This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to
participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project, participate in
relevant discussions, and see
lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 04:43, July 12, 2024 (
JST,
Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
CIA activities in Japan is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
espionage,
intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, or contribute to the
discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
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)reply
@
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 University3. 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
FOIAdocument 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.
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)reply
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.