Talk:Takashi Uemura (academic)

POV Dispute
This page, written originally in broken English, was clearly an attempt by the NET right to damage Uemura's reputation. The citations either led to broken pages, or pages in Japanese that did not mention Uemura by name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.99.247 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had a look through the sources, and most of them (albeit not all) seem to be working and relevant, but more importantly, the sources all generally seem to agree that the controversy exists, and it would be the case that it would be appropriate for the article to describe this controversy as it exists in RS news articles.
 * Having said the case, it is also true that parts of the article would benefit from some grammatical cleanup, and questionable and potentially libelous claims that have weak support or are irrelevant to the subject's article ought to be removed immediately, per WP:BLP. I can see certain claims which appear to be based on weak evidence and could be potentially libelous, and have removed them accordingly.  The article as written originally also did appear to be pushing a certain POV, and made some wrong interpretations of sources.  However, within the controversy section, if there are specific other lines or sources which you feel to be libelous, false, or based on poor (unreliable) sourcing, please describe and discuss the claims here.  If there are claims which you believe to be directly libelous and without merit, then it would be permissible to remove them immediately, but in this case, please indicate as much in your edit summary.Zmflavius (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I see there was a revert edit war here between the above parties.


 * Well, that Zmflavius supported cited the NY Times article, but conspicuously left out the newspaper's analysis of the allegation.


 * The NYT explains that the heart of the Asahi Shimbun scandal was the Seiji Yoshida hoax that resulted in "at least a dozen" retractions, but Uemura did not write them. Yet even so, the "Right-wing tabloids [singled] out Mr. Uemura as a 'fabricator of the comfort women'".


 * Meanwhile, the edit is perfectly happy to pass on "It has also been pointed out that [Uemura's writing] was a intentional 'forgery'" [* prob. ="fabrication" ねつ造] with aplomb, even though this is the charge "singling out Mr. Uemura" mounted by the Shukan Bunshun weekly -- that's right, a conservative tabloid.


 * I think that once I've highlighted what to look for, you might agree it is blatant POV. --Kiyoweap (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)