Talk:Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer/Archive 1

Article name
This article needs to be renamed. This is not a destroyer. It is the size of one but it is a carrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.194.76 (talk) 18:56, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

While this ship is for all points and purposes a carrier, she is officially named a destroyer and the title should remain as such. That said, the meat of the article could explain it (along with comparisons to the British "through-deck cruisers" made famous in the Faklands War) Phongn 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Those same 'though-deck cruisers' now have an article at Invincible class aircraft carrier. I do not think your argument, er, holds water. This article should be at Hyuga class aircraft carrier. Buckshot06 14:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The name helicopter destroyer is certainly misleading, as that would mean a ship designed to destroy helicopters. Its rather a helicopter-carrying destroyer. 85.176.75.92 (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For comparison the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov was classified as "Heavy Aircraft-Carrying Cruisers" in order to circumvent a treaty that prohibits aircraft carriers from circumventing the Dardanelles or Bosporus strait between the Black sea and the Mediterranean. Despite this, its classification in the West is as an aircraft carrier, because that is what it really and explicitly is. The Hyuga is a helicopter carrier like the British Ocean class (it does not deploy fixed wing aircraft so it is not an aircraft carrier,) that was termed a helicopter destroyer so as to be politically aceptable to a nation prohibited to possess offensive weapons. As was done on the Kuznetsov article, the politically expedient name should be set aside for the name that reflects the true nature and role of the ship, Hyuga Class Helicopter Carrier. F-451 (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This ship is certainly not an "aircraft carrier", else the USN's LHAs and LHDs would not be called amphibious assault ships but aircraft carriers. Helicopter carrier is a bit vague, while ASW carrier is probably closer to its mission. However, are the helicopters this ship's primary asset, or does it have most of the other equipment such as fitted to ASW destroyers, in addition to the large flight deck? The article doesn't answer this question, nor did the Global Security.org page. Until we answer that question adequately, with reliable sources, we really can't say what name is best, other than the one assigned to it, DDH (helicopter destroyer, or helicopter-carrying destroyer if your mind can't fill in the right info on its own.) - BillCJ (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with ASW carrier, the term matches the design and purpose the best, assuming we can find adequate sources to justify parting with the politically expedient name. F-451 (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur. - BillCJ (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No speculation please
Don't flood the lead section about stuff military geeks have been chatting about on forums. Keep to what we know and what is relevant. If the Japanese government talks about changing its use, no problem. However rumours and gossip don't lead to good content. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever
Aircraft carrier A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever This article cites no specific sources, and yet it is entirely credible as written. One short sentence has been added -- one fact only; and this plausibly controversial assertion is supported by a citation from a undisputed source. In my view, this makes the edit somewhat resistant to easy deletion. --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to 2nd deletion of the same sentence, the edit summary which explained the restoration was this:  "in article without sources, deleting the sole citation-supported sentence is untenable"  .... In my view, two issues are crucial:
 * 1. In my view, neither well-informed POV nor reasonable consensus amongst a limited number of editors is plausibly sufficient to trump a credibly sourced sentence. If not, why not?
 * 2. The exchange-of-views on this page focuses on demonstrably germane issues, but each contributor overlooks crucial factors which are conventionally outside-the-box in an analysis which parses engineering specs, functional prospects, etc. If outside-the-box, why?
 * Without more, BillCJ's empty gesture becomes a slender reed. --Tenmei (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that a website decribing a TV documentary is a reliable source on this topic either. Jane's calls the ships helicopter carriers. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur, Nick, and that was my rationale behind removing the cited material. Calling the class "aircraft carriers" with no further qualifications, right after the text makes clear they aren't "aircraft carriers" in the usual sense, would be confusing to readers. Also, putting a analysis sentence like that in the Lead is not necessarily the best place for it either. Note: My non-WP life intervened, preventing me from addessing this earlier. Also, I should have place the removed info here on the talk page when I removed it, as per MOS, but didn't think of it at the time. Sorry for that lapse, but I stand by my removals. - BillCJ (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Deleted summarily by BillCJ:
 * The following was posted on BillCJ's talk page. His seeming knee-jerk reaction was to delete my modest inquiry with a terse edit summary: "Clean-up - you are a liar, I left NO blank reverts, and I will not engage in a bad-faith confrontational discussion" ....
 * The text which seemingly caused offense is this:
 * BillCJ -- As you know, in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, you've reverted twice without engaging in any discussion. If an unwelcome "edit-war" were to be defined by three blank reverts like yours, then we would be facing a dilemma for which you alone are responsible. I would have thought that a less confrontational strategy would have seemed like a good idea? There are any number of plausible reasons for questioning this single sentence from this article, but you have articulated none save arguably some kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Why is that?


