User:Enkyo2/Sandbox/Okinawa/Miyakejima

I hesitate to add this to the talk page at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer for fear that someone will complain that is has "too many words." In a context which arises before I posted my initial edit to that article's second paragraph, perhaps it becomes possible to appreciate what's gone so very wrong as the result of an unthinking reliance on Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org without giving due weight to the Japanese context.

Wikipedia's current treatment of JDS Hyūga implicates deep-rooted paradigms based on premises which effectively function to exclude or excise issues from the body of text; and this includes significant content which remains otherwise inextricable in reality. Relying solely on English-language naval ship catalogs, the edit history for this article reveals how otherwise reliable editors have thwarted, deleted or blocked relevant contributions to this subject's development -- see Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Article name

Personally, of course, I don't care what the article about JDS Hyūga is named -- but I'm persuaded that WP:NPOV encourages me to care about the "why" which informs that name. Although generally known as highly credible resources, Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org promote systemic bias in at least this one instance because their text is otherwise properly derives from primary sources bearing the imprimatur of the Japanese government. As such, reliance on this "gold standard" for descriptive terminology of naval ships is defensible, as would be any reasoned consensus based on such standards; however, neither can be considered determinative. There is an inherent problem with that imprimatur when its progeny produce deleterious effects in a Wikipedia venue giving more than lip-service to WP:V and WP:NPOV.

As you may know, the Constitution of Japan prohibits "aircraft carriers"; and therefore the Japanese quite sensibly identify the JDS Hyūga with a unique, non-aircraft carrier name. In Japan, if ducks were prohibited by the Japanese Constitution, then something which waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and behaves like a duck would be sensibly given a unique non-duck name. As it relates to use of the term "aircraft carrier," this bias is informed by the constitution which was imposed by the Americans in 1947; and it, along with many other salutatory aspects of the Constitution, has been embraced by subsequent generations of Japanese.

Among the Japanese, the practical decision-making which sometimes calls for a prudent substitution of flexible notions of "fiction" for "fact" is recorded across the span of centuries. This aspect of Japanese history and culture need not intrude into this Wikipedia article about the Hyūga except when an otherwise useful fiction is proffered as sufficient rationale for devaluing, denying, and deleting citations (consistent with WP:V) which state that JDS Hyūga is an aircraft carrier with another name.

Sdsds construes the phenomenon in terms of a familiar line from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet -- in that passage in which Juliet muses about "that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet". In my view, that specific quotation does capture the essence of a very important aspect of this complicated issue.

Perhaps a more apt illustrative exchange is to be found in Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew in that scene in which Petruccio looks at the sun and defies his new wife to disagree when he identifies it as the moon -- especially in that passage which begins, "I say it is the moon ...

In the context of the Wikipedia article about the first of the Hyūga-class vessels, I hope to make a constructive contribution by re-casting this controversy using medical terminolgy:

In oncology, the metastasis of cancer is conventionally described as insidious or "developing so gradually as to be well-established before becoming apparent." It is also well-known to be pernicious or "highly injurious or destructive." It is unfortunate that criticism of Wikipedia has not yet encompassed the oncological model, but it is arguably true that the metastasis of systemic bias, like cultural bias elsewhere, is insidious, pernicious and sometimes invasive.

The non-NPOV problems in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer have escaped a thorough examination thus far. The thin record of postings in the initial section of the talk page suggests a nascent pattern of thwarting discussion and inquiry; and the subsequent record on the talk page confirms that unwelcome hypothesis.

Across the arc of talk page exchanges amongst potential contributors and others, the intense resistance which made it impossible even to reach a threshold from which to begin explicating the non-NPOV cancer becomes a powerful element of proof -- a multi-faceted demonstration of an undetected, highly persistent, insidious and pernicious problem.

Initial examination of this suspect article included a complete review of the edit history, including scrutiny of relevant external links which were deleted, not incorporated.

