User:Enkyo2/Sandbox/Okinawa/Aogashima

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Reaching threshold of an NPOV dispute

1. (cur) (last) 06:21, 13 July 2008 Tenmei (Talk | contribs) m (41,208 bytes) (→Reaching threshold of an NPOV dispute) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 06:13, 13 July 2008 Tenmei (Talk | contribs) (40,770 bytes) (→Reaching threshold of an NPOV dispute: first steps in a constructive direction) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 06:00, 13 July 2008 Tenmei (Talk | contribs) (40,804 bytes) (→Reaching threshold of an NPOV dispute: new section) (undo)

Sole comment

You could have gone to the talk page sooner and tried to steer the argument towards the question of the reliability of your source. You must also assume that everyone is committed to WP policies and guidelines on verifiability and remember that no-one likes to be lectured at. That's only what I try to practice. I don't always succeed. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Reaching threshold of an NPOV dispute"

• • unidentified thread

It does seem to have NPOV problems, in particular unsourced statements. It could take a long while to sort out. I suggest making one edit at a time and asking for more pairs of eyes. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Reaching threshold of an NPOV dispute

Initially, I posted a single sentence addition to Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. I believed the edit would be seen as politically controversial in the context of an on-going debate within Japan about whether to amend the legally mandated anti-militarism in Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. The in-line citation accompanying this short sentence was and continued to be the only source cited in this article until a short while ago.

"‎The JDS Hyūga is the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War."

I identify a NPOV controversy affecting any version of the article without this short sentence or something like it, but a quick review of Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever reveals that I'm met a great deal of resistance which effectively barred my arriving at the threshold of the discussion I had intended to elicit.

For the purposes of this tentative analysis, please assume that the following excerpt from a Council on Foreign Relations summary has accurately interpreted the ambit of the Japanese Constitution as it relates to this subject:

• "Japan is already one of the world's largest spenders on national defense, and the Japanese Self Defense Force (JSDF) is a robust force, though expenditures are narrowly targeted and essentially protective — they include no long-range bombers or missiles, no aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines."
• "The JSDF's naval forces are not allowed to have nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers, which are considered "offensive weaponry."

As many will know, the English Wikipedia generally follows the Japanese Wikipedia in matters of style and substance; however, this is one of the very rare instances in which we confront an odd exception. In the context established by what I've encountered in the talk page venue, I don't see how a nuanced discussion about POV will become possible without a foundation which encompasses agreement about Citation, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Plainly, I've not started off well; but there you have it. It was the best I could do for now.

Questions I'm asking myself are these: What could I have done differently? How can I learn from my mistakes so that I'll have a better chance moving forward constructively as the more difficult aspects of this issue come to the fore? --Tenmei (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Footnotes:

¹ PBS/WNET, NYC: "Japan's About-Face: The military's shifting role in post-war society." July 8, 2008.

² Teslik, Lee Hudson. "Backgrounder; Japan and Its Military," Council on Foreign Relations. April 13, 2006.

Forgive me for what may be an oversimplistic view of this content dispute, but the mediation committee posting drew my attention and as far as I can see there's absolutely no reason why a sentence couldn't be included which makes evident the clouded nature of this vessel's classification: could it not simply be said that "The Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has variously been described as an aircraft carrier (insert ref) and also a destroyer (insert ref)." I really fail to see the furore which this dispute seems to have garnered over something about which a compromise could be reached so easily. Coldmachine^Talk 13:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Coldmachine -- It appears that my serial attempts to invite helpful intervention have produced zero effect.

Initially, I sought mediation for a variety of reasons, not least of which was because Nick Dowling persists in framing sham "queries" in which any "answer" becomes irretrievably confined within the terms of narrowing premises -- a pernicious variation on the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. This sly straw man gambit has rhetorical appeal, but it unfolds with insidious consequences below.

In circumstances other than this one, a demand for Formal Mediation would have seemed odd. When I caused this dispute by merely adding one sentence only, I anticipated a controversy different than the one Nick Dowling has engineered. --Tenmei (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful

Japanese calligraphy by Satow. The kanji read (from right to left) "敬和" (Kei-Wa), literally "Respect and harmony".

