|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 place of surrender
- 3 Lawrence of Manchuria
- 4 Why only "B-class"?
- 5 Last Words
- 6 Unreferenced statements need support or will be removed
- 7 See Also section 'Yamashita's Gold
- 8 Removed "Last Words" section
- 9 Tani Yutaka
- 10 Enduring Legal Legacy Edit/Deletion
- 11 Kwantung Army posting
- 12 Pronounciation?
18 Nov. 2005 There's an interesting article at www.japanfocus.org under "Japanese Lives", article 392. "Last Words of the Tiger of Malaya, General Yamashita Tomoyuki," by Tanaka, Yuki.
Can someone please take a look at the translated version of Yamashita's last words? They seem to have been brutalized at the hand of babel fish. --Duke Leto 14:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
He was working with an inferior translator on the day of his death, not the Harvard educated one he had during the trial. The actual recorded translation is even worse than the version posted here.
place of surrender
adding Kiangan, part of the Ifugao... seems like a little bit too much info, but i don't know if there is a better/easier way to help someone find the link to Kiangan where some day there could be more info about the surrender site. i wouldn't be at all saddened to find that the addition is deleted if anyone thinks it's too much. any ideas? --Mumbaki 02:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Eh, why? Too much information according to what line of thinking, I guess is what I'm asking. Shadowrun 07:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Lawrence of Manchuria
Am I right this appelation applied to him? If not, can somebody correct it at the List of military figures by nickname & List of nicknames of historical personages? Thanks. Trekphiler 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Why only "B-class"?
--HanzoHattori 11:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Because "kicking Douglas MacArthur's butt" and "having the temerity to demand unconditional surrender from the Brits" were only classified as a Class-B "war crimes" by the tribunal. Tomoyuki Yamashita is the poster boy for what we now call "victor's justice," and that's all there was to it. Jsc1973 (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not a FORUM or SOAPBOX.HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- But in case anyone is still waiting for an answer: Class A war crimes were the promulgation of criminal policies that affected the entire Japanese Empire, occupied territory, and combat zones. Class B war crimes were crimes affecting only a specific area. The significance of the distinction was that Class B war crimes were tried near the location where the alleged crimes took place, by national tribunals of the affected parties, while Class A war crimes (since they were not asociated with a particular locale) were tried in Tokyo by international tribunals. The charges against Yamashita -- which included massacres in both Malaya and the Philippines -- were of a local nature and therefore fell into the Class B category. --Yaush (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
take your "victor's justice" talk and shove it- Yamashita hanged as he deserved... the "oh sorry my soldiers butchered 500,000 innocent people but I didn't order it" defense is BOGUS-whoops! he is the commanding officer and is 100% to blame
- Likely not a translation. Yamashita spoke English, but imperfectly. --Yaush (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Unreferenced statements need support or will be removed
This is the problem wording: "The legitimacy of the hasty trial has been called into question by many, as considerable evidence pointed to the fact that Yamashita was either not aware of the atrocities that were committed, or was unable to properly control his soldiers due to communication disruption caused by the U.S. Army during their offensive." Wiki policy does not allow unreferenced quotes attribute to "many" or "some". If there is no reference for this from a reliable source, it will get deleted. The quote is also nonsensical. In a military organization, a senior officer is responsible for the actions of subordinates. This quote would imply that the soldiers were on orders to carry out attrocities, but Yamashita was unable to revoke them.
See Also section 'Yamashita's Gold
Yamashita’s Gold is based around an urban legend in the Philippines. There should be more text written in this article if urban legends are to be included. “See Also” is misleading and vague. Jim (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Changed 'See Also' section to Urban Legends and Myths Named After Tomoyuki Yamashita Jim 15:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- If there is no need for "non neutral link in this article", why is it here. "See Also" is very vague description when used in a biography and leads to such a controversial article with no support structure. The sub-section title should have a brief description as to the contents it is referencing to in this case. Jim 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Removed "Last Words" section
- I've restored the text. I could imagine deleting it on the grounds of WP:COPYVIO since the purported author (Yamashita) has only been dead 63 years. Alternatively, we could consider summarizing it as makes the article look a bit like a WP:QUOTEFARM. However, I would think that "Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus" is a reliable source. The author of the "editorial" is Yuki Tanaka who is described as a "research professor at the Hiroshima Peace Institute, a Coordinator of Japan Focus, and author of Japan's Comfort Women. Sexual slavery and prostitution during World War II and the US Occupation." This is not a "self-published" website and thus differs from the kinds of websites considered to be unreliable according to WP:RS. --Richard (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed the text. With all due respect, the opinions of what Yamashita "thought" by this author is his original research. The last line "These are the last words of the person who took your children's lives away from you" shows beyond a doubt the material is not neutral. Jim (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Added later: Anybody can submit an article with an agenda (positive/negative) to a website and have it posted. The internet is slap full of these opinionated editorials. That does not make them historically correct.
