Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Japanese military history task force/Archive 2

message: There's a new peer review request for Battle of Shanghai that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Battle of Shanghai]] 

message: I figured that this would be the best place to ask a question about possible mistaken identity of a Japanese officer in some images.  The following two images are both identified by external sites as being of Takeichi Nishi, a tank officer killed at the Battle of Iwo Jima, who also won an equestrian gold medal at the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics.  I'm pretty sure about he one at right.  Is it just me or is the uniform at left very Navy-ish?  - BanyanTree 17:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They look pretty similar, actually; it may very well be that the different lighting is causing the fabric to appear darker.  (Or, alternately, did the IJA have several different colors of uniforms, as other armies did?) Kirill Lokshin 18:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite certain you're not looking at navy uniforms there - caps are wrong for a start. John Smith's 20:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll trust that the external site knows what it's talking about.  Thanks to all. - BanyanTree 03:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo identification 

message: There's a new peer review request for Japanese castle that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm on it. Interesting article but does need more work. If anyone else wants to add to my comments, please do. John Smith's 16:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeez, of course I should have placed a mention here. Thanks, Kirill. (I really need to try to be more on top of these kinds of things). LordAmeth 11:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Japanese castle]] 

message: I cannot believe I did not notice it earlier, but the article on the Military history of Japan needs some really serious work. All of the pre-modern sections are really quite stubby, omit major events (Nanboku-cho, Onin War, and much of the tactical and strategic developments of the Sengoku period), and do not tell a cohesive narrative of development, progress, or advancement. (Not that every historical narrative has to move in the direction of progress, but still there should be some narrative flow to the thing.)
The Samurai article, for the most part, is quite well-written, thorough, and features much of the narrative, and details of important events and developments which are absent from the overview Military history article. While we certainly should not copy-and-paste the entirety (or large sections) of the samurai article into the overview one, I think some inspiration can be taken from this... with some collaboration and teamwork, I think this can really be dramatically improved. LordAmeth 15:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done quite a bit on this now... should be alright now I think... but as always of course, this is more or less our foremost page, so if anyone has anything to add or improve, please feel free. LordAmeth 18:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Military history of Japan]] - Medieval and Sengoku 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Japanese castle that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Japanese castle]] 

message: Greetings all. We went without a task force userbox for quite some time, but now we have one. I've used the same samurai kanji image as is on the project banner task force element, for consistency, though I was admittedly tempted to make use of the unusually prolific Admiral Wikipe-tan. If you'd like to clutter up your userpage with more junk advertise your membership in the task force on your userpage, you can use , and that ought to do it. LordAmeth 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userboxes! 

message: Hello. I've begun a discussion here in an attempt to generate consensus & standards on the terminologies used for military divisions and campaigns of the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598); currently there seems to be an unconsciously created discrepancy between which articles (e.g. Japanese Left Army) get referred to and linked to, and which campaignboxes (e.g. Template:Campaignbox Japanese Left Army (1597)) are or are not fully agreed to be deprecated.
Please comment at the above talk page link. Thank you. LordAmeth 11:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hideyoshi's Invasions - terminology and campaign classifications. 

message: There's a new peer review request for Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942)]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942)]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Batu Lintang camp that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Batu Lintang camp]] 

message: Another one of my missing topics pages is about missing topics about samurai-era Japan. Could anybody have a look at it? Thank you -. Skysmith 12:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for compiling such a list. Many of these items do have articles, just with slight spelling differences - I'll try to find time later today to go through them and create redirect pages to the proper article titles. As for the rest, I'll certainly keep them in mind as things which need to be created. Thanks again. LordAmeth 13:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing topics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Adding articles for Japan Self-Defense Forces section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Satsuma Rebellion needs expansion 

message: ::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)
thread_title:  [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]] FARC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  AFD of [[Takeji Nara]] 

message: 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  or  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Burden of Proof" and sources question 