Thank you for your seemly contribution. --Tenmei (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to intervene actively

Coldmachine -- Please consider revisiting a very difficult controversy at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. My single sentence edit to the second paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has been reverted several times thus far; and I guess it will probably happen again and again and again. The demonstrably futile defense of that single sentence has relied on the in-line citation which accompanies it, but no rebuttal addressed to the gravamen of this edit has yet been proffered. The talk page defense of that modest edit has been marred by claims that I have been uncivil and that I've engaged in personal attacks. See for yourself how WP:AGF WP:Civil are used as threats, as blunt instruments which are intended to thwart any hope that an exchange of views can lead to a constructive outcome.

Coldmachine -- If you choose to intervene in a more active way than you have already done, I would ask that you bear in mind my view that Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation seems worth trying in a situation which is rather more serious than can be easily grasped without a passing familiarity with Japanese history, modern Japanese constitutional law, and the international naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe you will appreciate the issues in an instant; but I wonder if determining the distinctions between "correct" and "not-quite-correct" might become secondary to the ways in which ordinary Wikipedia policies are illuminated by the exchange of views here?

Coldmachine -- In short, without any effort to give too fine a point to my words: "Who's kidding who?"--Tenmei (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page. This issue is problematic: your posts on the talk there are dissuading people from actively working with you to achieve a consensus for change; they're not personal attacks as far as I can see but the problem lies in clouding the precise nature of your concerns over wording/content. I'd suggest presenting your arguments more succinctly, to be able to engage with the other editors far more effectively than is currently the case. Coldmachine^Talk 07:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions?

Coldmachine -- Please take note that nothing to do with the contrived furour having to do with "aircraft carriers" vs. "helicopter destroyers" has been introduced in the following related articles:

• Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force#JMSDF fleet
• JMSDF Fleet
• List of combatant ship classes of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force
• Template:Combatant ship classes of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force

Why do you suppose that is? Is likely that this was nothing more than felicitous happenstance? If I were characteristically given to using a sledgehammer when a more delicate instrument is called for, then my one-sentence edit to Hyūga class helicopter destroyer becomes an anomaly worthy of more than passing notice -- especially in the broader contexts which you now notice I didn't selectively edit?

Proposition on which consensus was formed
The participants in the consensus discussion were specifically invited:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Comments sought on the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer article
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Japanese military history task force#Comments sought on the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer article
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Comments sought on the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer article

The following language was used in that invitation. It effectively summarizes my understanding of the proposition for which consensus was sought:

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)

As you know, I did nothing to inhibit the process nor the eventual consensus which was formed; nor did I impede or challenge the posting of that consensus-derived text in the "Details and Specifications" section of the article. Doesn't this beg the question, Why should this passive and non-confrontational inaction have aroused such passionate outcry, such shocked indignation? Why is that?

If you haven't asked yourself these kinds of questions, why not? I just didn't think of these questions until today; and I wonder myself why I wasn't able to put it in such crisp terms before today.

Is it helpful to re-visit other postings consistent with the following:

29 July -- non-NPOV fundamentals in this talk page "accident" are set in 2007, not in 2008. In this context, re-framing questions in which the scope of "consensus" is limited by factors implicit in the premise is an impoverished logical strategy.

14 July -- Initially, I sought mediation for a variety of reasons, not least of which was because Nick Dowling persists in framing sham "queries" in which any "answer" becomes irretrievably confined within the terms of narrowing premises -- a pernicious variation on the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. This sly straw man gambit has rhetorical appeal, but it unfolds with insidious consequences.

Deliberate redundancy for emphasis, yes; but not a sledgehammer. I post these rhetorical questions on your personal talk page, hoping to avoid being perceived as a heedless trouble-maker. --Tenmei (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tenmei, I have neither the time nor inclination to involve myself in the content disputes in which you are embroiled to the extent you appear to require. I have at no point claimed perfection in the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia; I have, however, pointed them out as the framework within which you should be editing and resolving your disputes. Instead you choose to lambaste others with hyperbole to drive home your point. Trying to rally others towards the same sort of disruptive approach to dispute resolution not only affirms the view I hold but is also unhelpful to the extreme. Coldmachine^Talk 23:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Then, I have one last questions: Which would you have preferred, striking out the unwelcome text or deleting it? My guess is uninformed. I have no desire to offend; but I only contact you in your official role as a volunteer who has self-identified as a mediator. --Tenmei (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)