Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Japanese military history task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guide
 → Essays
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
Assessment department talk
 → New! Tag & Assess '08 talk
Contest department talk
Logistics department talk
Outreach department talk
 → Stress hotline talk
Review department talk
New! Special projects department talk
Showcase
 → Featured picture gallery
Portals talk
edit · changes

Contents

[edit] Adding articles for Japan Self-Defense Forces section

Have recently added the following:

Central Readiness Force
Hayao Kinugasa

These are modern Japanese Self-Defense Forces pages so far. I plan to add at least one-two more pages. Ominae 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Have made few edits for the CRF. Need it to be assessed by someone of the WikiProject Japan group. Thanks. Ominae 00:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9th century invasion of Japan

I am translating an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, and have come across reference to the Korean piracy of the Jōgan era (貞観の韓寇), i.e. the 869 Korean invasion of Kyushu. Does anyone know if there is an article on the en.wikipedia for this invasion? If not, what might it be called (i.e. how might I look it up)? Thank you. LordAmeth 20:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no article about 韓寇. As it is a pirate raid, I don't think it should be called "invasion", unless you call Wokou (倭寇 Wakō?) Japanese invasion. --Kusunose 00:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense. Then again, there was 元寇 (Genkō), which were actual invasions. Anyway, you're more than likely right - if it's just a pirate raid, then it's likely not worth an article. Thanks. LordAmeth 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the following would have been useful in a stub article on the Jōgan Japanese era name or as a trivial detail which gives life to a stub about Emperor Uda? In a military context, it wouldn't much matter that an earthquake in the north of Honshu and a prirate raid in Kyushu are happening at the same time, but I'd imagine that there might be a place for such modest material in the Wikipedia environment?
  • Jōgan 11, in the 5th month (869): There was an earthquake in Mutsu; and more than a 1000 people were reported as fatalities.<ref.>Titsingh, Annales des empereurs du Japon, p. 119.<./ref>
  • Jōgan 11, in the 6th month (869): Many Korean pirate ships anchored off "Fakaia" ("Fou to") to plunder barges that were being made ready to carry tribute to the court from Buzen province. Troupes were sent to stop them, but they fled hastily.<ref.>Titsingh, p. 119.</ref>
As it happens, I don't immediately recognize 'Fakaia" ("Fouto"), but I have highlighted it in red; and I could have posted a question on the talk page to see if someone else can readily fill in the gap. Alternately, I could have just left it off. Either way -- this is a good thing. I deserve encouragement, not something else. This tidbit of information is relevant in this specific case. Tokugawa historians knew about this incident in Kyushu in the late spring of 869. They considered the matter settled; and they called it an act of piracy. Can you see how this would have been a helpful contribution, albeit in a stale context? Ooperhoofd 21:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satsuma Rebellion needs expansion

I don't know why I never noticed before, but I am truly amazed at how short the article on the Satsuma Rebellion is. This is a truly major event in Japanese history, and while I'm happy to see some pictures and a full infobox, the actual text is awfully short. Is anyone interested in volunteering to take on this project? Cheers. LordAmeth 12:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack on Pearl Harbor FARC

Note: The following was posted on the WP:JA talk page, and I'm reposting it here as it falls under the purview of this task force. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)'

Just wanted to let you know that there is a FAR on Attack on Pearl Harbor. The main problem with the article is that it has a very US-centric point of view, so some contributors from here (to hte article or the debate) would be very welcome. The Land 18:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD of Takeji Nara

It has been requested in the Articles for deletion discussion for Takeji Nara that an expert in Japanese military history be brought in to provide an educated opinion. -- saberwyn 05:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Burden of Proof" and sources question

