and paths used in our legal system. I am a contributing editor, same as you. Do I need a personal connection to help edit an article on Wikipedia? Jim (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Side note: Page 11097 (see above) is under the ruling section for that lawsuit Merrill Lynch v. Arelma, Inc (2005). Jim (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, or idea…but, if you are really intent on adding other lawsuits Roxas was active in, why not simply start another paragraph (or section) pertaining to the Human Rights lawsuits that spun-off from the Roxas v. Marcos trial. That way, it would not appear (or give the illusion) that the subsequent lawsuits have anything to do with the interpretation of the case used in this article. I am sorry, but you adding in your personal commentaries (another US Judge stated…according to one intrepretation) only muddled the source, and could be misconstrued as sly-editing. Although, I am sure that was not the intent. Jim (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If as you say, "it is NOT a comment or opinion of Judge Noonan", then whose comment is it? Grant | Talk 12:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, it is a reference that can be found at: Roxas v. Marcos, 969 P.2d 1209 (Haw. 1998) Id. 1244. It is/was the judgment (ruling) in that case (Roxas v. Marcos, 969 P.2d 1209 (Haw. 1998)) and used as a reference in this case Merrill Lynch v. Arelma, Inc (2005). The ruling/judgment was already made in 1998 and used in the ruling of this case. IE: "As the district court held....Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court." Jim (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And the whole ruling is attributed to Noonan, regardless of what he is citing. Even if your puerile pedantry on this point were true, how does that justify its removal? Grant | Talk 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Grant, I think that I have pretty much well covered all of the legal aspects with you trying to cross-reference sources used in the spin-off lawsuits. I cannot explain it any simpler than I have already done. The Roxas v. Marcos case is done and over with. There was a trial and then an appeal, and subsequent appeals denied. That is the trial in this article. Now, you are trying to inject an opinion to cast an illusion of doubt. If you could provide a reliable source showing the exact legal interpretation contested, then use it. If not, you adding, “However, the exact legal interpretation is contested” is just hooha and adds no support to this article. Jim (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If the word "contested" is the problem, then I can live without that. Grant | Talk 01:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

One more try. The reference is watertight. Interpretation of/commentary on facts in and of itself is not against WP:NPOV. It is a necessary part of many articles. As I said to you above, if it is the wording which is a problem for you, then let's discuss that. Grant | Talk 11:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Grant, it is more than obvious by the warning you placed on my talk page that you will use your administrative position to block me from editing, regardless. Instead of typing until I am blue in the face that the reference you are citing DOES NOT state that the interpretation of the Roxas v. Marcos litigation is contested (false referencing), I will follow procedures, and log a complaint of administrator abuse. Jim (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not intend to position to block you from editing. That would be an abuse of my powers. However, I believe that if you continue with your present attitude/behaviour, in regard to this article, other admins will be inclined to block you.

The text never claimed that the reference used the word "contested" or said that the matter was contested. That is, as I have said before, an interpretation, basic induction like "if X+Y=Z, X is two and Y is three, then Z is five". (If there ever was proof that the interpretation is contested, then this talk page is it!) If you simply do not understand/like the word "contested", and/or other parts of the text, then suggest alternatives. But to delete valid referenced material, which is at odds with material which you included, is against Wikipedia policy. Grant | Talk 14:33, 13 December 2007(UTC)

Sorry Grant, you are injecting a personal opinion, and trying to give the illusion that there is a reliable source to verify that opinion by citing a Class Action appeal that is not specific to the claim is more than dubious. Just because there is debate on the Wikipedia talk page does not prove your opinion in the article is a valid one. In all appearances, you are upset that an agenda cannot be fulfilled, and a hint of bad faith editing is the outcrop. Jim (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Grant said: "reasons have been explained to you on talk page and you have not responded. I will ask another admin to give you a temporary block if you persist with this". We had discussed this issue, and you ended the discussion with a comment, not a question (If the word "contested" is the problem, then I can live without that). Should there have been more need for discussion, then you should have asked a question or made a suggestion as to a compromise. Reverting back to your edit, and threaten me with being blocked was not a resolve to the issue. Jim (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You know very well that I can't block you, because of my personal involvement in this case.

It was clear to me that, while you were active on other articles, you did not respond to my suggestion for a compromise for two days. What was I supposed to think? Grant | Talk 01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is where we stand. You inject a personal opinion under the guise of “valid reference material” that does not validate, nor does it support any interpretations that the Roxas litigation is contested. You use a reference to a Class Action appeal that mentions the Roxas v. Marcos judgment, and try to give the illusion another US Judge was giving a different interpretation of the original ruling. Zero information is preferred to misleading information or false information. Jim (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