 * In an article with no citation of sources, I wonder how you justify removing the sole sentence which is actually supported by a credible in-line citation? --Tenmei (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the article's edit history, Bill has reverted you twice, and explained his reason why each time in his edit summary so I don't understand why you're accusing him of "blank reverts" or referring to "three blank reverts like yours" - the first claim is not true and there's no need to warn him about hitting 3 reverts as he's only up to 2 (the same number as you). He's also apologised for not discussing the changes on this talk page, so why are you rehashing this here? (according to WP:TALK it's perfectly fine to remove stuff from your own talk page). I'm also not sure why you keep saying that the article is unreferenced given that it includes links to Globalsecurity.org and other reliable websites. Inline citations would be better, but these are an OK minimum. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * These are straightforward, easily clarified matters:
 * 1. ASSUME GOOD FAITH -- always a good tactic
 * 2. "Blank revert" = non-responsive & unsupported by any demonstrable effort to meet burdens of proof or persuasion which address issues as framed -- a confusing strategy
 * 3. Apologia = non-responsive & also a gambit for re-framing issues so as moot further discussion -- an unhelpful tactic
 * 4.  Exterior links ≠ reference source citation 


 * Perhaps this note will have been perceived as too terse, but there you have it. Frankly, I've already invested too much time in pointless prose with nothing worthwhile to show for it.


 * In a dispute in which one side offers a specific, linked citation to support an edit, and an disconsolate, non-specific complainer merely asserts "bad faith" in lieu of actually citing any contradictory sources, it becomes difficult to divine a more constructive path forward. --Tenmei (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

TWO SIGNIFICANT POINTS In the barking prose above, I have highlighted only two segments with green-colored BOLD font emphasis:
 * ...  "in article without sources, deleting the sole citation-supported sentence is untenable"  ....


 * ...  Exterior links ≠ reference source citation  ....

This is going nowhere unless and until these legitimate a priori concerns are addressed. Then, maybe, we can begin to move forward constructively. If this appears to represent a perceived obstacle, Wikipedia has a range of methods in place for dealing with otherwise intractable disputes. In this context, perhaps it's time to consider seeking mediation or some other intervention. -- Tenmei (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial sentence
This edit was controversial -- not for any reason articulated above, but nevertheless suspect for a number of eminently valid, important, and arguable factors I expected to discuss here with interested, thoughtful and better-informed editors than me. That hasn't happened yet, but I have no doubt that it will. Moreover, this essential dispute would have arisen in due course without my input. This was and remains the gravamen of my carefully considered decision to post one sentence and one sentence only as a crisp addition to this article's content.

However, the exchange which has played out above never reached this high ground. Instead, I found that I'm forced to argue -- in words demonstrably consistent with Assume good faith -- that BillCJ and Nick Dowling seem to insist that the beginning and end of all issues to do with JDS Hyūga lies in maritime architecture.

Perhaps the following outline from Dispute resolution can assist us in moving forward:
 * 1 Focus on content
 * 2 Stay cool
 * 3 Discussing with the other party
 * 4 Truce <========== Easily achievable?
 * 5 Turn to others for help
 * 5.1 Editor assistance
 * 5.2 Ask for a third opinion
 * 5.3 Ask about the subject
 * 5.4 Ask about a policy <========== A good strategic gesture?
 * 5.5 Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard
 * 5.6 For incivility
 * 5.7 Request a comment
 * 5.8 Informal mediation
 * 5.9 Formal mediation
 * 5.10 Conduct a survey
 * 6  If the situation is urgent <========== Not relevant?
 * 7 Last resort: Arbitration

A priori, I'm persuaded that the appropriate course for me to try now is to dig in my heels on what seems to me a matter of fundamental Wikipedia policy:
 * A.  Exterior links are not the scholarly equivalent of in-line citations or reference source citations.  .... Yes? No?
 * I note that Nick Dowling asserts: "I'm also not sure why you keep saying that the article is unreferenced given that it includes links to Globalsecurity.org and other reliable websites. Inline citations would be better, but these are an OK minimum. (emphasis added) I can't see how this position withstands casual scrutiny; but that having been said, I'm expressing myself in non-confrontational terms when I state modestly that  deleting the sole citation-supported sentence is untenable"  .... Yes? No?