How serious is this section taken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Burden_of_evidence I have tagged approximately 250-300 articles that fall under "Japanese military history" with the {{sources}} or {{references}} tag over the past 8-9 months. There are still some articles that have been tagged for that long and are still unsourced. Do we just leave articles that have been unsourced for months or years? I believe (reasonably, I think) that history articles that don't list sources are inherently worthless. What is the policy? I know people are averse to deleting articles, but an unsourced article which is unverifiable could be considered worse than no article at all. For all anyone knows, they could be created with information from a video game ("Samurai Warriors" seems to be a popular video game to get "history information" from for many stub articles on Samurai on wikipedia) and I can't shake the thought that if they have been unsourced since inception, and still unsourced 8 months after I have tagged them, that where ever they came from in the first place must be questionable - and also brings up questions of notability if they are valid. I'm not necessarily saying "Let's delete 'em all!", but something needs to be done - the quote by Jimmy Wales in the above link seems to indicate that I'm not asking an "unreasonable" question on what needs to be done. In particular, the "biographies" sections (Samurai, Shoguns, etc.etc.) of Japanese military history is frankly a mess. The large articles with no sources are an obvious oversight, I'm thinking mainly of the one or two paragraph articles. --Kuuzo 09:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll bet that any articles on Samurai using Samurai Warriors or something similar as the source were added by Darin Fidika (who has had issues with sourcing and plagiarism in the past). If that's the only source, and you can't find any other sources to back it up, I'd suggest nominating them for deletion. I would keep it to a few a week, though, so the system doesn't get overwhelmed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
That is probably is the best way to get sources into viable articles, since tagging them as unsourced doesn't seem to do anything. It's unfortunate. --Kuuzo 05:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Though Darin was atrocious at citing properly, he did use Stephen Turnbull's books extensively, along with the Samurai Archives website. Whether you want to trust those sources or not is a separate debate, but failure to cite properly is not the same as failure to represent information correctly. I can definitely vouch that everything I have written is accurate as far as I am aware, and came out of proper published works. Many of my sources are not currently available to me, as I am studying overseas for the year and did not bring all my books with me; I'm sure there were plenty of times that I failed to cite extensively enough (leaving out page numbers) or to cite at all. But that does not mean that the information is invalid. Rather than deleting unsourced material, tagging it and leaving it, or being accusatory towards those who posted the material in the first place, I think it would be far more productive if editors made a cooperative effort to verify and source articles. It is only through these kinds of cooperative efforts that Wikipedia exists, and continues to grow and improve, after all. LordAmeth 15:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
My main focus is 1-2 paragraph articles that have both lacked sources since inception and never been added to by more than just the creator, and also lack any apparent notability. That combination of factors should make any "history" article immediately suspect, and frankly if they don't show up in the 8,000 entry biographical dictionary of the Sengoku period (sengoku jinmei jiten, Japan, 1990), odds are they either came from a video game (which would indicate either fiction, or fictionalization to make them seem more herioc i.e.notable), or truly lack any actual notability to speak of - possibly a slight bias on my part, but a reasonable benchmark I think. Obviously pertinent and notable (yet unsourced) biographies are not at issue - and I doubt that a RfD would pass on those anyway. A lot of poorly written and unsourced articles still seem to indicate actual notability, so I'm not going to touch those, although the fact that they are unsourced and poorly written is still an issue. It should be mentioned (thankfully) that a few users have gone in and added references and added to quite a few articles I have tagged, so at least there is some forward progress. I guess when it comes to history, I'm a bit of a perfectionist. --Kuuzo 00:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Further reading" Um.. what?