All of which is your opinion, not fact or Wikipedia policy. Now, can we try to come up with a wording in the article which is acceptable to both of us? Grant | Talk 03:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Grant, but there are no reliable sources to reference your opinion. You say: “However, the further implications of the appeal decision are unclear “ then you need to provide a reliable source to verify what you claim. It is your opinion, you source it. Seems to be clear to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Supreme Court of Hawaii Jim (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I unbundled the references, removed the commentary and gave your opinion its own paragraph. Also note, the Roxas v. Marcos trial was a jury trial, as the reference given clearly states. No need to reword to “a court”. Jim (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you are prepared to work together on this. Now:

• what makes you think it was a jury trial? I have seen nothing to indicate that it was.
• why did you remove "Estate of" from Ferdinand Marcos? He was dead by the time the decision was handed down.
• I think the two interpretations of the litigation should go together in a separate paragraph. I'm referring to: "The court found insufficient evidence that Roxas had actually discovered the gold bullion while treasure hunting north of Manila in 1971." The source is a US Dept of Justice newsletter, which — while it is respectable — is not as credible as Noonan.

Grant | Talk 15:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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. Read also: Roxas v. Marcos, 89 Hawai’i 91, 969 P.2d 1209, 1998 Haw.
• Copied from reference sourced. Actual wording.
• In the Merrill Lynch v. Arelma, Inc. appeal you are trying to use as a reference, Judge Noonnan’s opinion was very short, and precise. Judge Noonan said: “In this interpleader action, appeal is made by the several parties dissatisfied with the decision of the district court awarding the funds in dispute of the Class of Human Rights Victims represented by Mariano Pimentel (Pimentel). We hold that the Republic of the Philippines and the Presidential Commission on Good Government (the PCGG) (collectively, the Republic) are not indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b). We affirm the judgment of the district court.”

Following Judge Noonan’s opinion are the Parties and Proceedings of the Merrill Lynch v. Arelma, Inc appeal. Parties and Proceedings are of the appeal, claims and defenses, findings and rulings. In the Parties and Proceedings, it is brought up that Roxas has no claim, and uses the ruling(s) in the Roxas v. Marcos proceedings as proof. The reference you are using is the release for publication summery, and not the complete appeal transcript(s). You are trying to use comments about the trial, in Parties and Proceedings, as Judge Noonan's opinion, and that is not the case.

Ergo, Judge Noonan’s opinion is not making comment, interpretations or questioning the proceedings of the Roxas v. Marcos trial, such as you are trying to lay dubious claim too. In simple terms, your source does not support your claim of a different interpretation of the Roxas v. Marcos trial, nor were the findings unclear. As credible as Judge Noonan is, we can't use comments he did not say as a reliable source. Jim (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will accept your word regarding points one and two. Regarding, the third, if what you say is true, and the material cited was not authored by Noonan, then to whom are the comments attributable? It is clearly an opinion/statement/interpretation held by a person or an institution. The court maybe? Grant | Talk 03:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll just copy/paste what I've already typed above:

"In actuality, the reference reads (under Parties and Proceedings): “The Estate of Roger Roxas and the corporation (collectively Roxas) won an initial judgment against Imelda Marcos and the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos. Roxas v. Marcos, 969 P.2d 1209 (Haw. 1998). 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. Id. At 1244”

This is a only a reference to the Roxas v. Marcos trial. If you refer to Id. 1244, (as noted in the reference), that is where this source was referenced. Another U.S. Judge did not make this statement in 2002…it was used as a reference in a different Roxas case. There is no legal interprtation contested. Although several appeals by the Plaintiffs, have been denied over the years. Jim (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)" Jim (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is saying: "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"? Every statement in any document or publication has an author. Grant | Talk 14:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Without the actual transcripts, your guess is as good as mine is. This interpleader and appeals have been going on since 2001. You would have to do a lot of research to see exactly who said what. Moreover, as you may well know, not all transcripts are released to the public. It would probably be safe to say, that a Plaintiff utilized that, because Roxas’ claim was denied.Jim (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Noonan is the general author of the document and even if he is citing someone else, he is still citing an interpretation of the proceedings, even if it is not an interpretation which with which he agrees, or that will stand in the long run. Grant | Talk 03:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Grant, but Judge Noonan did not author the Release for Publication of the Merrill Lynch v. Arelma, Inc appeal...did he? I have already posted Judge Noonan’s opinion. You have to remember, there is four (4) Judges involved, not only Judge Noonan. That is probably why this type of document is not necessarily the best for trying to prove a point, as it is a summery of events without actual quotes.

Regardless of who made the quote, it still does not support your claims of different interpretations or the appeal decision is unclear in the Roxas v. Marcos proceedings. The quote was used in a class action suit to prove that Roxas could not claim assets in that case. The ruling in the Roxas v. Marcos proceedings upheld, and Roxas was denied. Jim (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with both your assessment of the citation's import and its authorship.

Regarding the latter see p. 11084:

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 14, 2005—San Francisco, California

Filed September 12, 2006

Before: John T. Noonan, Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges, and James L. Robart,* District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Noonan

and p.11087

OPINION

NOONAN, Circuit Judge: ......