message: 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)
thread_title: Peer review of [[Attack on Sydney Harbour]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reqesting assistance on [[Attack of Sydney Harbour]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Battle for Henderson Field]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle for Henderson Field]] now open 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move for "Occupied Japan" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Category:Japanese Fascists 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Admiralty Islands campaign]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Anglo-Japanese Alliance]] now open 

message: An RFC in an article supported by this task force has been opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz talk 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Matanikau Offensive]] now open 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Koli Point action]] now open 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi]] now open 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi]] now open 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi]] needs attention 

message: : Copied from Milhist talk page
Trying to resolve grammatical issues here raised the prospect of a split to address planning & doctrine issues surrounding the attack. Comment is invited here.  Trekphiler (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a bit of a tangle, isn't it? Probably best if editors comment on the article's talk page to keep the discussion centralised. I've copied this to the US, Japanese and WWII task forces. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approach to Pearl Harbor 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

message: Several editors (including myself) are currently discussing whether Japan's new Hyūga class helicopter destroyers should be classified as aircraft carriers or not and whether the article's references are adequete. Interested editors are invited to comment on the article's talk page. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments sought on the [[Hyūga class helicopter destroyer]] article 

message: I'm not sure this is the place for my question, but I just want to make sure that my articles correctly reflect the chosen style of wikipedia biographies and battle write-ups (I basically copied the formats of other biographies).  Also wanted to take the opportunity to say hello, since I will hopefully be around for a while, at least until school really kicks in (or my wife does).  I have a lot of notes I've gathered and have wanted to put to use for a while, so we'll see how long I can keep it up.  --BradTraylor (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography Style 

message: The A-Class review for Operation Ke is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill (prof) 23:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Operation Ke]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Guadalcanal Campaign is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill (prof) 12:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Guadalcanal Campaign]] now open 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Japanese military history 

message: The A-Class review for Admiralty Islands campaign is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Admiralty Islands campaign]] now open 

message: Hi all. As some of you may know, I went through the articles created by now-banned User:Exiled Ambition (formerly the dreaded User:Darin Fidika) some time ago and cleared them all of copyvio. However, I'm afraid that the battle has only begun. I am wondering if we could get some kind of coordinated effort on the samurai articles...really, I'm doing what I can but my interest (and resources) focus on the mid to late Edo era, and a lot of the samurai articles we've got deal with the Sengoku era. Any takers? Any thoughts? Tadakuni (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your work. I don't have much that would be useful, but I appreciate your efforts. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

text: This list I compiled may be of help. -Tadakuni (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He was one of a kind, I'm happy to say...the biggest contributor of samurai history in terms of sheer volume, only because he ripped off other people's sites. As far as your work goes, I think it's good. Keep it up! Tadakuni (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Samurai articles

message: I was surprised to discover that none of the books on my shelf (e.g. "Eagle Against the Sun", "World at War", "Why the Allies Won") list Operation Ten-Go in their index. So I have no good indications as to how typical it may be that this event is called "Ten-Go" in English sources, rather than a romanization which more correctly indicates that 天号 = てんごう = "tengō" or "ten-gou" and not てんご ("ten-go"). ... For now, I have left that term alone, and not changed the romanization of the Operation name, but I am wondering if anyone else has an opinion on the matter. Personally, I would like to make as few exceptions as possible, and to represent as many things as possible in correct romanization.
Thoughts? Opinions? Sources that directly indicate one way or the other the common English-language rendering? Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan#Ten-go LordAmeth (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten-go 

message: The peer review for Japanese World War II destroyers is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! -MBK004 04:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Japanese World War II destroyers]] now open 

message: Note that this category comes up in a few talk pages, when using  with "tf = Military history". Maybe you'd like to create the category. Cenarium (Talk) 03:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct category is :Category:Japanese military history task force articles, but the way  is set up, I'm not sure how to easily generate it; that template doesn't seem to actually do any checks on the task force parameters.  I'll try to come up with something, but the more practical method might be to use the task force parameter only in  when articles are tagged with both templates. Kirill (prof) 05:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:WikiProject Japan Military history taskforce]]