I'm not just looking for us to reach some kind of agreement here as a foundation from which to move forward. I'd really appreciate some suggestions about how this could have been handled differently?

To restate the issues as I parse them: We're mired in a conflict which pits someone with a sentence supported by a cited, competent source trying to push beyond what are, as articulated thus far, naught but the result of "original research" or un-"verifiable" personal opinions -- albeit well-informed, on-topic and understandable opinions. Expressed in these stark terms, can you begin to see how I might feel unmoved, adamant and puzzled? --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is basically a discussion over the relative merits of references.
 * No -- with all due respect : wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The website supporting the PBS documentary is, simply put, not a good reference. PBS is not an authority on ship classifications and it does not cite any sources which support this classification.
 * No -- with all due respect : we're not here yet --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jane's Fighting Ships is often considered the best reference on warship classifications and statistics, and it states that these ships are helicopter carriers.
 * No -- with all due respect : potentially valid, but unavailing --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The very reliable Globalsecurity.org discusses the ships' classification and concludes that while they are "similar in design to a small aircraft carrier" and the 'destroyer' classification is a bit dubious it ends up consistently labeling them "helicopter-carrying destroyers".
 * No -- with all due respect : potentially valid, but unavailing --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These references have been mentioned earlier, so I don't understand why you are accusing Bill and I of ""original research" or un-"verifiable" personal opinions". Nick Dowling (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No -- with all due respect : wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Please see Citation.
 * 2. Please see Citing sources.
 * 3. Please see No original research.
 * 4. Please see Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
 * Nick Dowling -- No -- with all due respect : My responses to your sentences are folded into your text so as to be emphatic and clear. Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive.  I've replied No ad nauseam to each distinct element of your paragraph posting -- not because I want to be difficult, but rather because of the depth of disagreement you've compelled me to parse again and again and again. Frankly, with this last bit of writing, you've dug yourself into a nearly impossible-to-imagine hole; and I just don't know how else I can more strongly encourage you to stop digging, please. --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please consider:
 * No original research/noticeboard. --Tenmei (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Editor assistance/Requests --Tenmei (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure based on the lengthy talk page posts and edit summaries, could someone clarify some issues here on what exactly is disputed
 * Is it over whether the ship constitutes (a) "aircraft carrier", or (b) a "helicopter-carrying destroyer, similar in design to a small aircraft carrier"(globalsecurity.org)?
 * Is it over whether the ship (a)constitutes a true aircraft carrier, and (b) constitutes the "first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War"? Or just a?
 * Is the dispute also over whether it is not called a helicopter destroyer versus aircraft carrier for political and not solely technical reasons? If it is simply a dispute as to whether Global Security and Jane's classification of the ship as a helicopter carrier come from a more reliable source, at least in terms of technical details than the PBS documentary, I tend to favor the global security and Jane's sources in this respect. But I didn't get through watching the full video on PBS site. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tenmei wants to include text stating that the ship is an aircraft carrier, with a reference back to a PBS website. The diff in question is . Bill has reverted this twice as it's not correct and has been discussed before (see above). I've provided two references to highly reliable sources which state that these ships aren't aircraft carriers (Jane's Fighting Ships a gold standard for ship statistics and classifications). My one paragraph response to Tenmei's offer to discuss this was much shorter and easier to read when I posted it and before Tenmei dissected it... Nick Dowling (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Nick Dowling frames a issue which might have been posed by someone else at some other time. His summary is not a fair characterization of the issues at hand or the questions raised. --Tenmei (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain your concern then? If this isn't a discussion about the reliability of different references, what is it? Nick Dowling (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see. In the context Nick Dowling creates, the question above is disingenuous, disquieting in causing offense -- a bad faith gesture which heedlessly diminishes credibility.
 * The otherwise unremarkable note below clarifies the gambit and the context, but candidly does nothing to demonstrate any willingness to grapple with the issues on this page. --Tenmei (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that I've sought comments at WP:SHIP and on the Japanese and maritime history task forces of the Military History wikiprojects. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that you've sought comments on this dispute on three different policy noticeboards, it was appropriate to also notify the relevant Wikiprojects. I genuinely don't understand what your concern is if it isn't the reliability of the references and I would appreciate it if you could explain this. Please note that I've now cited the entire article using the external links and am removing the refimprove tag. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nick Dowling -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --Tenmei (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Turning lemons into lemonade
Tenmei, please stop commenting on the editor, instead of the issue. There is no need to make allegations that Nick Dowling is intentionally mischaracterizing the issue to an uninvolved editor; if you disagree with his interpretation, simply give your own. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Parsecboy -- Your words will do nicely. Your words capture my thought precisely: "intentionally mischaracterizing the issues." Thanks. Not to put too fine a point on it, yes -- disingenuous is a polite word which implies more left unsaid in an effort to maintain a mild tone. --Tenmei (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Parsecboy -- Please, I encourage you to review the timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record.  Some questions are disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of Nick Dowling's credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 06:00, 13 July 2008 -- NPOV at Editor assistance/Requests
 * 06:32, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling posts link to NPOV restatement -- see text below.
 * 06:56, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 1st "disingenuous" question
 * 10:57, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei points to ND's "diminished credibility"
 * 11:14, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 2nd "disingenuous" question
 * 12:17, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei crosses out "with all due respect"
 * 13:09, 13 July 2008 -- Parsecboy's negative spin on T's "allegations"