No subsequent authors are credited or cited. Grant | Talk 06:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Grant said: “No subsequent authors are credited or cited.” I agree 100%, no sbusequent authors are credited or cited, and that is why, for the purposes of validating who said what, this document fails to serve that purpose.

Regardless of who made the quote, it still does not support your claims of different interpretations or the appeal decision is unclear in the Roxas v. Marcos proceedings. The quote was used in a class action suit to prove that Roxas could not claim assets in that case. The ruling in the Roxas v. Marcos proceedings upheld, and Roxas was denied. Jim (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What you have said above does not make sense. Since no further authors are cited, the author is Noonan. And he was clearly referring to the Roxas v. Marcos case in question and commenting on it. Grant | Talk 16:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have put Noonan's opinion in quotes, above. You not being able to understand the United States legal system is understandable, sorry it does not make sense to you. Maybe you need to direct your research to a reliable source saying the Roxas v. Marcos trial has different interpretations or the appeal decision is unclear. Trying to use this Class Action document does not provide that information. Jim (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Jim, you make me laugh. It is your argument that I cannot understand. The US system is practically identical to the legal system with which I have grown up. It is unthinkable that any such material in a document from any court, in any country is anonymous. The material is clearly an interpretation of Roxas v Marcos, by a US federal judge. No judge makes such comments lightly. The fact that it was a class action is completely irrelevant. Grant | Talk 01:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you are getting a chuckle at my expense. You trying to give your opinion or interpretation of a reference used in this appeal is just that…your opinion. There is nowhere specifically, in this document, to support your claims. Please point out, specifically, where Judge Noonan (or any of the other Judges) mentions there might be a different interpretation or they are unclear about the appeal. Those are your words, more specifically, and not sustained by this document. Jim (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you understand by this sentence: "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." ? Grant | Talk 03:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple. It means Roxas cannot sue or lay claim to the estate of Ferdinand Marcos, as per the Roxas v. Marcos ruling(s). See Id. 1244. Therefore, Roxas has no claims in this Class Action suit against the estate of Ferdinand Marcos.

I ask again, Grant. Where specifically in the document does it say there is another interpretation of the Roxas v. Marcos proceedings, or that the appeal was unclear? You are reading something that just is not there. Oddly enough, the case you are trying to cite used the Roxas v. Marcos proceedings to deny Roxas of any claims in this suit.

"Roxas was a victim, too. His injury was suffered before the date used to determine the Pimentel class. The district court, however, found that Roxas had not proven that the as-sets in the Arelma account derived from any treasure stolen from him. Roxas contends that the district court erred in excluding expert testimony regarding the source of the funds and in excluding depositions of fact witnesses from his earlier action against Marcos. We do not believe that the district court abused its discretion in either ruling. The expert failed to produce the report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), and the district court acted within its discretion in excluding his testimony. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1105-06 (9th Cir.2001). As for the depositions, they were excludable as hearsay because the cross examination in the prior proceeding was not undertaken by a party with a “similar motive to develop the testimony.” Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1). We agree with the district court that the record does not support a finding that the Arelma assets were stolen from Roxas."

"As the district court held, Roxas’s tort judgment is against Imelda Marcos personally. It does not bind the Marcos estate. Roxas has no claim to be satisfied here."

"Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court."

Jim (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you understand by the phrase "allowed Roxas’ judgment against Imelda Marcos to stand"? Grant | Talk 04:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Read Id. 1244 @ Roxas v. Marcos, 969 P.2d 1209 (Haw. 1998). It says Roxas judgment is against Imelda Marcos personally, and that Roxas has no claim to the Ferdinand Marcos estate. I am still waiting for you to provide a reliable source or reference stating there is another interpretation of the Roxas v Marcos proceedings or that the rulings are unclear. I have pointed out several times that the Judges in this appeal agree with the findings in the Roxas v Marcos trial. That is very clear Jim (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What, in your opinion, is the basis of the judgment against Imelda Marcos? Grant | Talk 04:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for you to provide a reliable source or reference stating there is another interpretation of the Roxas v Marcos proceedings or that the rulings are unclear. Jim (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As I have explained before, the other interpretation is the fact that the judgment against Imelda Marcos stands. What is the basis of that judgment? Grant | Talk 16:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Other interpretation? No “other interpretation” has been sourced. Please, point out specifically where this “other interpretation” is. The fact that the Roxas v Marcos proceedings "stand" does not constitute another interpretation.Jim (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to break this down for you? As Noonan points out the judgment against Imelda Marcos stands. That is palpably at odds with the interpretation provided by the DoJ newsletter (i.e. "The court found insufficient evidence that Roxas had actually discovered the gold bullion...")

And, for the third time, what is the basis of that judgment against Imelda Marcos? Grant | Talk 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course the judgment against Imelda Marcos stands. Judge Noonan’s opinion has no control over the Roxas v Marcos proceedings. I am still waiting for you to provide a reliable source or reference stating there is another interpretation of the Roxas v Marcos proceedings or that the rulings are unclear.

