Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎RESET: link to "List of combatant ship classes of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force"
→‎Hyūga an aircraft carrier?: why not join in consensus-building?
Line 235: Line 235:


:As there seems to be a consensus I've added the text to the article. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 07:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:As there seems to be a consensus I've added the text to the article. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 07:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

::::'''Invitation to participate in creating compromise text'''<br>
::::To his credit, [[User:Bellhalla|Bellhalla]] encouraged my participation in this exchange of views. The following invitation was initially posted at [[User Talk:Tenmei]]. I hope my purposely delayed reply will be seen as useful:

:::::[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] -- Have you read the proposed paragraph about the class description of [[Hyūga class helicopter destroyer|''Hyūga'' class helicopter destroyer]]? I believe that it covers all viewpoints and is a good compromise and supported by appropriate references. Take a look at it [[Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Hyūga an aircraft carrier?|here]]. Your comments, especially, are welcome. — [[User:Bellhalla|Bellhalla]] ([[User talk:Bellhalla|talk]]) 13:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::[[User:Bellhalla|Bellhalla]] -- When I initiated this dispute, I anticipated that it would lead to something like the work you've done here. I don't know what to make of the fact that it required your unique intervention to move towards this cooperative, consensus-building teamwork. In this, my reactions were something like [[confused]] + [[annoyed]] = ''puzzled''? Although I don't know the original context for the following quotation, a friend of mine often repeats it:
::::::<center> "Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."</center>
::::::<center> -- [[Edward R. Murrow]], 1908-1965 (American journalist)</center>
::::::As relates to JDS ''Hyūga'', I do understand the situation well enough; and I remain slightly confused, somewhat annoyed and more-than-a-little-bit puzzled at the same time.

::::::Do I need to acknowledge that, absent your posting, an essential element of encyclopedic content would not have been added in mid-2008, maybe not before Spring 2009? If this were correct, why? That unanswerable question seems worth pondering.

::::::Re-stating and re-focusing this point somewhat differently: I'm inclined to think that anything to do with these issues would <u>not</u> have been addressed at this time -- in mid-2008 -- if I hadn't pushed hard against [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]]'s unexplained resistance. Why was there such an intense, reflexive rejection? Why was the antipathy so persistent and so overwhelming? These related questions seem worth further consideration.

::::::Among the points which continue to trouble me about your not-to-be-undervalued success is the very word "compromise" -- a perfectly good word to use when working collectively and an essential, irreducible concept in coming to understand anything to do with Japan and the Japanese. In part, I begin by focusing on this one word because it seems evident that, in the future, I need to re-configure my own approach to similar obstacles by making an effort to mirror yours more closely. Quite simply, something about your manner of going about things worked well in this setting and mine did not work as well as I'd have liked.

::::::That being said, I'm a little dismayed to admit that I worry about the foundation of implicit give-and-take which was such an easily identifiable element in your consensus-building work. I wonder if I'm correct in fussing about whether you and your colleagues were too ready to accept the flawed premise which [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] asserts with near-religious fervour. Dowling's seeming reliance on ''Jane's Fighting Ships'' as "the gold standard" against which all else must measured becomes too narrow, too cramped, too restrictive. The premise itself bars nuance, which represents a problem to the extent that any Wikipedia article needs to differ from its corollary entry in ''Jane's.'' Do you see my point?

::::::It may be perceived as muddying the clarity of my argument, but the fact-of-the-matter is that this criticism of what I take to be [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]]'s point-of-view applies only to our consideration of this one ship class article (which effectively focuses on the as-yet-uncommissioned JDS ''Hyūga'') and <u>not</u> to a review of Wikipedia articles about any other vessel in the [[List of combatant ship classes of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force|JMSDF fleet]].

::::::Whether I point it out or not, the fact-of-the-matter is that some essential aspects of the ultimate Wikipedia article about JDS ''Hyūga'' cannot be devolved into issues of nautical terminology, maritime conventions, naval architecture, etc., which is not to say that I'm failing to recognize that ''Jane's'' describes "the depth and breadth of information cover[ing] construction and modernisation programmes, displacement and dimensions, main machinery, speed and range, weapons systems and sensors, etc.,"<ref>[http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jfs/jfs_5730.html "Hyūga class (CVHG) (Japan),"] ''Jane's Fighting Ships,'' 2008.</ref>

::::::I didn't join your working group because I couldn't figure out how to ameliorate what I see as probable consequences beyond those you intend. Expressed somewhat harshly, I didn't join this consensus-building group because it seems to me that your collective work was somewhat blindered -- wrongly focused. The group was using good tools for arriving at valid answers to meaningful questions -- yes, but [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]]'s leadership qualities seemed to ensure that the group would also assent in wrongly construing their successes as sufficient cause for excluding other valid, meaningful and as-yet-unexamined issues.

