Talk:Japanese cruiser Nachi
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanese cruiser Nachi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Gold Bullion onboard?
editIt has been asserted in the book Gold Warriors: America’s Secret Recovery of Yamashita’s Gold that $6 Billion in Gold Bullion was onboard the Nachi when it was sunk in Manila Bay, should this speculation be reflected in the article? I haven't been able to verify any such gold being onboard, but it may be fitting to make a note of a possible area of contriversy? Personally I don't believe it, but it is a more citable source than myself and even if I think their views are wrong they should be noted 81.110.108.151 (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- See also the debate at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 3#Seagrave's Yamashita's Gold. The sensationalist pseudohistory postulated in Seagrave's book has spawned numerous and heated edit wars in other articles. I personally see no problem in including it in the article as long as clearly marked as speculative fiction coming from a historically unsupported source, but unfortunately some other editors "want to believe" and attempt to use the book in the same manner as a scholarly source.--MChew (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I don't want to cause any trouble or cause more angry words being thrown around. I'll add a section, but make sure it is clearly labled as highly speculative and unsupported. It certainly isn't what I would consider a historical or typical scolarly source either 81.110.108.151 (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Numbers don't add up
editIn the 'Fate' section, para 2, it states that 807 men were lost but 220 survived. The info box gives 773 as the ship's complement. Both sets of numbers can't be right, so which one is?
RASAM (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Japanese ships are considered male, not female.
editJapanese ships are considered male, not female. I first came across this fact years ago in Will's history of the naval war in the Pacific. I brought this point up at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/946108815 , but so far nobody has responded. I hope others will agree that Wikipedia should be alert to instances of Eurocentric (western-centric) insensitivity. Other Choices (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- As has been explained to you before we use reliable sources all of which use she or it for Japanese warships. When you brought this up before you were asked for sources to support your assertion, you did not respond Lyndaship (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)