Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:16, 14 July 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Maritime / Asian / Japanese 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 This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force Asian military history task force Japanese military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Japan This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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: 09:49, December 28, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

Article name

This article needs to be renamed. This is not a destroyer. It is the size of one but it is a carrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.194.76 (talk) 18:56, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

While this ship is for all points and purposes a carrier, she is officially named a destroyer and the title should remain as such. That said, the meat of the article could explain it (along with comparisons to the British "through-deck cruisers" made famous in the Faklands War) Phongn 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Those same 'though-deck cruisers' now have an article at Invincible class aircraft carrier. I do not think your argument, er, holds water. This article should be at Hyuga class aircraft carrier. Buckshot06 14:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The name helicopter destroyer is certainly misleading, as that would mean a ship designed to destroy helicopters. Its rather a helicopter-carrying destroyer. 85.176.75.92 (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• For comparison the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov was classified as "Heavy Aircraft-Carrying Cruisers" in order to circumvent a treaty that prohibits aircraft carriers from circumventing the Dardanelles or Bosporus strait between the Black sea and the Mediterranean. Despite this, its classification in the West is as an aircraft carrier, because that is what it really and explicitly is. The Hyuga is a helicopter carrier like the British Ocean class (it does not deploy fixed wing aircraft so it is not an aircraft carrier,) that was termed a helicopter destroyer so as to be politically aceptable to a nation prohibited to possess offensive weapons. As was done on the Kuznetsov article, the politically expedient name should be set aside for the name that reflects the true nature and role of the ship, Hyuga Class Helicopter Carrier. F-451 (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This ship is certainly not an "aircraft carrier", else the USN's LHAs and LHDs would not be called amphibious assault ships but aircraft carriers. Helicopter carrier is a bit vague, while ASW carrier is probably closer to its mission. However, are the helicopters this ship's primary asset, or does it have most of the other equipment such as fitted to ASW destroyers, in addition to the large flight deck? The article doesn't answer this question, nor did the Global Security.org page. Until we answer that question adequately, with reliable sources, we really can't say what name is best, other than the one assigned to it, DDH (helicopter destroyer, or helicopter-carrying destroyer if your mind can't fill in the right info on its own.) - BillCJ (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ASW carrier, the term matches the design and purpose the best, assuming we can find adequate sources to justify parting with the politically expedient name. F-451 (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur. - BillCJ (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No speculation please

Don't flood the lead section about stuff military geeks have been chatting about on forums. Keep to what we know and what is relevant. If the Japanese government talks about changing its use, no problem. However rumours and gossip don't lead to good content. John Smith's (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever

Aircraft carrierA credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
This article cites no specific sources, and yet it is entirely credible as written. One short sentence has been added -- one fact only; and this plausibly controversial assertion is supported by a citation from a undisputed source. In my view, this makes the edit somewhat resistant to easy deletion. --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Responding to 2nd deletion of the same sentence, the edit summary which explained the restoration was this: "in article without sources, deleting the sole citation-supported sentence is untenable" .... In my view, two issues are crucial:

• 1. In my view, neither well-informed POV nor reasonable consensus amongst a limited number of editors is plausibly sufficient to trump a credibly sourced sentence. If not, why not?
• 2. The exchange-of-views on this page focuses on demonstrably germane issues, but each contributor overlooks crucial factors which are conventionally outside-the-box in an analysis which parses engineering specs, functional prospects, etc. If outside-the-box, why?

Without more, BillCJ's empty gesture becomes a slender reed. --Tenmei (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a website decribing a TV documentary is a reliable source on this topic either. Jane's calls the ships helicopter carriers. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur, Nick, and that was my rationale behind removing the cited material. Calling the class "aircraft carriers" with no further qualifications, right after the text makes clear they aren't "aircraft carriers" in the usual sense, would be confusing to readers. Also, putting a analysis sentence like that in the Lead is not necessarily the best place for it either. Note: My non-WP life intervened, preventing me from addessing this earlier. Also, I should have place the removed info here on the talk page when I removed it, as per MOS, but didn't think of it at the time. Sorry for that lapse, but I stand by my removals. - BillCJ (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted summarily by BillCJ:

The following was posted on BillCJ's talk page. His seeming knee-jerk reaction was to delete my modest inquiry with a terse edit summary: "Clean-up - you are a liar, I left NO blank reverts, and I will not engage in a bad-faith confrontational discussion" ....