Here, I’ll post some comments from the Roxas v Imelda Marcos appeal. Evidently, every Judge that has sat in on these proceedings are clear to the ruling(s). You seem to be the only one unclear.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (Civ. No. 88-0522) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Duffy, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Alm, in place of Acoba, J., recused.)

6) Insofar as this court: (a) held in Roxas I that judgment could not properly lie against Ferdinand's Estate, nor against Ferdinand himself, 89 Hawai`i at 123, 969 P.2d at 1241; and (b) instructed the circuit court to "hold Imelda personally liable, at least to the extent of her interest in the assets of the . . . Estate [of Ferdinand], for the amount of the . . . judgment against Ferdinand," the circuit court's fourth amended judgment followed this court's mandate precisely. No relief pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) was warranted.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the appeal is taken is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, November 29, 2005. Jim (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

But wait...there is more! Here is Roxas (the Golden Budha Corp) back at it. Nothing unclear here, either

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(Civ. No. 88-0522)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Duffy, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Alm, in place of Acoba, J., recused.)

Upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee the Golden Budha Corporation on December 9, 2005, requesting that this court review its summary disposition order filed on November 29, 2005,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, December 19, 2005.

Jim (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to prove here. I have shown you the rival interpretations above. Now will you answer my question? Grant | Talk 16:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Surly you jest. You have not pointed out anything, let alone any sort of rival interpretations. This conversation is going around in circles, same as before, when you attempted to use Roxas v Marcos proceedings for dubious and false referencing (see section above Dispute of POV: A United States court has ruled that Yamashits’s gold did exist.)Jim (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No jest intended. Please tell me, in 20 (twenty) words or less, the basis of the judgment against Imelda Marcos? Or do you maintain that Judge Noonan was mistaken in his interpretation? Grant | Talk 02:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Noonan did not make an interpretation of the Roxas v Marcos proceedings, that is a notion you have concocted for dubious reasoning’s. Noonan and the other Judges affirmed the ruling(s) in the Roxas v Marcos proceedings, that the estate of Ferdinand Marcos could not be held accountable, but could hold Imelda Marcos personally liable, at least to the extent of her interest in the assets of the estate. That has been common knowledge since the Roxas 1 trial. It is noting new, nor an interpretation. It is, was and always has been a ruling. Jim (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As a general observation, you seem to be understanding "intrepretation" in an overly specific, legalistic sense. Whereas I mean the common definition/usage of the word.

This is a little like pulling teeth, but at least we are getting somewhere. Now — why (in 20 words or less) do you think that Imelda Marcos was held to be "personally liable"? Grant | Talk 03:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You can explain in twenty words or less, why you are trying to use sly-editing in pushing your point of view that there is another interpretation or the Roxas v Marcos ruling(s) are unclear, when in fact you continually fail to supply a reliable source or reference to support your claims. Jim (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "sly-editing" is, but the accusation sounds like a breach of WP:AGF. The reference, as you know very well, is Noonan. Now stop stalling and tell us why you think that Imelda Marcos was held to be "personally liable"? Grant | Talk 06:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sly-editing would be like sub-sections: Dispute of POV: A United States court has ruled that Yamashits’s gold did exist, Removed Fiction Book as Reference and Removed False Referencing: The Philippines under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction. Those are some examples of sly-editing.

This article is not what “I think” or “my opinion”, but reliable sources that are verifiable. You are wanting to use what “you think” or “your opinion” because you’ve failed to find any sources to support your agenda. Your opinion is that there is another interpretation and you think the ruling(s) are unclear. I suggest you supply a reliable source, that is verifiable, that can support your opinion or agenda. I've supplied sources showing where the original judgment was penned, and various proceedings that used that judgment to deny claims. Now, you stop stalling and provide a reliable source or reference stating there is another interpretation of the Roxas v Marcos proceedings or that the rulings are unclear. Jim (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No "opinion" is necessary. Judge Noonan made a comment on the case which is plainly at odds with said Dept of Justice newsletter. That is a fact. You seem to be having trouble with the idea that two official sources can have two completely different understandings of one court case. That is just the way the legal system is. Grant | Talk 02:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That remains your opinion until you provide a reliable source that is verifiable stating as such. Please provide the source (other than your personal opinion) where you are referencing this “fact”. There is nothing supporting your opinion that Judge Noonan made a comment that is at odds with the Department of Justice bulletin. If there is such a document, please cite it.Jim (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

IV. CONCLUSION - Roxas v Marcos

Based on the foregoing analysis, we (1) reverse that portion of the circuit court’s amended judgment awarding GBC $22,000,000,000.00 for “one storage area” of gold bullion, (2) vacate those portions of the amended judgment (a) entering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees and against Imelda, in her capacity as personal representative of the Marcos Estate, (b) awarding GBC $1,400,000.00 in damages for conversion of the golden buddha statue and the seventeen gold bars, and (c) entering judgment in favor of Imelda and against the plaintiffs-appellees on GBC’s claim for constructive trust, and (3) remand the matter to the circuit court for (a) the entry of judgment against Imelda in her personal capacity, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, on the Roxas Estate’s claims of battery and false imprisonment, and GBC’s claim of conversion against Ferdinand, (b) a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars, (c) an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars, commencing from the date corresponding to the value of the gold assigned by the jury, and (d) further proceedings, to the extent necessary, on GBC’s equitable claim against Imelda, in her personal capacity, for constructive trust. In all other respects, the circuit court’s amended judgment is affirmed.