::::::Given the momentum which demonstrably affected the workings of the consensus-building group you formed, I judged the only course available was to stand aside as the process flowed towards its inevitable conclusions. Then, with the consensus-driven text as a foundation from which to build, I could attempt a "reset" in a calmer, less heedlessly confrontational context. Although I'm generally risk-averse, I gambled that some arguments are best engaged indirectly ..., but of course, the consequences were also to be influenced by fallible good luck. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 20:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


==RESET==
==RESET==

Revision as of 20:33, 21 July 2008

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Concur. - BillCJ (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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, Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

Please consider:


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)[reply]
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 [1]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Turning lemons into lemonade

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Tenmei, I consider your above comments on me to be both uncivil and offensive and request that they cease. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncivil and offensive are here converted into badges of honor --Tenmei (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tenmei, you are behaving in a manner that is exceedingly disappointing. If you disagree with something Nick Dowling or anyone else has said, please present a differing perspective, and/or a different proposal. As far as I can tell, you haven't actually said anything related to the discussion in the past day, since several outside editors (myself included) have arrived on the page. Instead, you have continually impugned the actions and motives of Nick, which isn't helpful in the slightest. Let me again stress the importance of WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY.
There is currently a proposal at the bottom of the page that addresses the issue; why don't you participate in the discussion? Surely you have an opinion on the merits of the wording. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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."[1]

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:

  • "Japan is already one of the world's largest spenders on national defense, and the Japanese Self Defense Force (JSDF) is a robust force, though expenditures are narrowly targeted and essentially protective — they include no long-range bombers or missiles, no aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines."[2]
  • "The JSDF's naval forces are not allowed to have nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers, which are considered "offensive weaponry."[2]

As many will know, the English Wikipedia generally follows the Japanese Wikipedia in matters of style and substance; however, this is one of the very rare instances in which we confront an odd exception. In the context established by what I've encountered in the talk page venue, I don't see how a nuanced discussion about POV will become possible without a foundation which encompasses agreement about Citation, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Plainly, I've not started off well; but there you have it. It was the best I could do for now.

Questions I'm asking myself are these: What could I have done differently? How can I learn from my mistakes so that I'll have a better chance moving forward constructively as the more difficult aspects of this issue come to the fore? --Tenmei (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes:

1 PBS/WNET, NYC: "Japan's About-Face: The military's shifting role in post-war society." July 8, 2008.
2 Teslik, Lee Hudson. "Backgrounder; Japan and Its Military," Council on Foreign Relations. April 13, 2006.

Forgive me for what may be an oversimplistic view of this content dispute, but the mediation committee posting drew my attention and as far as I can see there's absolutely no reason why a sentence couldn't be included which makes evident the clouded nature of this vessel's classification: could it not simply be said that "The Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has variously been described as an aircraft carrier (insert ref) and also a destroyer (insert ref)." I really fail to see the furore which this dispute seems to have garnered over something about which a compromise could be reached so easily. ColdmachineTalk 13:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coldmachine -- It appears that my serial attempts to invite helpful intervention have produced zero effect.
Initially, I sought mediation for a variety of reasons, not least of which was because Nick Dowling persists in framing sham "queries" in which any "answer" becomes irretrievably confined within the terms of narrowing premises -- a pernicious variation on the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. This sly straw man gambit has rhetorical appeal, but it unfolds with insidious consequences below.
In circumstances other than this one, a demand for Formal Mediation would have seemed odd. When I caused this dispute by merely adding one sentence only, I anticipated a controversy different than the one Nick Dowling has engineered. --Tenmei (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibious warfare ship?