An attempted ameliorative edit was initiated, involving one sentence only, supported by an in-line citation with an external link to a credible source. The talk page record reveals that this precisely-targeted intervention was reverted twice without substantive discussion. The edit encountered resistance which blocked access to any threshold from which to begin to address the unacknowledged bias which remains the article's pervasive flaw. --Tenmei (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare & Hyūu

smells "I say it is the moon ...

Arktika class icebreakers

Icebreakers
The AGB Shirase is a comparatively unremarkable Japanese icebreaker in the Antarctic.

Russian icebreakers operate in the Arctic. At present, the world's largest icebreaker is the NS 50 Let Pobedy. In the unresolved context of Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, I wonder if it might be a worthwhile exercise to compare the Wikipedia article about this specific non-Japanese, non-warship vessel with other related Wikipedia articles

1. about the Arktika class,
2. about the NS Arktika, first vessel in that Soviet-designated class of icebreakers, and
3. about the Nuclear marine propulsion of Arktika class icebreakers and other ships.

In each of these threee Wikipedia articles, I would foresee no obvious factors which would serve as a bar to relying exclusively on a well-respected reference source like Jane's (assuming for the sake of argument that Jane's Fighting Ships were to have expanded unexpectedly to encompass a new section about non-fighting ships including icebreakers). No controversy would likely attend the use of something like the Jane's entry as convenient NPOV foundation for further edits as our Wikipedia project evolves. The major part of the article about NS 50 Let Pobedy may be treated in like fashion. However, I would vigorously object to that reasoning in relation to one section only:

"Construction on project no. 10521 started on October 4, 1989 at the Baltic Works in Leningrad (currently Saint Petersburg), USSR. Originally the ship was named NS Ural. Work was halted in 1994 for lack of funds, so that the real 50 Years Anniversary of Victory Day in 1995 found the ship in an abandoned state. Construction was restarted in 2003.

On 30 November 2004, a fire broke out in ship. All workers aboard the vessel, had to be evacuated while the fire crews battled the fire for some 20 hours before getting it under control. One worker was sent to hospital. There was no threat of radioactive contamination as the nuclear reactor had no fuel inside.

She was finally completed in the beginning of 2007, after the 60th Anniversary. The icebreaker sailed into the Gulf of Finland for two weeks of sea trials on February 1, 2007." [italics/emphasis added]

The excerpt above focuses on that extended period of construction which preceded sea trials of NS 50 Let Pobedy. If this icebreaker were somehow included within the ambit of Jane's coverage, the editors would undoubtedly find no reason to support investigating this small part of the ship's story because the fire falls outside the scope of its service history. There may or may not be more about this fire which has yet to be revealed, but the Wikipedia editors who watchlist NS 50 Let Pobedy may have an opportunity to evaluate any number hypothetical facts which are yet to be published in the future. In this hypothetical example, it is perhaps easy to agree that hypothetical future edits would need to be judged in terms of substantive content -- not rejecting anyting and everything out-of-hand because it's not within the ambit of Jane's.

Looking ahead -- with just a little bit of further work, I can see how someone interested in the break-up of the Soviet Union might be able to construe the troubled chronology of this great ship's construction period as emblematic of the the decline of Soviet hegemony in European Arctic waters or as illustrative of the early days of the modern Russian Federation. Who knows? This speculation remains to be developed. I don't know enough about factors which are relevant, but I do know enough to be extremely cautious when it comes to closing doors prematurely.

For much of the Russian fleet, this is a non-issue; and an academic concern for nuance would be most likely trivial. In this one, potentially minor aspect of the troubled NS 50 Let Pobedy we can't manage anything but guesses.

US George Washington

Aside: This huge, nuclear-powered vessel comes to mind because of the fire aboard the nuclear-powered USS George Washington (CVN-73) (see here). The fire on that American aircraft carrier was reported to have been serious; and yet it seems unlikely that future editions of Jane's will reference the incident. It is still too early to tell whether this fire will merit any further expansion after the ships arrives in Japan. In future, reasonable men can rather confidently predict that after the USS George Washington is eventually decommissioned and scrapped, this 2008 fire will not figure prominently in either the Wikipedia article nor the entry in Jane's Fighting Ships. Nevertheless, the current demonstrations the aircraft carrier's designated Japanese home port are sufficient reason for this to remain as an open-ended issue. If we examine the ramifications of this one incident using the same fine-mesh filter Nick Dowling would have us apply to JDS Hyūga, I foresee that it would mean closing off options which would have been better left open-ended.

