Content deleted Content added
→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:
: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==
| |||