I've noticed over the past week or two that a user (User:Ooperhoofd) has been putting what appears to be a completely random old French source into every single Samurai article they can find - see here for an example - he seems pretty jazzed about it, but it appears to be a general history source that probably doesn't even cover 1/4th of the articles it is being put into... It's almost like spam... what to do? --Kuuzo 08:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... maybe we should just talk to him, might be a good first step. Personally, I find a source like this almost completely useless as (a) it's in French, and I don't read French, and this is the English Wikipedia, and (b) written in 1834, or is it 1652, it incorporates none of the knowledge and understanding that historians (i.e. academia) have acquired since then, and probably reflects at the very least some very outdated spellings and terminology, if not outright misunderstandings and factual errors. It is likely a fascinating historical artifact in its own right, and a wonderful research project in order to learn more about Titsingh's views etc. but it really should not be taken as an accurate historical record. Personally, I would take anything written by Westerners in the Far East prior to the late 19th century with a massive grain of salt. LordAmeth 11:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Since your particular focus is military history, perhaps it's best to begin my explanation with something that involves fighting -- the unremitting military action in northern Honshu as Matsu and Echigo resisted campaigns to bring the entire island within the ambit of imperial domination. You say that Titsingh's translation of Odai Ichiran is still inaccessible to you personally because you don't read French, but I'm posting an English translation in Wikipedia so that you and others can incorporate "new" data within what you already know. Please consider this point in its "stub" context here.
Having demonstrated plausible utility with a minor engagement within the ambit of Japanese military history, can we at least agree that this isn't spam? The fact of the matter is that there are large areas into which Wikipedia has not yet expanded -- rather like the "blank" spaces into which Yamato expansion had not fully taken hold in the 8th century, and the Titsingh translation of Odai Ichiran fills that void perfectly because the citation incorporates a direct link to a digitized version of his text. The fact that an otherwise blank page will have at least one citation on it tells anyone who consults Wikipedia that there is something to find, that there is an "answer" -- it's just not quite there yet ... a work in progress, so to speak.
From a historiography perspective, I would invite you to consider Nipon o daï itsi ran in a peculiar Japanese context created by even older texts -- Jinnō Shōtōki or ''Gukanshō. Ultimately, Wikipedia aims to be something more -- something quite different in intent and in consequence than the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica; and in that broader, long-term, evolving enterprise, I'm convinced that I'm doing exactly the right thing at the right time. Perhaps I need to revisit every citation so that I can simply enclose the title in brackets, thus creating a clickable link to Nipon o daï itsi ran ...?
As an opening salvo, I reckon this might be just enough without being too much? Ooperhoofd 13:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in a discussion on Ooperhoofd's user page, before he copied it here and blanked his user page, I concur completely with LordAmeth's assessment above. In fact, I have already found several of the entries to be in error, when compared with numerous modern Japanese sources, and the Romanization problem that LordAmeth's supposes is very real. Many of the entries are rendered very difficult to comprehend, not only because of the Romanization problem, but because they use dated terms like "Miyako", etc. If Ooperhoofd were very knowledgeable about Japanese history and could separate the wheat from the chaff, it would be one thing, but this is clearly a case of the blind leading the blind. The work he has done isn't completely meaningless of course, but it is going to take a great deal of double-checking, scrubbing and editing to turn his edits from innacurate or misleading to useful. Plus, there is already an abundance of Japanese sources on Japanese history that are all in relative agreement about most of the entries that are being posted (plus an excellent English source in The Cambridge History of Japan), so why a 200 year old French translation of a book written by a Dutchman over 400 years ago, based on a Japanese source that is even older than that (not sure if I traced the history correctly, but it is difficult to keep track) should be considered useful to a reader of the English Wikipedia is difficult to comprehend. I feel bad for Ooperhoofd, because he is obviously very excited about the book and has done a lot of work based on it, but a neutral assessment of the reliability of the source is what is important here.-Jefu 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think it is important to note the difference between citations and suggesting something as Further Reading. Citations are a wonderful thing, no matter what language the source is in. I am not at all opposed to the use of this book as a cited source, provided that such errors are watched out for, etc. But there is a key difference between citing something as a source and suggesting it as Further Reading. Foreign language books should not be suggested for further reading, and I don't think things should be suggested unless they are directly pertinent to the topic at hand. Even from what little I know about this book I can hazard a guess that there is not a significant percentage of the book devoted exclusively to Kujo Yoritsune or to Empress Gemmei, and therefore it should not be suggested as further reading on those subjects. Please, Ooperhoofd, if you have a specific fact or point to cite, go ahead and cite it, but do not suggest this text - which is in a foreign language, and is far too old to be a reliable source - as if it were the definitive textbook on a half dozen scattered topics. LordAmeth 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. You make my point succinctly. Prof. Timon Screech of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) has assessed this work as “a necessary reference work for officials” in the Tokugawa bakufu. The book was re-issued in 1803, which allows us to infer the requisite degree of accuracy in its dry detail. As a place from which to begin to construct a pre-Meiji stub article for the 21st century online Wikipedia, this unique reference source should be construed as a plausible and appropriate development – not something to be to dismissed out-of-hand as you seem to do here.
Instead of combining to quash my enthusiasm, why not ponder the more interesting question about how or why I came to have been inspired by something which had not formerly risen to your attention?
I wonder: Shouldn’t you rather want to pause a little bit for further thought before determining that the unexplored possibilities for the growth of Wikipedia should be placed so casually at odds with the burgeoning, concurrent development of digitized, online books?
I’m not missing the gravamen of a number of issues here; but I hope you’re beginning to see that I’m not approaching two knee-jerk complaints in a superficial manner – rather, I’m trying to turn the “conversation” towards a constructive outcome.
Perhaps it would have been better to reject the Whig foundations of what seem to be generalized objections to anything outside the corpus of what you three Wikipedia "old hands" have already studied. That sounds a little stuffy. I’d prefer to convert a pointless confrontation into something useful. Can you work with me a bit more on this?
The current romanization of this book’s title is Nihon odai ichiran ("Table of the rulers of Japan"); but the Google Books search engine uses the title on the book itself – and so did I. I presume that the Google Books Library Project uses a similar catalog protocol. Mine may not have been the best choice, but it was at least an informed choice to harmonize with a changing Internet milieu. With your help, I can make better choices in the future (or at least I can learn to defend those choices more tactfully). Ooperhoofd 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to quash your enthusiasm. I am simply trying to encourage you to recognize that just because the original Japanese version was accurate enough to be useful for Tokugawa-period bureaucrats does not mean that the French translation of the Dutch translation of the Japanese is accurate enough, absent the input of any historical research or revelations of the last 150 years or so, for our use today as historians. I went out drinking with Tim last night, as a matter of fact, and I very much think he would agree with me. And, since you seem to be missing this point, that citing a source and suggesting it as further reading are completely separate issues. LordAmeth 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
According to the wikipedia entry on that book, it is going to be translated into english this year. It would be far more logical, productive, and useful to wait for that. Otherwise, someone is going to have to go in and replace all that text in each of the dozens of articles Ooperhoofd is putting it into. And I still don't see any logical connection between that book and the articles it is being put into. It goes without saying that the age of the book (and thus veracity) is questionable at best. I'd be hesitant to even use it as a source, aside from using it as a reference in footnotes to information otherwise verified with primary and academic sources. A quick and easy illustration of the problems of using edo-era materials is the Shincho-ki - the Shinchoki was a popular fictionalization of the primary document Shinchokoki - because of the popularity of the fictionalized shinchoki, it was used as a source document for histories and commentaries during the Edo period, and the repercussions of this are still felt today with the "generally accepted" description of the battle of nagashino, which has come into question in the past few decades as the sources for the scholarship have been examined and found to be wanting. So it isn't unlikely that this book could have the same issues from different "romanticized" sources. Not the easiest explanation to follow, but it was the one that came immediately to mind.
I recently read about the controversy over using the 1911 encyclopedia brittanica (or whichever), due to it's age, and this predates that significantly. As an aside, this user also created that wikipedia page, so coupled with putting it in all of those articles makes one wonder if this may fit the description of WP:Spam. I'm not saying explicitly that it does, of course. The main issue I started this topic with seems to be the one this user hasn't addressed: This book is unlikely to have anything directly to do with the articles he is pasting it into. Or, as LordAmeth so succinctly put it, Foreign language books should not be suggested for further reading, and I don't think things should be suggested unless they are directly pertinent to the topic at hand. --Kuuzo 08:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review of Attack on Sydney Harbour