The text which seemingly caused offense is this:

BillCJ -- As you know, in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, you've reverted twice without engaging in any discussion. If an unwelcome "edit-war" were to be defined by three blank reverts like yours, then we would be facing a dilemma for which you alone are responsible. I would have thought that a less confrontational strategy would have seemed like a good idea? There are any number of plausible reasons for questioning this single sentence from this article, but you have articulated none save arguably some kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Why is that?

In an article with no citation of sources, I wonder how you justify removing the sole sentence which is actually supported by a credible in-line citation? --Tenmei (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the article's edit history, Bill has reverted you twice, and explained his reason why each time in his edit summary so I don't understand why you're accusing him of "blank reverts" or referring to "three blank reverts like yours" - the first claim is not true and there's no need to warn him about hitting 3 reverts as he's only up to 2 (the same number as you). He's also apologised for not discussing the changes on this talk page, so why are you rehashing this here? (according to WP:TALK it's perfectly fine to remove stuff from your own talk page). I'm also not sure why you keep saying that the article is unreferenced given that it includes links to Globalsecurity.org and other reliable websites. Inline citations would be better, but these are an OK minimum. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

These are straightforward, easily clarified matters:

1. ASSUME GOOD FAITH -- always a good tactic

2. "Blank revert" = non-responsive & unsupported by any demonstrable effort to meet burdens of proof or persuasion which address issues as framed -- a confusing strategy

3. Apologia = non-responsive & also a gambit for re-framing issues so as moot further discussion -- an unhelpful tactic

4. Exterior links ≠ reference source citation

Perhaps this note will have been perceived as too terse, but there you have it. Frankly, I've already invested too much time in pointless prose with nothing worthwhile to show for it.

In a dispute in which one side offers a specific, linked citation to support an edit, and an disconsolate, non-specific complainer merely asserts "bad faith" in lieu of actually citing any contradictory sources, it becomes difficult to divine a more constructive path forward. --Tenmei (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

TWO SIGNIFICANT POINTS
In the barking prose above, I have highlighted only two segments with green-colored BOLD font emphasis:

• ... "in article without sources, deleting the sole citation-supported sentence is untenable" ....

• ... Exterior links ≠ reference source citation ....

This is going nowhere unless and until these legitimate a priori concerns are addressed. Then, maybe, we can begin to move forward constructively. If this appears to represent a perceived obstacle, Misplaced Pages has a range of methods in place for dealing with otherwise intractable disputes. In this context, perhaps it's time to consider seeking mediation or some other intervention. -- Tenmei (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial sentence

This edit was controversial -- not for any reason articulated above, but nevertheless suspect for a number of eminently valid, important, and arguable factors I expected to discuss here with interested, thoughtful and better-informed editors than me. That hasn't happened yet, but I have no doubt that it will. Moreover, this essential dispute would have arisen in due course without my input. This was and remains the gravamen of my carefully considered decision to post one sentence and one sentence only as a crisp addition to this article's content.

However, the exchange which has played out above never reached this high ground. Instead, I found that I'm forced to argue -- in words demonstrably consistent with Assume good faith -- that BillCJ and Nick Dowling seem to insist that the beginning and end of all issues to do with JDS Hyūga lies in maritime architecture.

