Talk:Yamashita's gold

Using Junk Journalism

Just because something is in a Newspaper, does not mean it really happened. Especially when the editorial piece does not state who/what/where a claim or statement is made. Anyone can write anything just to sell product. Jim (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A side note here....In 1992, Imelda Marcos was running for President. There would be much more written about this "claim", and probably more of a Press Release than an unsigned editorial with non-sourced claims. Jim (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

JimBobUSA-you've been editing here for a long time. There are very few central, inviolable, rules at wikipeda. One of them is the verification policy-the very first sentence of it reads, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." That's the actual policy which exists at wikipedia-one we must follow here. There is no "hearsay" policy, there is no policy that every sourced claim contain "quotations" from individuals described in the story.

The Associated Press is a reliable source for this news story. Obviously if Imelda Marcos issued a press release making the claim, it would also verify that yes, she made the claim, so raising this as a possibility while defending your revert makes no sense. Of course she may have no idea what she's talking about, and of course she could well have ulterior motives to completely invent the story - the most obvious being that her husband was accused of misappropriation, bribery and kick-back schemes and that his immense personal wealth was criminal thievery from the Philippine people. But you are just a wikipedia editor here-you're not in a position to judge the strength of the evidence, references are needed to do this. Wikipedia's editors can't edit (or censor) articles based on their own personal feeling about what's "true"-and this is what you're doing. Do the work, research the topic, get WP:RS, and improve the claim with reliably sourced references. Imelda Marcos was sued - for years - to recover this alleged "treasure". She also lost that suit--and was ordered to repay damages to the estate of the person alleging her husband stole it from him. Obviously if Imelda had also explicitly claimed or admitted her husband had his hands on the treasure, it's significant and relevant to this article, is it not?

Furthermore, you must cease edit warring in this article. You've violated the WP:3rr rule here again, another real rule and editors who refuse to abide by it will be blocked from editing. I urge you to revert yourself, restore the valid claim to the article, and work on improving it to more fully describe the circumstances of Imelda's admission here. here's a good one, and here are two dozen more. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Professor…with all due respect, I must tell you the source you call “a good one” does not validate any claims made by Imelda Marcos, in regards to Ferdinand Marcos finding treasure in World War II. That particular piece is a story told to a reporter. Second party he said/she said, if you will. The other two dozen are simply clones of each other. Two dozen different articles/interviews would be impressive, however that is not the case here.

So far…there appears to be no source of where the NEWS came from. Did Imelda actually talk to a reporter? How would one verify such a claim, without the proper source listed?

Maybe if the inclusion into this article did not appear to be so matter-of-fact, or at least provide the source for the reader to evaluate. Just because a Newspaper prints it, does not validate its content. Jim (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I know I know I know. But editors at wikipedia are nobodies. We don't presume to judge what's "valid" reporting, that's the AP publisher's job--it vets its reporters and their sources, we don't. The AP is a legitimate news source-it's not perfect, its news isn't gospel, but it's a legitimate news source, not a nonsense, scandal sniffing tabloid. And this story wasn't just published in the AP, as the google list I furnished you bears out. Yes, many pick up the same AP story--but not all of these are merely clones. We attribute claims to sources. That's how readers evaluate it. Just like you did. They click on the link in the reference and read it for themselves.

It's been some time ago now since I've explained this here, but I'll do it again. Wikipedia relies on good references to do the real work-they're the experts, not us. They investigate stories, conduct research, give opinions, weigh competing claims and if the references are legitimate we defer to what they say. Instead, what you have done many times here has been to throw away information willy nilly, not because its sourced authorship or publishing is dubious (though that has often been true for junk added to this article-only not this time)--but because you don't like what they say. Because you, personally, don't believe what it says. And Wikipedia's editors aren't invited to be the final arbiter of what's true and what isn't. If you'd read the first link, for example, you'd see that yes, Imelda Marcos was quoted. The report quotes her multiple times.

Now when it comes to this article, quality news outlets like the Associated Press and Reuters (who also reported this) are probably the best references easily available to describe the Marcos' involvement in the story. The originally linked reference which I agree can't source the claim here-it doesn't qualify as a WP:RS--nevertheless gives a good lead to where to find the story more fully reported (most in Philippine Daily Inquirer, looks like). You haven't found any information discrediting the reports, you simply dismiss them based on your own gut feelings. Do you think Imelda needs to appear here herself and give you the story directly? Of course not, so stop with the "hearsay" business, and stop inventing other fictional policies to justify your own personal preferences here. You don't need two dozen different sources--that's not why I furnished them to you. But we should say more here and we need sources to do it. I suggested that you actually use the list to locate the accounts giving more information, and use them to flesh out more of the context which ideally would accompany this claim. I agree the claim needs more work. But that's why we're here, right? To improve articles and provide information pertinent to the article? Professor marginalia (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it was also carried by Reuters. Why JimBob wants to remove the material despite it being properly sourced boggles the mind, as does the fact that he's made at least a couple hundred edits to the Yamashita's gold article. Wikipedia is a joke because of OCD and biased editors who favor removal of information rather than allowing it to remain. This place is basically a playground for fascists and propagandists who often covertly coordinate with one another. Wikipedia should have a disclaimer at the bottom of every article: "This article is most likely inaccurate, especially if it deals with politics or history." TPaineTX (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I digress. Professor, I did pull the trigger to quickly on my last revert. I didn't really notice, at the time, that you corrected the date and removed the cheesy link my new wiki friend TPaineTX put back into the article. TX must have made a slight boo-boo by not reading the reference he re-posted. Thanks Professor for at least agreeing the claim needs more work. Jim (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any reason to remove it as a source, seeing as how it was confirmed by well-known newspapers. Although if you merely removed the source, I wouldn't have bothered to argue about it. The date in the article text was a little off, but I apparently wasn't paying close enough attention to catch it. Had you correctly typed "1993", the issue would have been resolved immediately. While I didn't catch the fact that the text was a year off, you made a typo, and apparently you didn't even bother to read the sources that I went out and find (although Prof Marg took it a step further), because if you had, you would've noticed that they are pretty respected sources. Whatever errors that I made in this little spat, you surpassed them, so no finger-pointing. So long as you have changed your mind and have decided the information is worth putting in the article, I'm content. I think it adds to the lore and mystery of the treasure, and I think it gives people something to think about... how claims about treasure might be utter nonsense, etc. TPaineTX (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit Findings

I removed a paragraph about the court not finding that the treasure found was Yamashita's treasure, primarily because it was not sourced, but also because it gives undue emphasis to the denial of an assertion that was never made in the preceding material. The material that precedes it was carefully crafted to be accurate about the facts and allegations of the case. The prior material never states as a fact that the legendary treasure was found. However, the facts of the lawsuit were accurately laid out so that the reader could make up his own conclusions. Those facts include that the testimony that was accepted by the court in sustaining the judgement included: Roxas claimed he was following a map from the son of a Japanese soldier to Yamashita's treasure; Roxas also claimed to be following information from Yamashita's interpreter; and Roxas even claimed that he found a skeleton in a Japanese military uniform in the chamber with the treasure. It was this testimony that the court accepted when it found sufficient evidence to support the finding that Roxas had found the treasure. Thus, although there was no specific finding that this was in fact the legendary Yamashita's treasure, there was significant information accepted by the court in sustaining the judgment pointing to Yamashita and a Japanese treasure stash. Thus, the removed material was confusing and gave a false impression. Are there any other explanations for a sealed underground chamber in the Philippines filled with a giant gold Buddha, crates of gold bars, samurai swords, and dead Japanese soldiers? Tommylotto (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been hashed out before, back in 2007, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yamashita%27s_gold/Archive_1#Largest_damage_award_reversed_on_appeal

"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." Jim (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to Department of Justice bulletin here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ctcvlc96.pdf Jim (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are so familiar with the editing history of this page, you will recall that after 6 months of back and forth your statistical analysis was found to be an unreliable source and the quote that you pulled was clearly contradicted by the actual court opinion that the statistical analysis purported to summarize. The court found insufficient evidence of the value of the treasure but actually affirmed that Roxas found the treasure. Your statistical analysis is worthless, because -- as you well know -- what it says in that quote is flat out wrong. By the way, check out what the ninth circuit court of appeals has to say on this subject in the appendix to the petition in the Pimentel lawsuit at p. 43: "The Yamashita Treasure was found by Roxas and stolen from Roxas by Marcos' men.". That is the ninth circuit court of appeal summarizing the findings of the state court proceeding that resulted in a final judgment in favor of Roxas. Tommylotto (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)