Talk:Rape during the occupation of Japan

Rape allegation are based on witness testimony and not physical evidence

It is even noted in the article "There is no documentary evidence that mass rape was committed by Allied troops during the Pacific War."2601:449:4582:B3C0:D4A4:58FD:80F2:C1A5 (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not call into question the fact that rapes occurred during the occupation of Japan; as such, nor should we. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No, they note witness testimony and not documented evidence.2601:449:4582:B3C0:D4A4:58FD:80F2:C1A5 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Witness testimony is evidence. If you have any RS that cast doubt on the existence of rapes during the occupation, by all means suggest them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not documentary evidence though. That's why I included that source into the lead section.2601:449:4582:B3C0:D4A4:58FD:80F2:C1A5 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article should remain at the stable revision as the issue is discussed here; please self-revert. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

By changing wording to "said to have committed", "allegedly", etc. you are casting doubt on the existence of rapes at all — which, again, does not reflect sourcing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Because that's what witnesses do. They say things. The rapes weren't reported.2601:449:4582:B3C0:D4A4:58FD:80F2:C1A5 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources are the ones who can evaluate witness credibility, not random Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia needs to reflect the sourcing, not individual editors' opinions on credibility of rape victims and witnesses. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that as-yet unpublished books are not usable sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

U.S. Naval Institute article discussing the book is the source, not the unpublished book.2601:449:4582:B3C0:D4A4:58FD:80F2:C1A5 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that the original material — the book — is unpublished. It's also WP:UNDUE to treat the claims of one (unpublished) book as superseding all the other sources.

Can you clarify where Though no documented evidence exists is being sourced to? I'm not seeing it in the source provided. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Book blurbs on a publisher's website aren't an appropriate source. If you'll notice, all of those comments on that page are emphasizing how Walsh is countering the accepted narrative. Wikipedia documents the accepted narrative. When Walsh's book is published, if it generates enough attention and is cited enough to become a significant viewpoint, Wikipedia should include it. See WP:DUE. Schazjmd (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any more sources than just one unpublished book for this claim?CycoMa1 (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

In June when the book by Brian P. Walsh comes out, we should look to book reviews to see how Walsh's findings affect this topic. We should examine whether topic experts re-evaluate their stance. The recent changes are not the right way to do this. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with the emerging consensus here--this is definitely an WP:UNDUE change, and probably will be even after the source has passed editorial controls and been published. The one forthcoming source certainly doesn't constitute, even before we can review the nature of its specific claims, enough WP:WEIGHT to override the wealth of sources which support an unqualified claim that at least some rapes occurred. And attempting to unilaterally force the claim is certainly a violation of WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD, and WP:EW.

All of that said, I'm a little mystified how so many experienced editors chimed in to reject the IP's position without realizing what the crux of the confusion was for this (presumably much newer) editor and took the time to try to educate them on the fundamental policies which are leading to the disconnect here. 2601, you might find WP:OR and WP:VNT to be elucidating to understanding why your preferred approach here is getting so much pushback. Rather than allowing the article to state that such rapes occurred (consistent with the wording of existing sources), you want the article to say that there were reports of such acts, because in your idiosyncratic, subjective view, that is the more accurate way to describe the situation. But that is not how such editorial issues are determined on this project. That is a form of "original research" on your part, with you wanting your more "accurate" (as you see it) language in place of that that which has been borrowed from the sources for stable version of the article.

But on this project we do not construct content based on our own personal views on what would be the most accurate way to describe a subject. Rather we report what WP:reliable sources have to say on the matter. And we do so in proportion to the weight that given perspectives have in the sources. Most of the sources here say that rapes occurred (unqualified with the language about a dearth of 'documentary' evidence that you would like to focus on). You may very well have problems with the methodologies of the sources, the rigor of their reasoning, or the foundation of the evidence they used to arrive at their conclusions, but your role as an editor on this project is not to fact-check and correct them and substitute your own reasoning, no matter how valid or superior you feel it is.

The tone of this article, including the nuances of certainty and the value of evidence, must map as closely as possible to what the sources suggest, in the aggregate. I know this is one of the less intuitive of the basic editorial rules on this project, but it is very much fundamental to our process and something you will need to internalize to your process if you are going to contribute constructively here. Regardless, edit warring to keep your preferred version in, against consensus, is strictly forbidden and likely to get you blocked quickly if you don't WP:drop the stick in a hurry. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Concurring here that the reliable sources indicate that the rapes occurred. I would suggest to the IP that they note there is a difference between "verifiable" and "true" and Wikipedia is concerned with "verifiable." As verifiability is derived from reliable sources and since reliable sources do not question that the witness testimony is accurate, it is not the place of Wikipedia to editorialize, even if an editor believes a more skeptical formation would be more true. Simonm223 (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC).

Disputed figures

A [1] Washington Post story claims there were some rapes, but the numbers have been greatly exaggerated] and some of the claims are groundless. 62.119.249.254 (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

While there's certainly a lot of scope to improve this article, including when the author of that article's book is released, this issue is discussed at Rape during the occupation of Japan#Incidence Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The "Rape" of Japan

The editors of this article are going to have to come to terms with Brian Walsh's The "Rape" of Japan: The Myth of Mass Sexual Violence During the Allied Occupation, Naval Institute Press, 2024. Here is a list of general themes (I won't repeat the ones already listed in this Wiki article and cited from his 2018 work:

1. Many Japanese perceived any relationship between Japanese women and American men as rape, including marriages. Their motive appears to be based on nationalistic "purity"
2. Many Japanese used rape as metaphors for non-sexual interactions with Americans, including negotiations with SCAP, delousing with DDT, and the overall postwar US-Japan strategic relationship
3. Many Japanese resented the dictated legal equality of women and the ending of licensed prostitution, which the Americans saw as debt-based sexual slavery and a human rights violation
4. Japan had a major problem with venereal disease: ninety percent of skeletons from the Edo period show evidence of syphilitic bone deformation. Japanese culture of the time considered syphilis to be natural and unavoidable. The rate of syphilis only began to decline with the introduction of European medicine (the cited influences are German, British and American) in the 19th century. By WW2 the rate of syphilis in the general population had been reduced to 30-60% depending on the metric. Yet some Japanese parliamentarians would charge that it was the Americans who introduced venereal diseases
5. Japan had a long-standing subculture of violent and misogynistic literary pornography; Walsh terms this as panpan literature. The first written explicit (that is, from the "victim's" viewpoint) accounts of American rape look like they were written by men for the enjoyment of men; Walsh shows that the authors were in fact men, some with a history of brothel ownership, financial scams, and even postwar pro-Nazi propaganda. These authors added and often misquoted official crime statistics (Walsh shows that official numbers for total crimes are cited as rapes) to give a facade of reputability, claimed mass rapes on dates in which less that 200 Americans were in the country and rapes by British Commonwealth soldiers months before they arrived
6. After the Communist Party of Japan came under criticism from Moscow for failure to oppose 'American imperialism' (a failure likely caused by their release from prison and legalization under pressure by SCAP), the first thing they did was to reprint and distribute anti-American panpan literature as fact; a couple of their leaders had personal connections to the panpan authors
7. Walsh conclusively demonstrates how almost all modern academics' and journalists' citations of mass rapes can be directly traced back to the panpan literature of 1946-1948. This includes a large number of sources cited in the present version of this Wiki article, including Dower, Takemae, and Tanaka. He also shows how these sources truncated quotes from official documents or from previous academics to shift their meanings

Walsh's writings are a series of smoking guns. I must confess that I cannot imagine how bullet #7 can be easily handled in an article like this because the chain of evidence while conclusive is long and convoluted. A paraphrase of the article currently reads "On the one hand Dower, Takemae, and Tanaka...on the other hand Walsh..." If Walsh is correct, and I see no reason to say he's not, then a fair re-write of this article would require admission of the existence of this "myth" and a description of how it came to be incorporated in academic and journalistic accounts. I think this is beyond the ability of one individual editor.

BTW if any of what I wrote sounds fantastical I can in some cases cite supporting text from William Manchester's American Caesar

Thank you for your consideration Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

"if any of what I wrote sounds fantastical" It does not sound fantastic, because there is nothing fantastic about propaganda and smear campaigns, or their use by political parties. Dimadick (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The 'editors' of the article are just random people, like you. Please feel free to add material from that book, though note the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV means that other views also need to be acknowledged. Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

But this is not entirely a NPOV issue. If Walsh is correct on the panpan origins and the altering of quotations then the 'other views' are not RS with regards to the Occupation, they are only RS with regards to the myth. I am loth to attempt any rewrite without a consensus on this matter. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This is quite a dilemma, and I think you are right that, if this new book is correct, it would require a rewrite of the article approved by broad consensus. However, doing so based on one revisionist history is risky. Looking at my University's library catalog, I can't seem to find any academic reviews of Walsh's book (I don't know how long it generally takes for those to come out and be listed). My opinion is that you should leave the article in the admittedly imperfect "on the other hand" form so long as we don't have a good idea on how other experts have received this book. If a clear mass of positive reception at some point emerges then a rewrite would be in order, but doing so before then would probably be WP:UNDUE. If, however, reviews seem to be mainly negative, then Walsh's book should be consigned to a few mentions as a minority view. Nicknimh (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I mostly agree. Since we must use citable sources, hopefully such sources will confirm Walsh's research and help with citations that support a rewrite. However, many people are invested in the 'majority' viewpoint (Walsh states that Dower was always opposed to the postwar Japan-US alliance), and it remains possible that we may see a number of negative reviews that are motivated by ideological rather than factual opposition that simply restates the 'facts' that Walsh demolishes. IMO the middle road seems most likely: a simple refusal to deal with Walsh's research, a silence which would preserve the "one the one hand, on the other hand" approach for some time to come. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I should point out that this isn't Walsh against the world. Michael S. Molasky came to similar conclusions, and Walsh actually credits Molasky with putting him onto the evidence that led to his 2024 book. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yamata vigilantes

This article states:

General Robert L. Eichelberger, the commander of the U.S. Eighth Army, recorded that in the one instance when the Japanese formed a self-help vigilante guard to protect women from off-duty GIs, the Eighth Army ordered armoured vehicles in battle array into the streets and arrested the leaders, and the leaders received long prison terms

Walsh states that the academic source of this story is Takemae, and his sole source for this account is Eichelberger's diary. Eichelberger makes no mention of any rapes in Yamata, and Takemae cites no other source. Taken at face value, Eichelberger's account describes the vigilantes as trying to establish a sunset town.

BTW I find it odd that this article does not mention the name of the town. I will add it with the appropriate citation.

Thanks Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)