Perhaps the following outline from Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution can assist us in moving forward:

• 1 Focus on content
• 2 Stay cool
• 3 Discussing with the other party
• 4 Truce <========== Easily achievable?
• 5 Turn to others for help
  • 5.1 Editor assistance
  • 5.2 Ask for a third opinion
  • 5.3 Ask about the subject
  • 5.4 Ask about a policy <========== A good strategic gesture?
  • 5.5 Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard
  • 5.6 For incivility
  • 5.7 Request a comment
  • 5.8 Informal mediation
  • 5.9 Formal mediation
  • 5.10 Conduct a survey
• 6 If the situation is urgent <========== Not relevant?
• 7 Last resort: Arbitration

A priori, I'm persuaded that the appropriate course for me to try now is to dig in my heels on what seems to me a matter of fundamental Misplaced Pages policy:

• A. Exterior links are not the scholarly equivalent of in-line citations or reference source citations. .... Yes? No?
• I note that Nick Dowling asserts: "I'm also not sure why you keep saying that the article is unreferenced given that it includes links to Globalsecurity.org and other reliable websites. Inline citations would be better, but these are an OK minimum. (emphasis added) I can't see how this position withstands casual scrutiny; but that having been said, I'm expressing myself in non-confrontational terms when I state modestly that deleting the sole citation-supported sentence is untenable" .... Yes? No?

I'm not just looking for us to reach some kind of agreement here as a foundation from which to move forward. I'd really appreciate some suggestions about how this could have been handled differently?

To restate the issues as I parse them: We're mired in a conflict which pits someone with a sentence supported by a cited, competent source trying to push beyond what are, as articulated thus far, naught but the result of "original research" or un-"verifiable" personal opinions -- albeit well-informed, on-topic and understandable opinions. Expressed in these stark terms, can you begin to see how I might feel unmoved, adamant and puzzled? --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is basically a discussion over the relative merits of references.

No -- with all due respect: wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The website supporting the PBS documentary is, simply put, not a good reference. PBS is not an authority on ship classifications and it does not cite any sources which support this classification.

No -- with all due respect: we're not here yet --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jane's Fighting Ships is often considered the best reference on warship classifications and statistics, and it states that these ships are helicopter carriers.

No -- with all due respect: potentially valid, but unavailing --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The very reliable Globalsecurity.org discusses the ships' classification and concludes that while they are "similar in design to a small aircraft carrier" and the 'destroyer' classification is a bit dubious it ends up consistently labeling them "helicopter-carrying destroyers".

No -- with all due respect: potentially valid, but unavailing --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

These references have been mentioned earlier, so I don't understand why you are accusing Bill and I of ""original research" or un-"verifiable" personal opinions". Nick Dowling (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No -- with all due respect: wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1. Please see Citation.
• 2. Please see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources.
• 3. Please see Misplaced Pages:No original research.
• 4. Please see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Nick Dowling -- No -- with all due respect: My responses to your sentences are folded into your text so as to be emphatic and clear. Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive. I've replied No ad nauseam to each distinct element of your paragraph posting -- not because I want to be difficult, but rather because of the depth of disagreement you've compelled me to parse again and again and again. Frankly, with this last bit of writing, you've dug yourself into a nearly impossible-to-imagine hole; and I just don't know how else I can more strongly encourage you to stop digging, please. --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider:

• Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever. --Tenmei (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever --Tenmei (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure based on the lengthy talk page posts and edit summaries, could someone clarify some issues here on what exactly is disputed