The material used in the biography of Yamashita is being challenged as historically correct. The material appears to be the personal opinion of the author, and has not been subjected to any peer-review or any other rigorous requirements to meet the qualifications of being encyclopedic. Jim (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Jim, just to make sure that we are on the same sheet of music...
- Are you aware that the text in question is Yuki Tanaka's summary of Yamashita's "last words" as dictated to a Buddhist prison chaplain a few days before his execution? In effect, the "last words" constitute Yamashita's formal "spiritual last will and testament". The article may be an opinionated piece that you disagree with. That doesn't mean that it isn't scholarly. Contrary to your aspersions about the nature of the "website", the "Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus" appears to be a scholarly, peer-reviewed electronic journals (see this page). As mentioned above, Tanaka is a research professor at the Hiroshima Peace Institute. Here is an article by him on the same topic as published in the Hiroshima Research News, a publication of the Hiroshima Peace Institute.
- By presenting Tanaka's analysis of Yamashita's "last words", we are not asserting Tanaka's opinions as fact nor are we asserting Yamashita's words as "true" (see WP:TRUTH). What we are asserting as true is the fact that Yamashita said those words.
- Do you have reaason to challenge the fact that Yamashita said the quoted words? Do you have reason to challenge the accuracy of Tanaka's summary of those words?
- (written afterwards) If you do, please present those reasons for discussion.
- JimBobUSA wrote "The last line "These are the last words of the person who took your children's lives away from you" shows beyond a doubt the material is not neutral."
- The material doesn't have to be neutral. We are reporting what Yamashita said to the Buddhist prison chaplain. It's Yamashita's POV. It is acceptable to report a POV just as we would if we were to quote Hitler or Stalin. It is a fact that Hitler said certain things and Stalin said certain things. We don't have to agree with those things and NPOV does not require that we omit those statements. NPOV requires that we not assert those POV statements as fact. Consult WP:NPOV to understand the difference between an article maintaining NPOV and an article reporting about a particular POV.
- Also, consider this. What Yamashita is saying is "It is my fault that so many Japanese soldiers died. I, as their general, apologize to you, their parents, for their deaths." Now, this is admittedly a very unlikely thing for a Western general to say but it is quite in keeping with Japanese culture for a Japanese general to say. It is perhaps a bit unusual for a Japanese militarist to say but perhaps Yamashita was an exception (i.e. a general who was not a rabid militarist). This is the point that Tanaka is making about Yamashita.
- If you think that Tanaka's exposition of Yamashita's "last words" takes too many liberties and misinterprets or misrepresents Yamashita's meaning, then present your case and let's consider how far off Tanaka is.
Greetings Richard. Evidently, there is some documentation (somewhere) that Yamashita dictated something to a Buddhist Chaplain right before his execution. That material has not been sourced. Is it a fact Yamashita made those, or any quotes to a Buddhist Chaplin?
Did Yamashita really discuss nuclear weapons with the Buddhist Chaplin right before his execution? Did General Yamashita actually make this quote, right before his death: “only method to defend ourselves against atomic bombs” is “to establish nations all over the world that would never contemplate the use of such weapons.”
Attribute the text and source the facts.
I could continue with other unrealistic points of views this article brings up, or various other portions where the author speaks for Yamashita, and not quoting Yamashita. It is an editorial*, until references supporting the opinion(s) can be supplied.
- * An article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers.
- Hi Jim,
- I confess that, after a bit of Googling last night, I now share some of the same suspicions that you raised. Yamashita was executed only six months after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For him to have developed a sophisticated response to those events is certainly a bit incredulous.
- It's also a bit suspicious that Tanaka is the only who has reported the purported last words of Yamashita to the Buddhist chaplain Morita Shokaku. There is only one other source that references these "last words" as reported by Tanaka and the rest of the web appears to be silent on this topic.
- I will try to see if other Wikipedians with more knowledge of this topic can help but, like you, I begin to smell a fraud. Without committing myself one way or the other, I am willing to leave the "last words" out until we can find better sourcing for them.
Thanks for your attention on this matter. I think the “last words” in the article now gives us a glimpse into the soul of Yamashita. I do not think we need to add more, do we? I would also like to review the source or reference that notes General Yamashita “burst into tears” when Percival refused to shake his hand.
I discovered that the title "Harimau Malaya" or "The Tiger of Malaya" could actually belong to another person by the name of Tani Yutaka. I am currently doing a research on it. Shahrulazwad (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Enduring Legal Legacy Edit/Deletion
I deleted the last paragraph because it was clearly a speculative, unsupported and unattributed opinion of the author that seemed to be of a political nature.--220.127.116.11--A. Renner (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Kwantung Army posting
"but he was ignored and subsequently assigned to an unimportant post in the Kwantung Army" seems a mischaracterization. The Japanese Army did not give up the idea that Russia was the real enemy until 1943 or later. An army command in Manchuria would have been considered a rather important posting, albeit one not engaged in active combat at the time. --Yaush (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)