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)
 * 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 * Please note that as-yet unpublished books are not usable sources.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 * U.S. Naval Institute article discussing the book is the source, not the unpublished book.2601:449:4582:B3C0:D4A4:58FD:80F2:C1A5 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That does not change the fact that the original material — the book — is unpublished. It's also WP:UNDUE to treat the claims of one (unpublished) book as superseding all the other sources.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 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 Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)