• Is it over whether the ship constitutes (a) "aircraft carrier", or (b) a "helicopter-carrying destroyer, similar in design to a small aircraft carrier"(globalsecurity.org)?
• Is it over whether the ship (a)constitutes a true aircraft carrier, and (b) constitutes the "first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War"? Or just a?
• Is the dispute also over whether it is not called a helicopter destroyer versus aircraft carrier for political and not solely technical reasons? If it is simply a dispute as to whether Global Security and Jane's classification of the ship as a helicopter carrier come from a more reliable source, at least in terms of technical details than the PBS documentary, I tend to favor the global security and Jane's sources in this respect. But I didn't get through watching the full video on PBS site. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Tenmei wants to include text stating that the ship is an aircraft carrier, with a reference back to a PBS website. The diff in question is . Bill has reverted this twice as it's not correct and has been discussed before (see above). I've provided two references to highly reliable sources which state that these ships aren't aircraft carriers (Jane's Fighting Ships a gold standard for ship statistics and classifications). My one paragraph response to Tenmei's offer to discuss this was much shorter and easier to read when I posted it and before Tenmei dissected it... Nick Dowling (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Nick Dowling frames a issue which might have been posed by someone else at some other time. His summary is not a fair characterization of the issues at hand or the questions raised. --Tenmei (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain your concern then? If this isn't a discussion about the reliability of different references, what is it? Nick Dowling (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I see. In the context Nick Dowling creates, the question above is disingenuous, disquieting in causing offense -- a bad faith gesture which heedlessly diminishes credibility.

The otherwise unremarkable note below clarifies the gambit and the context, but candidly does nothing to demonstrate any willingness to grapple with the issues on this page. --Tenmei (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I've sought comments at WP:SHIP and on the Japanese and maritime history task forces of the Military History wikiprojects. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that you've sought comments on this dispute on three different policy noticeboards, it was appropriate to also notify the relevant Wikiprojects. I genuinely don't understand what your concern is if it isn't the reliability of the references and I would appreciate it if you could explain this. Please note that I've now cited the entire article using the external links and am removing the refimprove tag. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --Tenmei (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Tenmei, please stop commenting on the editor, instead of the issue. There is no need to make allegations that Nick Dowling is intentionally mischaracterizing the issue to an uninvolved editor; if you disagree with his interpretation, simply give your own. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Parsecboy -- Your words will do nicely. Your words capture my thought precisely: "intentionally mischaracterizing the issues." Thanks. Not to put too fine a point on it, yes -- disingenuous is a polite word which implies more left unsaid in an effort to maintain a mild tone. --Tenmei (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Parsecboy -- Please, I encourage you to review the timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record. Some questions are disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of Nick Dowling's credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• 06:00, 13 July 2008 -- NPOV at Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
• 06:32, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling posts link to NPOV restatement -- see text below.
• 06:56, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 1st "disingenuous" question
• 10:57, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei points to ND's "diminished credibility"
• 11:14, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 2nd "disingenuous" question
• 12:17, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei crosses out "with all due respect"
• 13:09, 13 July 2008 -- Parsecboy's negative spin on T's "allegations"

I don't read what Nick Dowling has stated anywhere on this page at all as disingenuous. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself on the contents of WP:AGF; not everyone who disagrees with you is doing so with ill-intent. It is wrong to assume as much, and doesn't do anything towards creating an amicable work environment on Wiki, which is the whole point of policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. He made a legitimate comment on what appears to be a central issue of this debate: whether news media are acceptable sources for technical details like into what category does this class fall? Parsecboy (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider Tenmei's above comments on me to be both uncivil and offensive and request that they cease. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reaching threshold of an NPOV dispute

Initially, I posted a single sentence addition to Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. I believed the edit would be seen as politically controversial in the context of an on-going debate within Japan about whether to amend the legally mandated anti-militarism in Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. The in-line citation accompanying this short sentence was and continued to be the only source cited in this article until a short while ago.

"‎The JDS Hyūga is the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War."

I identify a NPOV controversy affecting any version of the article without this short sentence or something like it, but a quick review of Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever reveals that I'm met a great deal of resistance which effectively barred my arriving at the threshold of the discussion I had intended to elicit.

For the purposes of this tentative analysis, please assume that the following excerpt from a Council on Foreign Relations summary has accurately interpreted the ambit of the Japanese Constitution as it relates to this subject:

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class maritime warfare articles
• Maritime warfare task force articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Japanese military history articles
• Japanese military history task force articles
• Start-Class Ships articles
• All WikiProject Ships pages
• Stub-Class Japan-related articles
• Unknown-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles