Talk:Selarang Barracks Incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Selarang Barracks Incident has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 12, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Selarang Barracks Incident is part of SGpedians' Resources
An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore.
To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Flag
Portal
 Selarang Barracks Incident is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian military.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] GA assessment (24 Dec 2007) withdrawn

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Jappalang (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank u for your edits & time in reviewing this article. Before I go further in replying on those issues listed below (I'm fully aware of the different account of the timing & figures given during my earlier research & site-visits done for this article), I'm concerned about a likely COI issue of this SG-related article created by a SGpedian being assessed or passed by fellow SGpedian(s). I'm aware there's an active 'cleanup' group currently reviewing past GA/FAs and quite a few were delisted on various grounds as a result. As such, I do not wish to see any complications arises shld this issue is being highlighted & debated later. If u support my COI concern, kindly withdraw your assessment here & at the GA Nomination Page. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I was unaware of this. Thank you for bringing it up. I hence withdraw this assessment in its interest. Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for holding

  • While reading through the article, it was conflicting to read that the Japanese general had ordered all prisoners interned in the Barracks to sign the pledge ("the newly arrived Japanese Commander General Shimpei Fukuye wanted the Allied POWs interned at Selarang Barracks in Changi"), and later finding out that "he ordered all prisoners except the three who had agreed to sign, to congregate in Selarang Barracks". It brings up the question of why should he order them to congregate in the Barracks if they were all there in the first place. Jappalang (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The statement "All four were shot by the Indian National Army guards and wounded but not killed and had to plead to be finished off." would be clearer as "Their executions were carried out by the Indian National Army guards. The initial volley was non-fatal, and the wounded men had to plead to be finished off." Note that this is contradicted by the source The Official 2/26th Battalion Website by that the last man died cursing his executors. Jappalang (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The statement "Without food and little water available and coupled with latrine pits, kitchens and hospital beds crowded into an area of about a square kilometre, dysentery broke out quickly and the sick began to die." would be clearer as "Without food and with little water available, dysentery broke out quickly in an area of about a square kilometer where latrine pits, kitchens and hospital beds were crowded into, and the sick began to die." Jappalang (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The context that despite the executions, the men stood firm in their resolve not to sign the pledge, has several conflicts:
    • The inline source Australian Broadcasting Corporation implies the men were coerced into a vote to sign the pledge after the executions
    • Digger History's Selarang: Home of Australian ANZUK troops supports the current article
    • Digger History in the External link however points out the execution was carried out before the Incident
    • Digger History in the External link also states the officers signed the pledge when it was made out as an order instead of being a "contract" Jappalang (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Contradictions in the composition and number of prisoners
    • The article is referencing Peter Thompson's account and puts it as 17,000 wholly British and Australian troops
    • One of the referenced sources, The Official 2/26th Battalion Website however puts it as 20,000 British, Australian and Dutch troops
    • Digger History puts it as either 15,000 or 15,400 troops of unstated composition Jappalang (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I will be making other minor changes (more likely redundant words, excessive length, etc). If those changes are incorrect, please revert them with explanation. The GA assessment will be on hold until 31 Dec 2007 for these concerns to be addressed.

[edit] Suggestions

These are suggestions to improve the article which have no bearing on the GA assessment unless implementing them goes against WP:WIAGA. In any event, feel free to implement or ignore them during or after the assessment.

  • Regarding the four escapees, write up a summary of their escape and recapture (how did they escape and get captured, where exactly did they escape from, Prison or Barracks?)
The four escapees were from Changi Prison as mentioned in the lead paragraph before it was copyedited by u. Selarang Barracks was converted into an annex holding area for British/Australian POWs when Changi Prison was already fully crowded with Allied POWs then. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This piece of information (Changi Prison fully crowded, hence Selarang Barracks is used as a holding area) would be a welcome addition to the article. I am curious then why was the Japanese General only insistent on the Barracks POWs to sign the pledge and not the Prison as a whole? Perhaps somewhere there could be material to validate facts concerning this.

Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It was 'cos the four escapees were Australian & British soldiers. As a pre-emptive measure, the Japanese general wanted the majority of the Australian & British POWs interned at Selerang Barracks to sign this document. The British-built Changi Prison, being a larger facility, was used by the Japanese during the Occupation to house POWs & civilians of various nationalities such as the Australians, Britons, Americans, Canadians, Chinese, Indians, Gurkhas etc... quite a sizable number interned at Changi Prison were of officer ranks or its equivalent. See related articles I wrote previously: Double Tenth Incident, Changi Murals, Kempeitai East District Branch, Battle of Kranji (See Endnote No. 13 which I added wrt to the setting off of fire to the oil slicks by the Australian 27th Brigade) which are intended to give readers a comprehensive picture of Singapore WWII history. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Were the three who signed the pledge before the incident, notable figures? Their comission could be indicated if possible.
Sorry, no such details were available. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Obtain a clearer image of the picture of Selarang Barracks Square where the incident took place
As mentioned in the article, access to the Selarang Barracks Square is off-limits to the public as it's a restricted area now. Fyi, photography is not even allowed on the premises of the Changi Museum itself. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Understood. I believe Digger History's picture gallery has old photos of the square in concern. It would be nice if permission could be gotten from them for just that picture. Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Add in the figures of the number who died of dysentery Jappalang (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, no such details were available. I welcome u or anyone to direct me to such references or include such info with relevant citation on the abovementioned if it's found/available one day.
Like the case of the Rape of Nanking, there were many different accounts given on the timing of the executions & the POW figures during the standoff as derived from different sources. As per the context of the article, the version I adopted for this article is guided by the information mentioned (as per Singapore War Crimes Trial) at the Changi Museum. The POW figure is generally accepted to be around 15-17,000 & the different account of the executions (as highlighted by u earlier) are still debatable (or 'colourful' by its detractors) as there were few independent witnesses to the event then. Other than these, it's an irrefutable fact during the Singapore War Crimes Trial that such events took place & the responsible parties were charged & executed subsequently in 1946. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
True, war history (especially if it touches on crimes) is sensitive among the involved countries. The POW figure can be stated as a range (15-20,000) with the two sources (Digger History, The Official 2/26th Battalion Website) without fuss. The execution accounts would be more prickly to handle; eyewitness accounts can be easier to handle (e.g. "an account stated the men pleaded to be finished off, while another stated the last man died cursing his executors") but the chronology difference would be harder to reconcile. Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll add some endnotes to address on these issues. Will update as & when I can find more substantative information in the near future. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review (January 08, 2008)

GA review (see here for criteria)

Hi there, I have started my review. The first major comment is that the "History" section of the article does not clearly outline the timeline of events over the five days. This is possibly due to a number of conflicting copyedits that have obscured the point of the article. haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I've added the necessary dates/timeline for clarity. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Wikilinks to Changi Prison needed. Add clear timeline in the text of the "History" section, (e.g. "When there were no signs of the POWs backing down by the third day, ...". MoS not yet checked.
    Y Done To be helpful in your comments, kindly specify where the abovementioned wiki-link is needed? According to my checks, there's one highlighted in the 1st para of the article already (unless u want redundant links?) -- Aldwinteo (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    Checked ok.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References 4 and 6 have "Endnote 1" & "Endnote 2". They also refer to "various sources" and "an account". What are these sources?
    Y Done I've added the requested details as mentioned in the references earlier. Pse refer to the earlier discussion above that highlighted some of the issues & follow-ups done earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    I've removed the words "Endnote 1" & "Endnote 2".
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    To be checked.
    Checked ok.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    To be checked.
    Checked ok.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    GA Pass. Well done! --haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks mate for your support & the final touch-ups done in passing this article. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)