There ya have it, Grant. All three rulings from the Roxas 1 proceedings. Set in stone. Now, in twenty words...no, use as many as you wish...please point out where the class action suit Judge Noonan sat on is at odds with anything? (1)$22,000,000,000.00 is gone bye-bye. Notice anything else? Like, maybe stuff you keep saying Judge Noonan said...but, didn't really say? Oh my, you seem to have gotten your quotes wrong. I keep trying to tell you that Judge Noonan's opinion did not contain the above information, and the information came from the Parties and Proceedings of the appeal. Jim (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the norms of academic quotation/attribution, or the difference between damages and judgments. The material is attributable to Noonan because no other author is mentioned. It's as simple as that. In any case, the point is what is being said in an official court judgment, not who is saying it.

And yes, there we do have it in the material you have quoted: "(3) [We] remand the matter to the circuit court for[:] (a) the entry of judgment against Imelda in her personal capacity, to the extent of her interest in the Marcos Estate, on the Roxas Estate’s claims of battery and false imprisonment, and GBC’s claim of conversion against Ferdinand, (b) a new trial on the value of the converted golden buddha statue and seventeen gold bars, (c) an award of prejudgment interest on the damages awarded as a consequence of the conversion of the golden buddha and seventeen gold bars, commencing from the date corresponding to the value of the gold assigned by the jury, and (d) further proceedings, to the extent necessary, on GBC’s equitable claim against Imelda, in her personal capacity, for constructive trust. In all other respects, the circuit court’s amended judgment is affirmed."

In other words, the damages and part of the original judgment against the Marcoses are overturned, but not all of the original judgment. Which part of this do you not understand? Grant | Talk 10:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

please point out where the class action suit Judge Noonan sat on is at odds with anything Jim (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Noonan sums up the other court's decision by saying that it "allowed Roxas’ judgment against Imelda Marcos to stand". That is at odds with the account provided by the DoJ newsletter, i.e. "The court found insufficient evidence that Roxas had actually discovered the gold bullion..." It seems to me that the DoJ newsletter is misleading in this assertion. Nevertheless, because it is an official source it is worthy of mention. But so is the material which contradicts it. Thanks for prtoviding the original decision. I will use it in the article. Grant | Talk 12:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Grant said: "Noonan sums up the other court's decision by saying that it "allowed Roxas’ judgment against Imelda Marcos to stand."...that is false. Judge Noonan did not "sum up" a previous court ruling. I think bad faith is coming into play here, because you refuse to cite a reliable source that supports your opinion, and trying to use false referencing (again) to try and counterpoint a reliable source that has been cited. Jim (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I draw the casual reader's attention to further breaches of WP:AGF by User:JimBobUSA.

You may use whatever word you want to use to describe what Noonan said/did. The fact is, I/we as encylopedists are not required to use words in the exact same sense in which legal practitioners use them. It speaks volumes that you prefer to dwell on these matters rather than the substance of what I'm saying.

You must now recognise that the [insert noun of your choice] of Roxas v Marcos in the DoJ newsletter is controversial when compared to the actual decision and Noonan's [insert noun of your choice]. No further references are required. Grant | Talk 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that supports your personal opinion that the Bureau of Justice bulletin is controversial. That should be easy enough to do, right. Please cite the source you are using, so the casual reader does not confuse your personal opinion as Original Research.Jim (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bureau of Justice bulletin states:

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.

The Roxas v Marcos appeal states:

We further hold that Imelda is correct that the evidence, adduced at trial, of the value of the thousands of gold bars allegedly contained in unopened boxes discovered [**1218] [*100] by Roxas and converted by Ferdinand was too speculative to support an award of damages. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the circuit court’s amended judgment concerning damages for conversion…… Based on the foregoing analysis, we (1) reverse that portion of the circuit court’s amended judgment awarding GBC $22,000,000,000.00 for “one storage area” of gold bullion.

The MERRILL LYNCH v. ARELMA, INC. appeal you are forming your personal opinion from states:

The district court, however, found that Roxas had not proven that the assets in the Arelma account derived from any treasure stolen from him. Roxas contends that the district court erred in excluding 11096 MERRILL LYNCH v. ARELMA, INC. expert testimony regarding the source of the funds and in excluding depositions of fact witnesses from his earlier action against Marcos. We do not believe that the district court abused its discretion in either ruling. The expert failed to produce the report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), and the district court acted within its discretion in excluding his testimony.

