Talk:Banzai Cliff

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... no reason suggested for its deletion. It's a valid article. What gives? -- do ncr  am  19:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't panic mate- this is a duplicate (alternatively titled!) of another article you published at almost exactly the same time: see Suicide Cliff. Actually thinking about it, a redirect would probably be better. Even so, right now there's two of 'em. I've augmented the Suicide Cliff article slightly. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed  19:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec) An editor thinks Suicide Cliff is same as Banzai Cliff. I just requested discussion here.  Even if they were the same, a redirect rather than a deletion would be appropriate.


 * Without having refreshed myself on the topics, which I edited a long time ago, I think they are different. If I recall correctly, i believe I thought that one is a cliff inland, one is a cliff on the ocean.  There might be confusion because perhaps both of them are sometimes called one of the names, but I think they are different locations.  Or, they could be the same place, and the U.S. NRHP listed it twice.  There are definitely two NRHP listings. Let's sort it out with documents. -- do  ncr  am

Documents include:
 * NRHP document for Suicide Cliff. It drops to the coastal plain. See also accompanying pics (part of the NRHP doc) for Suicide Cliff.  This was listed on the NRHP on September 30, 1976, and has reference (#76002193).
 * NRHP doc for Banzai Cliff. It drops to the ocean.  See accompanying pics (part of the NRHP doc) for Banzai Cliff.  This was listed on the NRHP on August 27, 1976, and has reference (#76002192).


 * They are different. There needs to be more clarity in the articles, including probably a "not to be confused with" note at the top of each of them, though. -- do  ncr  am  19:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I do apologise, you are dead right. They were just similar enough to make me think you'd hit the save button twice, or something! If those images in your PDFs there are US Gov, you think we could use them too? Normally I wouldn't suggest more than one image, but in this case they would show them to be distinctly different places, so would be providing a valuable service to the article (in passing, they would prob ensure no more confusion between the two!). Also, I can see the benefits of not only a 'not to be confused with' but also a 'See also' for the other cliff; your thoughts? Muffled Pocketed  19:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your attention here is welcome. The articles were/are extremely short given the importance of these sites.  Your new additions can help greatly to add perspective, and I hope you can re-add that material and add more to both articles.  Maybe also the NRHP & NHL documents can be mined for details about the geography and features of the sites, to be added in part to differentiate them better.
 * About confusion, just now I added "See also"s and I also reworded in both articles texts in order for them to clearly refer to each other, but I chose not to add hatnotes. Perhaps the confusion is well enough addressed, now?  Feel free to clarify further. -- do  ncr  am  21:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

new additions
The new sources and text now need to be restored to the Banzai Cliff and/or Suicide Cliff articles, and possibly new photos can be added. The text additions were (which I have removed to here for the moment): "... (also known as Banzai Cliff)" and "...as Japanese propaganda announced that 'American devils [were] raping and devouring Japanese women and children.' The precise number of suicides there is not known, but has been estimated at around 8,000 deaths. A contemporary correspondant, praising their actions as 'the finest act of the Shōwa period period', described them as the 'the pride of Japanese women.' The alternative name of the pace, Banzai Cliff, stems from the fact that, when the people jumped, they shouted ''Banzai' (wishing the Emperor 10,000 years of life).'"

There was one photo at the airfield article which I have just put into the Suicide Cliff article [since reverted]. I'll review the photos in the NRHP & NHL documents next. They would be in the public domain if they were taken by Federal employees. In general photos and text of NRHP documents are copyrighted, unfortunately. -- do ncr  am  21:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Both sets of photos are credited to a Dennis Vander Tuig. It is possible that he is the person of that name at NASA (see, for example, this) but we don't know if the Tuig who took the pics was a Federal employee then, so, being conservative, we can't use any of those pics. -- do  ncr  am  22:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I'm sorry if I appeared careless or anything else negative in my removing your sourced additions, as you note in edit summary at Suicide Cliff article, restoring them. It probably wasn't clear that I wanted to place the material here and then re-apply it where appropriate, quickly.  Please go ahead, yourself, in editing the two articles;  I'll stop for the day.
 * Note there were rewordings and more, in my edit at Suicide Cliff which has just been reverted. Hopefully those changes can be re-considered.  I thought the rewording was helping, and that it would be easier to add from the new material after. -- do  ncr  am  21:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)