I've just started a peer review for the Attack on Sydney Harbour article, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Attack on Sydney Harbour. As this falls under the grounds of Japanese Military History Taskforce, I'm requesting that members of this group come forward and find the flaws in the article before it makes a run for A-class review, and hopefully Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. -- saberwyn 06:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reqesting assistance on Attack of Sydney Harbour

Would anybody be able to provide some assistance at Attack on Sydney Harbour. The article is currently going through A-class review, and concerns have been raised regarding the lack of Japanese POV, and the lack of Japanese sources. If someone could provide some material to enhance this article I'd be much appreciative. -- saberwyn 23:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request for Battle for Henderson Field

There's a new peer review request for Battle for Henderson Field that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 15:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Battle for Henderson Field now open

The A-Class review for Battle for Henderson Field is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 15:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move for "Occupied Japan"

I have just begun discussion towards possibly moving the article Occupied Japan to another of several options of titles which include the word "Occupation." Everyone has different ideas and impressions based on what they've read and heard, but it is my experience that terms such as "the Occupation", "the Occupation of Japan", "the American Occupation" and "the Japanese Occupation" are far more common than "Occupied Japan" to describe this period. Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Occupied_Japan#Requested_move. Thanks. LordAmeth 22:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Japanese Fascists

As "the use of the term fascism in relation to Japan is contentious and disputed" (quoted from Japanese fascism), I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to label any and every Japanese involved in the government or military at the time - even the most high-up officials - a "fascist".

I think this is an important thing for us to get a handle on, and to establish standards or guidelines about. Please offer your thoughts on the matter at Category talk:Japanese fascists. LordAmeth 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. There are certain specific members of the pre-war Japanese government and military who promoted European-style fascism, or attempted to create a similar system modified for use in Japan. However, it appears that the Category:Japanese fascists is being misused recently by certain editors as a POV forum to label warime or prewar biographies of Japanese indiscriminately. Use of the category should be supported by evidence in the article in questions, and misuse should be construed as vandalism and reverted. --MChew 03:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request for Admiralty Islands campaign

There's a new peer review request for Admiralty Islands campaign that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 00:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Anglo-Japanese Alliance now open

The peer review for Anglo-Japanese Alliance is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name

An RFC in an article supported by this task force has been opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz talk 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Matanikau Offensive now open

The A-Class review for Matanikau Offensive is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Koli Point action now open

The A-Class review for Koli Point action is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expert help needed

Hi, I am a participant of the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and I am trying to find some sources for three articles that appear to fall under the remit of the Japanese Military history task force, they have been tagged as {{unreferenced}} since June 2006 and as such do not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. I believe I may have found some sources but I need some help to clarify, as the names in the references do not match the titles of the articles (This could be why they have gone unreferenced for so long). The articles are as follows:

Any help to confirm that I'm not mistaken would be much appreciated, regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 21:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to this previously. I have this page on my watchlist but didn't notice your post for some reason. I'm not familiar with the three organizations mentioned above, but looking at the sources you cite I believe that you're correct in identifying what the three organizations are actually called in English and the sources you use are correct sources. There aren't very many books in English about Japan's home front during World War II. Another two sources that might have information on these topics are:
  • Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard B. Frank
  • Japan at War by Haruko Taya Cook
I hope that helps. Cla68 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi now open

The peer review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi now open

The A-Class review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill (prof) 01:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)