Talk:CIA activities in Japan

Bias

Main issue I'm worried about is bias concerning sources and text, if the reviewers would like to give feedback on how to improve the article I'd like to hear it. Yokohama1989 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Yokohama1989 I suggest also posting a note on the WP:WikiProject Japan talk page. There seems be active editors there who may be interested. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS

@Horse Eye's Back I don't understand the reasoning behind labeling Morris-Suzuki as unreliable. I understand that Pearls and Irritations is unreliable, as the journal features prominent CCP apologists, but Tessa Morris-Suzuki has authored many publications independent of Pearls and Irritations such as at the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs[1], the École des hautes études en sciences sociales[2], and books published by the university where she formerly taught at, Australia National University 3. I'd say that the source works under WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.", as Suzuki is an established subject-matter expert, who repeatedly published reliable, independent works outside of Pearls and Irritations.

Another important thing to note is that the secondary source links to a primary FOIA document which explicitly states the details of the operation which Morris-Suzuki alleges "The purpose of this memorandum is to outline in detail the action taken by CCS/NC inconjunction with your request for assistance in the purchasing in a secure manner ten colored TV receivers for shipment to POJACKPOT/1, an indigenous FE contact in Japan."

Based on this, I believe that despite the unreliability and biased nature of the publication that is Pearls and Irritations, the article itself constitutes an expert self-published source.

https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/10/25/un-remembering-the-massacre-how-japans-history-wars-are-challenging-research-integrity-domestically-and-abroad/ [1]

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annales-histoire-sciences-sociales/article/abs/tessa-morrissuzuki-borderline-japan-foreigners-and-frontier-controls-in-the-postwar-era-cambridge-cambridge-university-press-2010-ix272-p/E159416ABC80E033E38CBEE405B68E10 [2]

https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/series/global-thinkers-series/frontiers-history [3]

Regards, Yokohama1989 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

No matter what else we do the FOIA document needs to be dropped... Thats not an appropriate use of a primary source. The author does appear to be a subject matter expert, I really wish they had written about this in a more reliable publication but we can attribute and use as is... Do you know if any of their properly published work covers the same ground? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why the FOIA document would constitute an inappropriate use of a primary source. I only used it as a reference for the details of the operation, not the motives or reasoning behind said operation- where I relied on Suzuki to provide interpretation.

Morris-Suzuki's publications mostly revolve around the Japanese right, which covers the same area which I'm writing about. [1] was about the Japanese history textbook controversies and the whitewashing of Japanese war crimes, something that's a controversy in the LDP today, and she also wrote about the CIA's abduction of Kaji Wataru which I used this reference for.

Thanks, Yokohama1989 (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)