 * I don't read what Nick Dowling has stated anywhere on this page at all as disingenuous. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself on the contents of WP:AGF; not everyone who disagrees with you is doing so with ill-intent. It is wrong to assume as much, and doesn't do anything towards creating an amicable work environment on Wiki, which is the whole point of policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. He made a legitimate comment on what appears to be a central issue of this debate: whether news media are acceptable sources for technical details like into what category does this class fall? Parsecboy (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tenmei, I consider your above comments on me to be both uncivil and offensive and request that they cease. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Uncivil and offensive are here converted into badges of honor --Tenmei (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tenmei, you are behaving in a manner that is exceedingly disappointing. If you disagree with something Nick Dowling or anyone else has said, please present a differing perspective, and/or a different proposal. As far as I can tell, you haven't actually said anything related to the discussion in the past day, since several outside editors (myself included) have arrived on the page. Instead, you have continually impugned the actions and motives of Nick, which isn't helpful in the slightest. Let me again stress the importance of WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY.
 * There is currently a proposal at the bottom of the page that addresses the issue; why don't you participate in the discussion? Surely you have an opinion on the merits of the wording. Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 14 July 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 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, Citing sources, No original research and 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)

Amphibious warfare ship?
I've just removed the class from the amphibious warfare ship class category as there's no evidence that they're anything other than ASW ships. The ships do not appear to have the ability to embark large numbers of troops and their equipment as is required for the amphibious role, and none of the references states that they do more than ressemble amphibious warfare ships. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nick, perhaps someone confused this class with the Ōsumi class LST. Btw, the second paragraph there is interesting:


 * The class could well be described as helicopter carriers. Globalsecurity.org notes that "the program originated in a proposal for a small carrier for defensive and mine countermeasures (MCM) purposes, but this was deemed politically unacceptable, and the project was reworked as an amphibious ship". The Ōsumi class has a through-deck design to maximise potential space for launching and retrieving its helicopter complement. As a result it resembles a light aircraft carrier. However, The Japanese MSDF does not currently claim any plans to fit them with a ski-jump or other equipment necessary to operate fixed-wing aircraft. Even if so equipped it would be the smallest fixed wing capable aircraft carrier in the world lighter than even the Thai Chakri Naruebet which weighs in at 10,000 tonnes.