Pivoting sprightly, if we mis-apply this "Dowling filter" to JDS Hyūga, would it not mean closing off options which must continue to remain open-ended?

Belhalla -- I wonder if using the "Dowling filter" in terms of this non-Japanese warship example helps you understand how your so-called "compromise" has plausibly unintended consequences for the Hyūga? In short, I predict that a number of options which need to remain open-ended are now more likely to be foreclosed. Expressed differently, your "compromise" has strengthened -- not diminished -- the odd status-quo-ante-"logic" which appears to have informed Bill CJ's reflexive, early reverts. Rejected out-of-hand was just one short sentence which, significantly, was supported by a credible in-line citation (and it is important to note that that this reference citation was also linked to readily accessible online verification and amplification). In contrast, Bill CJ presented me with naught but a blank wall.

Conclusion
For much of the Japanese fleet, this worrying about closing doors too prematurely is also a non-issue; and an academic concern for nuance would be most likely trivial. However, the choice of a broad-stroke brush becomes too crude for the JDS Hyuga because of other factors not conventionally found relevant in other ships. --Tenmei (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC) After RESET

Bellhalla draft

You wrote: Tenmei, whatever point you are trying to make is lost on me. Can you please restate it more succinctly? — Bellhalla (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There are too many intertwined issues on the Hyūga talk page. Please consider allowing me to develop two independent threads here, focusing expressly on the difficult question you pose.

THREAD #1,br> For the purpose of context, perhaps four sentences will be sufficient as a substantive foundation for this thread. All come from July 21:

• A. If this is not a pointlessly disruptive edit, what else might it be which informs my persistence? -- 14:56, 21 July 2008

• B. 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.<:ref>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.</ref>

• C. 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).<:ref name="Globalsecurity">"16DDH "13,500 ton" ton Class". Globalsecurity.org]. Retrieved on 2008-07-13.</ref>[1]

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)

I have linked the last three words for emphasis, but maybe that's precisely the wrong thing to do here? Maybe it would have been better simply to create emphasis with a BOLD font? In any case, these words focus attention on a crucial element of an as-yet-unchallenged introductory sentence. If you don't immediately grasp the significance of these three words as they succinctly distinguish the first sentence -- and I'm guessing maybe you don't, then I've probably miscalculated the scale of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias in the talk page furour.

THREAD #2
I note that no critical analysis has questioned the "See also" section. Perhaps these links may present a common ground from which to build the broader consensus this article needs?

• Constitution of Japan, Article 9, 1947
• Classification terms, historic consequences:
  • Washington Naval Treaty, 1922
  • London Naval Treaty, 1930
  • Second London Naval Treaty, 1936

In this context, please tell me if the following excerpt from Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Hyūga an aircraft carrier? is not sufficiently succinct:

Bellhalla, 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.,"<:ref>"Hyūga class (CVHG) (Japan)," Jane's Fighting Ships, 2008.</ref>

STRATEGY OPTION
FYI -- I will need to give this matter some more thought before attempting to address the array of issues at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, but a tentative strategy might involve inviting everyone to re-visit the version which pre-dates the current controversies -- before I added one sentence only.

Revision history of of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer

• (cur) (last) 14:58, 11 July 2008 Tenmei (Talk | contribs) (5,491 bytes) (1st aircraft carrier built for Japanese marine forces since end of Pacific War)

These are three possible approaches to a beginning. I've construed this venue as something of a neutral corner. If you view this as importunate, the intrusion can simply end here. I regret the misimpression that this would not have been over-reaching.

In any event, please allow me to thank you again for your seemly contributions in a difficult context. --Tenmei (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)