Nothing controversial here, all versions line-up, and no monies were awarded. We as encylopedists are required to cite reliable sources and not interject our personal opinions or point of view into the articles. Jim (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If something is "not proven" due to "insufficient evidence", it does not mean it has been disproven. Grant | Talk 01:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"disproven" - Please explain. Jim (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Not proven" has a particular meaning in legal jargon, i.e. it means that there is insufficent evidence to make a decision either way. For instance, in criminal law in Scotland, three verdicts are possible: "guilty", "not guilty" or "not proven". Grant | Talk 05:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Roxas could not prove his case. Does that mean his case was disproven? I don’t get this new angle. Jim (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

His case was not disproven. No court has said Roxas is mistaken/lying. They have said that insufficent evidence was presented for it to be proven. Grant | Talk 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I still do not get this new angle. Is this somehow leading up to citing a reference or reliable source that the Bureau of Justice bulletin is controversial? Or perhaps a reliable source or reference stating there is another interpretation of the Roxas v Marcos proceedings or that the rulings are unclear? Jim (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can short-circuit this process. Are you happy with the present wording of the "Related legal action" section? I am not 100% comfortable with it, as I feel that it is an oversimplification of the various proceedings, but I can live with it as is. We would probably need a separate article on the various Roxas-related proceedings to do them justice (if you will excuse the expression). Grant | Talk 16:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This statement in the article is your opinion, and the reference you have supplied does not support your opinion:

• However, the further implications of the appeal decision are unclear.

This statement in the article is confusing, and not supporting to any claims made. The Judge in another case stated what, they affrimed the original ruling?

• By contrast, in 2002 a US Judge in another case stated that the Hawaii Supreme Court had allowed the original judgment to stand, while nevertheless holding that the Marcos estate could not be forced to pay damages

The class action appeal is very clear, as I have pointed out numerous amounts of times. Roxas lost that appeal because of the original judgment. All I am asking for, is a reference or reliable source that the Bureau of Justice bulletin is controversial and a reliable source or reference stating there is another interpretation of the Roxas v Marcos proceedings or that the rulings are unclear. Jim (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And I maintain that the passage has sufficient references. We will have to agree to disagree.

The present wording of the passage is the same as your last substantive edit. If you don't like your own wording, which I have agreed to compromise on, please use this space to suggest a form of words that would be acceptable to you. Grant | Talk 09:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to refresh your memory.

I started this section, and named it “Misinterpreted Court Rulings in Article Removed” because you injected your personal opinion (POV): “However, the exact legal interpretation is contested. In 2002, another US Judge stated that the Hawaii Supreme Court had allowed the judgment to stand, while holding that the Marcos estate could not be bound by that judgment.”

After I removed your opinion from the article, you placed a “warning” on my talk page (again) “Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Yamashita's gold, you will be blocked from editing. Grant | Talk 11:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)” and then you threaten me with “I will ask another admin to give you a temporary block if you persist with this”. So I placed your opinion in its own paragraph, to prevent me getting banned or blocked.

I have been asking from the beginning of this conversation for you to supply something to substantiate, or validate your opinion. You continued to point out how the ruling(s) from the Roxas v Marcos proceedings was used in the Roxas class action suit, and failed to supply a reliable source or citation from a source claiming "legal interpretation is contested". You using the appeal from the Roxas class action suit is in no way, shape or form a reference to support your opinion of "However, the further implications of the appeal decision are unclear."

I would have removed your opinion again, but not at the risk of falsely being banned or blocked from Wikipedia. You've already placed several warnings on my talk page for removing what has turned out to be blatant false referencing and the use of fictional material. I imagine you will put warnings on my talk page (again) when I do some more editing to the article. Jim (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made my position clear, in that I regard the present referencing of this passage as sufficient.

The warning was put in place because I had concerns about the deletion of referenced material. After discussing it with you at length, I am satisfied that it was a good faith edit on your part. I am prepared to accept the present wording as a reasonable compromise. Are you prepared to do the same?

Grant | Talk 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable compromise would be you supplying a reliable source that would support your opinion of “However, the further implications of the appeal decision are unclear.” That would not only be an agreeable compromise, but would also fall under the Wikipedia guidelines. Using the appeal documents for the Merrill Lynch v. Arelma class action suit does not make any claims that the Roxas v Marcos proceedings are unclear, that is only your opinion (false referencing).

Although your position is clear, you continully fail to supply any reliable sources that would confirm your position to be correct. No original research (OR) is the policy of Wikipedia. You need to supply a relible source that would confirm your opinion that the appeal decision is unclear…not just your point of view (POV)Jim (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree on the matter of referencing.