 * So, referring to the discussion above about the Hyūga, if one calls that ship an "aircraft carrier" without any qualifications, one would also have to call the Osumi class aircraft carriers, and thus the Hyūga is not "the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War." Interesting, huh? I don't know where that fis in the proverbial "box", though! - BillCJ (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyūga an aircraft carrier?
Not wishing to interject myself into the lengthy discussion above, I will list—without commenting—sources that refer to the Hyūga an "aircraft carrier":



— Bellhalla (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On the whole, news media are not very good sources for establishing ship classifications. They tend to stick to categories they think their readers understand, and are prone to exaggeration. The Land (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree, but it is notable, certainly, that three different news organizations have called it flat out an aircraft carrier. At the least, it bears mentioning in a section about the purpose of the class. On the other hand, don't we as Wikipedia, try to cater to readers as well? I don't honestly believe that the article should be named Hyūga-class aircraft carrier, but it warrants mention, as well as perhaps a redirect from that name. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I want to add that the policy is verifiability, not necessarily truth. All three sources meet the WP:RS standard. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree that some text about the ships sometimes being called aircraft carriers would be appropriate. It's also important to note that they are not aircraft carriers as they are (at least currently) incapable of safely operating fixed-wing aircraft and are not labeled as such by the relevant experts - the Globalsecurity and Chosun Ilbo discuss this and Jane's Fighting Ships calls them helicopter destroyers and states that they can't operate VSTOL aircraft. I'll draft a para and post it here for comments. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, here's some wording which seeks to cover all the different sources:
 * The Japanese Government's classification of this class as destroyers has been met with some criticism. As the ships are larger than any previous destroyers and have a full-length flight deck and relatively large air wing, they have been compared to light aircraft carriers. Some media reports have labeled the ships aircraft carriers and it has been suggested that they represent an attempt by Japan to revive its naval aviation capabilities. The ships are not currently capable of operating fixed-wing aircraft, however, as they are not fitted with a ski-jump and other equipment needed to operate aircraft other than helicopters.  Jane's Fighting Ships has classified the Hyūga class as helicopter carriers and GlobalSecurity.org states that they are helicopter destroyers.


 * Thoughts? Nick Dowling (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks sensible to me. The Land (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse, though no doubt minor tweaks could be made. I'm not sure whether you're aiming for understatement Nick but these Japanese type designations - 'Landing Ship Tank' for the Osumis and 'Destroyer, Helicopter' for the Hyugas are really polite no-more-than euphemisms. I think we'd be more accurate in saying 'has been met with some criticism,' rather than 'not been universally accepted.' Disagreement welcome. Buckshot06(prof) 09:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse also, as it covers all bases. I think we could add the PBS ref in with the NY Post cite, and perhaps 1 or 2 others, to provide a range of sources that call the class carriers. I'd also support the "criticism" statement by Buck. - BillCJ (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Buckshot's post - my wording was too weak. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse also, although I'd prefer the opening sentence to read "While the Japanese government has classed this vessel as a destroyer (refs) it has also been described as a light aircraft carrier etc. etc. etc. (refs)."

Seems fine to me. I also agree with Buckshot's comment about wording. Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great compromise wording. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Amended the wording above as per the discussion - further thoughts welcome. Buckshot06(prof) 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As there seems to be a consensus I've added the text to the article. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Invitation to participate in creating compromise text
 * To his credit, Bellhalla encouraged my participation in this exchange of views. The following invitation was initially posted at User Talk:Tenmei. I hope my purposely delayed reply will be seen as useful:


 * Tenmei -- Have you read the proposed paragraph about the class description of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer? I believe that it covers all viewpoints and is a good compromise and supported by appropriate references. Take a look at it here. Your comments, especially, are welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bellhalla -- When I initiated this dispute, I anticipated that it would lead to something like the work you've done here. I don't know what to make of the fact that it required your unique intervention to move towards this cooperative, consensus-building teamwork.  In this, my reactions were something like confused + annoyed = puzzled?  Although I don't know the original context for the following quotation, a friend of mine often repeats it:
 * "Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."
 * -- Edward R. Murrow, 1908-1965 (American journalist)
 * As relates to JDS Hyūga, I do understand the situation well enough; and I remain slightly confused, somewhat annoyed and more-than-a-little-bit puzzled at the same time.


 * Bellhalla, do I need to acknowledge that, absent your posting, an essential element of encyclopedic content would not have been added in mid-2008, maybe not before Spring 2009? If this were correct, why? That unanswerable question seems worth pondering.


 * Re-stating and re-focusing this point somewhat differently: I'm inclined to think that anything to do with these issues would not have been addressed at this time -- in mid-2008 -- if I hadn't pushed hard against Nick Dowling's unexplained resistance. Why was there such an intense, reflexive rejection?  Why was the antipathy so persistent and so overwhelming?  These related questions seem worth further consideration.