I've just removed the class from the amphibious warfare ship class category as there's no evidence that they're anything other than ASW ships. The ships do not appear to have the ability to embark large numbers of troops and their equipment as is required for the amphibious role, and none of the references states that they do more than ressemble amphibious warfare ships. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, perhaps someone confused this class with the Ōsumi class LST. Btw, the second paragraph there is interesting:
The class could well be described as helicopter carriers. Globalsecurity.org notes that "the program originated in a proposal for a small carrier for defensive and mine countermeasures (MCM) purposes, but this was deemed politically unacceptable, and the project was reworked as an amphibious ship". The Ōsumi class has a through-deck design to maximise potential space for launching and retrieving its helicopter complement. As a result it resembles a light aircraft carrier. However, The Japanese MSDF does not currently claim any plans to fit them with a ski-jump or other equipment necessary to operate fixed-wing aircraft. Even if so equipped it would be the smallest fixed wing capable aircraft carrier in the world lighter than even the Thai Chakri Naruebet which weighs in at 10,000 tonnes.
So, referring to the discussion above about the Hyūga, if one calls that ship an "aircraft carrier" without any qualifications, one would also have to call the Osumi class aircraft carriers, and thus the Hyūga is not "the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War." Interesting, huh? I don't know where that fis in the proverbial "box", though! - BillCJ (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyūga an aircraft carrier?

Not wishing to interject myself into the lengthy discussion above, I will list—without commenting—sources that refer to the Hyūga an "aircraft carrier":

  • Herman, Arthur (2007-09-09). "Pacific armadas: growing Far East navies mean new challenges for U.S." New York Post. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  • Shaplen, Jason T. (2007-12-31). "Washington's Eastern Sunset". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-07-13. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • "Japan's About-Face". Wide Angle. Season 7. Episode 2. 2008-07-08. 40:04 minutes in. PBS. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

— Bellhalla (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, news media are not very good sources for establishing ship classifications. They tend to stick to categories they think their readers understand, and are prone to exaggeration. The Land (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but it is notable, certainly, that three different news organizations have called it flat out an aircraft carrier. At the least, it bears mentioning in a section about the purpose of the class. On the other hand, don't we as Wikipedia, try to cater to readers as well? I don't honestly believe that the article should be named Hyūga-class aircraft carrier, but it warrants mention, as well as perhaps a redirect from that name. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I want to add that the policy is verifiability, not necessarily truth. All three sources meet the WP:RS standard. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree that some text about the ships sometimes being called aircraft carriers would be appropriate. It's also important to note that they are not aircraft carriers as they are (at least currently) incapable of safely operating fixed-wing aircraft and are not labeled as such by the relevant experts - the Globalsecurity and Chosun Ilbo discuss this and Jane's Fighting Ships calls them helicopter destroyers and states that they can't operate VSTOL aircraft. I'll draft a para and post it here for comments. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OK, here's some wording which seeks to cover all the different sources:
The Japanese Government's classification of this class as destroyers has been met with some criticism. As the ships are larger than any previous destroyers and have a full-length flight deck and relatively large air wing, they have been compared to light aircraft carriers.[3] Some media reports have labeled the ships aircraft carriers and it has been suggested that they represent an attempt by Japan to revive its naval aviation capabilities.[4][5] The ships are not currently capable of operating fixed-wing aircraft, however, as they are not fitted with a ski-jump and other equipment needed to operate aircraft other than helicopters.[6][7] Jane's Fighting Ships has classified the Hyūga class as helicopter carriers[8] and GlobalSecurity.org states that they are helicopter destroyers.[3]
  1. ^ PBS/WNET, NYC: "Japan's About-Face: The military's shifting role in post-war society." July 8, 2008.
  2. ^ a b Teslik, Lee Hudson. "Backgrounder; Japan and Its Military," Council on Foreign Relations. April 13, 2006. Cite error: The named reference "cfr1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b "16DDH "13,500 ton" ton Class". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  4. ^ Herman, Arthur (2007-09-09). "Pacific armadas: growing Far East navies mean new challenges for U.S." Opinion. New York Post. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  5. ^ "Japan's About-Face". Wide Angle. Season 7. Episode 2. 2008-07-08. 40:04 minutes in. PBS. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Yong-weon, Yu (2007-08-27). "After 40 Years, Japan Achieves Warship Dream". Columns. Chosun Ilbo. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
  7. ^ Saunders, Stephen (editor) (2007). Jane's Fighting Ships Vol. 110, 2007-2008. Coulsdon: Jane’s Information Group. pp. p.401. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  8. ^ "Hyuga class (CVHG) (Japan), Helicopter Destroyers". Jane's Fighting Ships (online extract). Jane's Information Group. 2008-03-14. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
Thoughts? Nick Dowling (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks sensible to me. The Land (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, though no doubt minor tweaks could be made. I'm not sure whether you're aiming for understatement Nick but these Japanese type designations - 'Landing Ship Tank' for the Osumis and 'Destroyer, Helicopter' for the Hyugas are really polite no-more-than euphemisms. I think we'd be more accurate in saying 'has been met with some criticism,' rather than 'not been universally accepted.' Disagreement welcome. Buckshot06(prof) 09:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse also, as it covers all bases. I think we could add the PBS ref in with the NY Post cite, and perhaps 1 or 2 others, to provide a range of sources that call the class carriers. I'd also support the "criticism" statement by Buck. - BillCJ (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Buckshot's post - my wording was too weak. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse also, although I'd prefer the opening sentence to read "While the Japanese government has classed this vessel as a destroyer (refs) it has also been described as a light aircraft carrier etc. etc. etc. (refs)."