I am not particularly attached to the sentence: “However, the further implications of the appeal decision are unclear.” You may delete it if you wish. is there anything else about the present wording (not referencing) which is troubling you? Grant | Talk 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The lack of proper citation(s) to verify your opinion is not within Wikipedia standards. That should concern all editors involved with this article. Reliable sources that can be verified is what keeps the article neutral. You adding a personal opinion without any specific references erases all the attempts to keep the article balanced.

The article brings in the Roxas v Marcos trial because it is related to the Yamashita legend. It mentions that treasure was found by Roxas and then it is balanced out by mentioning Roxas could not prove he found the treasure. At this point, the article is neutral.

Now, you want to add to the article, in hopes of tipping the scale. Unfortunately, you want to add something that has not been published, nor can it be cited too or by a reliable source. It is strictly your opinion, and your interpretation(s) of the Parties and Proceedings section of a class action lawsuit (original research).

If you are so gung-ho about adding the class action lawsuit to this article, you should also include Roxas was denied claims (again) because he failed to prove any treasure was found. That would balance the article out (again), and show how persistent Roxas was to try and cash-in on the Marcos fortune. But then again, it would not provide a forward momentum for the article itself. Jim (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. I don't think we are going to get anywhere debating the above matters any further. Would you agree to me submitting this matter to WP:RFM? Note that it requires the agreement of both parties before that can happen.

Add whatever material you wish, provided it is relevant and referenced. Just don't delete any referenced material.

And once again: if it is troubling you, I do not have a problem with you deleting that one sentence: "However, the further implications of the appeal decision are unclear.")

Grant | Talk 04:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How does this sentence, by itself, give any forward momentum to the article?

“By contrast, in 2002 a US Judge in another case stated that the Hawaii Supreme Court had allowed the original judgment to stand, while nevertheless holding that the Marcos estate could not be forced to pay damages”

All you are saying is that another Judge affirmed (To support or uphold the validity of) the ruling in the Roxas v Marcos proceeding.

From the Roxas v Marcos proceedings (found @ Id. 1244):

“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.”

I still do not get the point you are trying to make. Roxas tried to sue the Marcos estate in a class action lawsuit. His claim was denied because of the rulings in the Roxas v Marcos proceedings. What is the point you are trying to make? Jim (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Put it this way: why do you think the court "allowed Roxas’ judgment against Imelda Marcos to stand"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant65 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not what I think…or what you think. It is whether or not the citations, references and sources in the article support the given text, specifically. It is not up to us, as editors of these articles to give our opinion or interpretation of these court documents, whenever the wording is not specific enough for the casual reader to understand. That is why we use a reliable source that is verifiable (third party), and not our own original research. Jim (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It is not what your or I think: the ambiguity of the appeal court's decision is obvious. I have to say I find it interesting that you are unwilling to state a personal opinion on this matter, on a talk page. Grant | Talk 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe “the ambiguity of the appeal court's decision is obvious”…please supply a citation or a reliable reference stating as such. Your ambiguity opinion is obviously not obvious and needs to be supported by research other than your own. Jim (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As everyone knows, a negative proposition cannot be proven. You can't have it both ways: if the decision isn't ambiguous, that means you understand it fully and completely. In that case, please answer the question: why did the court allow "Roxas’ judgment against Imelda Marcos to stand"? An answer in 50 words or less please, with no more than 50% quotation. Grant | Talk 01:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I can only guess by the chatter and back and forth banter, that there are no citations, sources or reliable references to support the point of view you are trying to interject into the article. Jim (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Refer to my last post. Grant | Talk 06:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your last post does not have any citations, sources or reliable references to support the point of view you are trying to interject into the article. Jim (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to answer the question? Grant | Talk 18:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply cannot answer your question, until you provide a citation, source or reliable reference that explains the point of view you are trying to interject into the article. This is akin to guessing what is behind Curtin #1...I don’t know until you present the material that supports your personal opinion.

How would my answer be “checked” or confirmed if you don’t supply the necessary documents? I don’t like this guessing game. Jim (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You claim to understand the court rulings, right? Then you should be able to answer the question. If you can't then it proves my point: the appeal court's decision is ambiguous. Grant | Talk 01:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I don't know we are still arguing about this. 11 days ago, I suggested removing the sentence that was supposedly troubling you: “However, the further implications of the appeal decision are unclear.” Grant | Talk 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Merrill Lynch v. Arelma, Inc. appeal:

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.

Grant’s version:

By contrast, in 2002 a US Judge in another case stated that the Hawaii Supreme Court had allowed the original judgment to stand, while nevertheless holding that the Marcos estate could not be forced to pay damages.

Grant, your version seems to differ from the actual wording. Any reason for that? Jim (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you familar with the difference between direct quotation and indirect quotation? It is indirect quotation: the wording does not have to be identical; if it was it would be in quotation marks. Grant | Talk 01:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, your “indirect quotations” have omitted some pertinent information to that particular trial/case. Nevertheless, even if you had quoted the entire Merrill Lynch v. Arelma, Inc appeal word for word, it still does not support your point of view or personal opinion that somehow the outcome of the Roxas v Marcos proceedings are unclear or contested.

I would also like to take a few moments here to point out:

• You originally claimed, “A United States court has ruled that Yamashita’s gold did exist”. That proved to be incorrect
• You did not know a jury was involved in the Roxas v Marcos trial
• You want to banter about another case, where you believe a Judge is making an interpretation, when in fact, that appeal was lost-out on based on the Roxas v Marcos proceedings. You refuse to provide any citations; reliable sources or referencing that supports your point of view or opinion on this matter.

I have supplied citations and reliable sources to support the information I have contributed too the article. I removed a “reliable source” that was actually a fiction (novel). I removed another “reliable source”, which did not correlate with the article. Both of these books you claimed them to be “respectable scholarly/academic references”

Now, what does all this chatter mean? It means it is about time you coughed up some citations or reliable sources or references that actually supports the text you want to add to the article. Indirect quotes, phrases such as “other historians”, “according to various accounts” and other weasel words litter this article. I would like to think it is because of poor editing and not dubious reasoning. Jim (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your improvements to material that myself and others have contributed to the article. We have probably all made a lot of mistakes editing WP articles. If I was focused on one article to the exclusion of all others, then I would make fewer. But not none at all.

Once again: how exactly do you propose to improve the article? Bearing in mind that you can't delete referenced material. Grant | Talk 05:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you prefer to delete an unrelated passage, rather than discuss this is duly noted. Grant | Talk 17:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Grant, after a month of you refusing to supply any citations, reliable sources or references to support your point of view and/or opinion…it is time to move on. It is painfully obvious that you would rather bicker than produce the requested documentation. At this point-in-time I can only assume you have nothing to support the text you have added to the article. Shame. Jim (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

This article relies very heavily on the Seagrave's account (undue weight). Regardless of whether or not their assertions are true, they are a dubious source (conspiracy theorists are fringe writers). Their Japanese scholarship has been very harshly criticized and they quite simply are conspiracy theorists (down to the "everything will be published if anything happens to us" stance). There are also seem to be numerous statements intended to support that account that do not reflect the sources (false referencing, original research). This article needs more references of better reliability. In the immediate short-term, it needs a solid auditing of the citations and much more cautious use of dubious material. Vassyana (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Point of fact: the article relies more heavily on Chalmers Johnson's lengthy review of one of the Seagraves' books. Several examples are given of serious scholars who believe that YG existed. There are others.

You need to justify the serious allegations of "dubious sources", "false referencing" and "original research", with specific reasons/examples. Grant | Talk 01:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Grant said: "Several examples are given of serious scholars who believe that YG existed. There are others." I would like to see some quotes from those other serious scholars who believe that Yamashita's gold existed. To date, everything in the article has come out of the Seagraves novels, with "other historians" and "various accounts" tacked on for emphasis (?)

A dubious source could be like the Richard Hoyt novel “Old Soldiers Sometimes Lie”. Mr. Hoyt is known as a fiction/mystery writer and has like 20 something novels to his credit. I do not have his novel on hand, but it would be nice to see whom he used as a reference source in his notes. I am not a betting man, but I would lay odds that some of those references would sound very familiar. Maybe one of the other editors has a copy and can elaborate. Source removed. See section: Removed Fiction Book as Reference Jim (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Did Chalmers Johnson hurt the Seagrave’s “historian/serious scholar” image in his book review, when he said: “The Seagraves’ narrative is comprehensive, but they are not fully reliable as historians. They have a tendency to overreach, exaggerating the roles of Japanese gangsters and ex-military American bit-players when the bankers, politicians and CIA operatives are scary enough. They know the Philippines well, but are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese. The book is full of errors that could easily be corrected by a second-year student of the language – the ship they repeatedly call the Huzi is accurately romanised Fuji; the important Japan Sea port is Maizuru, not Maisaru; tairiki is not a Japanese word: they mean tairiku ronin (a ‘Continental adventurer’ or a ‘China carpetbagger’); and their mysterious Lord Ichivara is an absurdity – no one was ever called ‘Lord’ in postwar Japan and Ichivara is an impossible name (it is surely Ishihara).”? I guess that falls under the WP policy “Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.” Jim (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer is no, Johnson did not, because he supported their key claims as stated in this article.

How many references would you like?

While we are on the subject Jim, what is your personal interest in/connection to Yamashita's gold? Grant | Talk 12:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Grant said: "Several examples are given of serious scholars who believe that YG existed. There are others." I would like to see some quotes from those other serious scholars who believe that Yamashita's gold existed. To date, everything in the article has come out of the Seagraves novels, with "other historians" and "various accounts" tacked on for emphasis (?) (still waiting on this) Jim (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to just keep skipping over these requests? Jim (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed Fiction Book as Reference

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)

Removed Fiction Book as Reference

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)

Reference: The Philippines Under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction

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)

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

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)