 * Bellhalla, among the points which continue to trouble me about your not-to-be-undervalued success is the very word "compromise" -- a perfectly good word to use when working collectively and an essential, irreducible concept in coming to understand anything to do with Japan and the Japanese. In part, I begin by focusing on this one word because it seems evident that, in the future, I need to re-configure my own approach to similar obstacles by making an effort to mirror yours more closely. Quite simply, something about your manner of going about things worked well in this setting and mine did not work as well as I'd have liked. That being said, I'm a little dismayed to admit that I worry about the foundation of implicit give-and-take which was such an easily identifiable element in your consensus-building work.


 * Bellhalla, I wonder if I'm correct in fussing about whether you and your colleagues were too ready to accept the flawed premise which Nick Dowling asserts with near-religious fervour. Dowling's seeming reliance on Jane's Fighting Ships as "the gold standard" against which all else must measured becomes too narrow, too cramped, too restrictive.   The premise itself bars nuance, which represents a problem to the extent that any Wikipedia article needs to differ from its corollary entry in Jane's.  Do you see my point?


 * It may be perceived as muddying the clarity of my argument, but the fact-of-the-matter is that this criticism of what I take to be Nick Dowling's point-of-view applies only to our consideration of this one ship class article (which effectively focuses on the as-yet-uncommissioned JDS Hyūga) and not to a review of Wikipedia articles about any other vessel in the JMSDF fleet.


 * Whether I point it out or not, the fact-of-the-matter is that some essential aspects of the ultimate Wikipedia article about JDS Hyūga cannot be devolved into issues of nautical terminology, maritime conventions, naval architecture, etc., which is not to say that I'm failing to recognize that Jane's describes "the depth and breadth of information cover[ing] construction and modernisation programmes, displacement and dimensions, main machinery, speed and range, weapons systems and sensors, etc.,"


 * Bellhalla, I didn't join your working group because I couldn't figure out how to ameliorate what I see as probable consequences beyond those you intend. Expressed somewhat harshly, I didn't join this consensus-building group because it seems to me that your collective work was somewhat blindered -- wrongly focused. The group was using good tools for arriving at valid answers to meaningful questions -- yes, but Nick Dowling's leadership qualities seemed to ensure that the group would also assent in wrongly construing their successes as sufficient cause for excluding other valid, meaningful and as-yet-unexamined issues.  Do you see my point?


 * Bellhalla, given the momentum which demonstrably affected the workings of the consensus-building group you formed, I judged the only course available was to stand aside as the process flowed towards its inevitable conclusions. Then, with the consensus-driven text as a foundation from which to build, I could attempt a "reset" in a calmer, less heedlessly confrontational context.    Do you see my point?


 * Although I'm generally risk-averse, I gambled that some arguments are best engaged indirectly, and the consequences were to be influenced by fallible good luck. --Tenmei (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tenmei, whatever point you are trying to make is lost on me. Can you please restate it more succinctly? — Bellhalla (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

RESET
This is a reset -- a rejoinder following the thwarted initial effort to address unresolved problems in this article consistent with NPOV guidelines.

The exchange of views above, while satisfying in its own terms, does nothing to address the still-remaining issues which Nick Dowling sought with some success to deflect. Reframing questions in which the scope of "answers" are limited by factors implicit in the premise is an impoverished logical strategy. Nevertheless, it did prove to be a useful and effective rhetorical tactic in creating the consensus which is reflected in the compromise language above. Indeed, no further exposition or discussion is necessary at this time in the context of the "Design and Specifications" section. That aspect of this article can be set aside for the moment. There will be plenty of opportunities to return to this section in 2009 as we come closer to the date when JDS Hyūga is scheduled to be commissioned.

However, the gravamen of the introductory paragraphs stands somewhat apart, arising from history and on-going disputes which have developed from quite different grounds.

Nick Dowling incautiously reverted one sentence above, and an exchange of views ensued at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. The demand for Formal Mediation was unaddressed. The same pattern is repeated again -- and again, a curious post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy was offered as a substitute for addressing the substance of citations which support the disputed sentence.