Seems fine to me. I also agree with Buckshot's comment about wording. Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great compromise wording. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amended the wording above as per the discussion - further thoughts welcome. Buckshot06(prof) 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As there seems to be a consensus I've added the text to the article. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in creating compromise text
To his credit, Bellhalla encouraged my participation in this exchange of views. The following invitation was initially posted at User Talk:Tenmei. I hope my purposely delayed reply will be seen as useful:
Tenmei -- Have you read the proposed paragraph about the class description of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer? I believe that it covers all viewpoints and is a good compromise and supported by appropriate references. Take a look at it here. Your comments, especially, are welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bellhalla -- When I initiated this dispute, I anticipated that it would lead to something like the work you've done here. I don't know what to make of the fact that it required your unique intervention to move towards this cooperative, consensus-building teamwork. In this, my reactions were something like confused + annoyed = puzzled? Although I don't know the original context for the following quotation, a friend of mine often repeats it:
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."
-- Edward R. Murrow, 1908-1965 (American journalist)
As relates to JDS Hyūga, I do understand the situation well enough; and I remain slightly confused, somewhat annoyed and more-than-a-little-bit puzzled at the same time.
Do I need to acknowledge that, absent your posting, an essential element of encyclopedic content would not have been added in mid-2008, maybe not before Spring 2009? If this were correct, why? That unanswerable question seems worth pondering.
Re-stating and re-focusing this point somewhat differently: I'm inclined to think that anything to do with these issues would not have been addressed at this time -- in mid-2008 -- if I hadn't pushed hard against Nick Dowling's unexplained resistance. Why was there such an intense, reflexive rejection? Why was the antipathy so persistent and so overwhelming? These related questions seem worth further consideration.
Among the points which continue to trouble me about your not-to-be-undervalued success is the very word "compromise" -- a perfectly good word to use when working collectively and an essential, irreducible concept in coming to understand anything to do with Japan and the Japanese. In part, I begin by focusing on this one word because it seems evident that, in the future, I need to re-configure my own approach to similar obstacles by making an effort to mirror yours more closely. Quite simply, something about your manner of going about things worked well in this setting and mine did not work as well as I'd have liked.
That being said, I'm a little dismayed to admit that I worry about the foundation of implicit give-and-take which was such an easily identifiable element in your consensus-building work. I wonder if I'm correct in fussing about whether you and your colleagues were too ready to accept the flawed premise which Nick Dowling asserts with near-religious fervour. Dowling's seeming reliance on Jane's Fighting Ships as "the gold standard" against which all else must measured becomes too narrow, too cramped, too restrictive. The premise itself bars nuance, which represents a problem to the extent that any Wikipedia article needs to differ from its corollary entry in Jane's. Do you see my point?
It may be perceived as muddying the clarity of my argument, but the fact-of-the-matter is that this criticism of what I take to be Nick Dowling's point-of-view applies only to our consideration of this one ship class article (which effectively focuses on the as-yet-uncommissioned JDS Hyūga) and not to a review of Wikipedia articles about any other vessel in the JMSDF fleet.
Whether I point it out or not, the fact-of-the-matter is that some essential aspects of the ultimate Wikipedia article about JDS Hyūga cannot be devolved into issues of nautical terminology, maritime conventions, naval architecture, etc., which is not to say that I'm failing to recognize that Jane's describes "the depth and breadth of information cover[ing] construction and modernisation programmes, displacement and dimensions, main machinery, speed and range, weapons systems and sensors, etc.,"[1]
I didn't join your working group because I couldn't figure out how to ameliorate what I see as probable consequences beyond those you intend. Expressed somewhat harshly, I didn't join this consensus-building group because it seems to me that your collective work was somewhat blindered -- wrongly focused. The group was using good tools for arriving at valid answers to meaningful questions -- yes, but Nick Dowling's leadership qualities seemed to ensure that the group would also assent in wrongly construing their successes as sufficient cause for excluding other valid, meaningful and as-yet-unexamined issues.
Given the momentum which demonstrably affected the workings of the consensus-building group you formed, I judged the only course available was to stand aside as the process flowed towards its inevitable conclusions. Then, with the consensus-driven text as a foundation from which to build, I could attempt a "reset" in a calmer, less heedlessly confrontational context. Although I'm generally risk-averse, I gambled that some arguments are best engaged indirectly ..., but of course, the consequences were also to be influenced by fallible good luck. --Tenmei (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESET

This is a reset -- a rejoinder following the thwarted initial effort to address unresolved problems in this article consistent with NPOV guidelines.

The exchange of views above, while satisfying in its own terms, does nothing to address the still-remaining issues which Nick Dowling sought with some success to deflect. Reframing questions in which the scope of "answers" are limited by factors implicit in the premise is an impoverished logical strategy. Nevertheless, it did prove to be a useful and effective rhetorical tactic in creating the consensus which is reflected in the compromise language above. Indeed, no further exposition or discussion is necessary at this time in the context of the "Design and Specifications" section. That aspect of this article can be set aside for the moment. There will be plenty of opportunities to return to this section in 2009 as we come closer to the date when JDS Hyūga is scheduled to be commissioned.

However, the gravamen of the introductory paragraphs stands somewhat apart, arising from history and on-going disputes which have developed from quite different grounds.

Nick Dowling incautiously reverted one sentence above, and an exchange of views ensued at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever. The demand for Formal Mediation was unaddressed. The same pattern is repeated again -- and again, a curious post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy was offered as a substitute for addressing the substance of citations which support the disputed sentence.

The JDS Hyūga is the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War.[2]

In this context, the demand for Formal Mediation seems likely to fail; but what alternative is better? Please re-visit this issue in a context informed by Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. Please reconsider this problem in light of Wikipedia:Verifiability which explains, in part, that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

If this is not a pointlessly disruptive edit, what else might it be which informs my persistence? --Tenmei (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this "reset" exchange-of-views should also encompass the following which may have been otherwise overlooked:
See also
Perhaps it will be seen as helpful to forewarn that when the exclusive focus on one sentence in the second paragraph is resolved satisfactorily, I plan to turn my attention to one word in the first sentence.
The Hyūga-class helicopter destroyers are a type of helicopter carrier (though called helicopter destroyers (DDH) for political reasons) being built for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF).[3][4]
It is noteworthy that this short sentence is only slightly different from other similar sentences in articles about other vessels in the JMSDF fleet; and this minor distinction is neither unjustified, irrelevant nor inessential. --Tenmei (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Hyūga class (CVHG) (Japan)," Jane's Fighting Ships, 2008.
  2. ^ PBS/WNET, NYC: "Japan's About-Face: The military's shifting role in post-war society." July 8, 2008; Teslik, Lee Hudson. "Backgrounder; Japan and Its Military," Council on Foreign Relations. April 13, 2006; Hsiao, Russell. "China navy floats three-carrier plan," Asia Times (Hong Kong). January 8, 2008; "Meet Japan's New Destroyer - Updated," Information Dissemination (blog). August 23, 2007.
  3. ^ "16DDH "13,500 ton" ton Class". Globalsecurity.org]. Retrieved 2008-07-13. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  4. ^ "Hyuga class (CVHG) (Japan), Helicopter Destroyers". Jane's Fighting Ships (online extract). Jane's Information Group. 2008-03-14. Retrieved 2008-07-13. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hyūga-class_helicopter_destroyer&oldid=227067028"