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

In this context, the demand for Formal Mediation seems likely to fail; but what alternative is better? Please re-visit this issue in a context informed by Assume Good Faith. Please reconsider this problem in light of Verifiability which explains, in part, that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

If this is not a pointlessly disruptive edit, what else might it be which informs my persistence? --Tenmei (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that this "reset" exchange-of-views should also encompass the following which may have been otherwise overlooked:
 * See also
 * Constitution of Japan, Article 9, 1947
 * Classification terms, historic consequences:
 * Washington Naval Treaty, 1922
 * London Naval Treaty, 1930
 * Second London Naval Treaty, 1936


 * Perhaps it will be seen as helpful to forewarn that when the exclusive focus on one sentence in the second paragraph is resolved satisfactorily, I plan to turn my attention to one word in the first sentence.
 * The Hyūga-class helicopter destroyers are a type of helicopter carrier (though called helicopter destroyers (DDH) for political reasons) being built for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF). 
 * It is noteworthy that this short sentence is only slightly different from other similar sentences in articles about other vessels in the JMSDF fleet; and this minor distinction is neither unjustified, irrelevant nor inessential. --Tenmei (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page contribution
Optigan13's response to the words above was to undo them entirely -- to delete the entirety of Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer and the carefully drafted text which was added at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. I know of no conventional rationale which justifies that kind of action, but at the very least it should be reasonable to demand that Optigan13 meet some minimal burden of persuasion and production -- neither of which are evident here.

The following was posted on my talk page, and I have copied both the whatever-it-was and my response because they are relevant here. I can't be certain, but I take it as a threat. If not, someone needs to explain it to me because it should be more than clear by now that I do not understand what is happening nor do I grasp why. My best guesses are not flattering, generous, kind:


 * Optigan13 posted:
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply:
 * Optigan13 -- NO. The related edits you reverted at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer and what you reverted on this very talk page were entirely content-focused, as has been (1) the entire substance of my terse one-sentence contribution to this article and (2) my extensive defense of that one sentence across an extended, detailed, and repetitive record of thwarted efforts to engage a thoughtful and careful discussion and analysis. If you construe things otherwise, your reading is mistaken.  The least I can do it to tell you here and now that your concerns are unfounded.  Close scrutiny will not support what I take to be your interpretation; but without more detail, any assumptions about what you view might be are too insubstantial for me to address with any constructive rebuttal.


 * Optigan13 -- I can say this: Mine was not a heedless act of folly. Whether or not you take this statement in the spirit in which I offer it remains entirely up to you. Nevertheless, if you feel strongly enough about whatever it is you find objectionable, please feel free to take advantage of whatever options you find in the Wikipedia review system.  My edit, my words, and my conduct can withstand scrutiny from an unbiased review.


 * Optigan13 -- In the dramatic context you would seem loathe to survey, what more can I have done than to have sought both informal and formal mediation? I invested a not-insubstantial amount of time in trying to attract reasonable minds to assist in resolving the impasse you now perceive.  This investment allows me to ask whether you have done the same.  More to the point, what are you prepared to do now?


 * Optigan13 -- I can only try to reassure you of my certainty that closer reading, evaluation and thoughtful review will vindicate both my conduct, my writing, my intentions, and the gravamen of the substantial contribution to NPOV which this article requires. Whether or not you see it this way is irrelevant amongst the broader readership my edit is designed to inform.


 * Optigan13 -- In terms of what you reverted on this very talk page, my prose can only be evaluated as modest, controlled, seemly and correct -- and, more importantly, it is supported by credible citations. In addition, the words which precede the deleted text, I reveal my quality. You claim to see it otherwise, but simply reverting my contribution without more than a terse edit summary is unconvincing, unavailing.


 * Optigan13 -- I repeat for redundant emphasis: Whatever it is which informs your edit, I can only guess. I do note that there are no in-line citations which would help me understand the otherwise impenetrable logic which presumably informs your decision to undo prose which took quite some time to create. I can only urge you to re-visit my words with a more careful attention before you determine to set out on a further course of action as you have done.


 * Optigan13 -- Caveat: Do not revert both my edit to the article and the invitation to further discussion which is posted on its talk page. Frankly, you have been too rash. I can't be more blunt.  Perhaps on re-reading, you will begin to see that my comments are constructive, reasonable, appropriate.  My one-sentence edit, as-a-matter-of-fact, is necessary, essential, valid -- as your heedless actions have so unexpectedly illustrated.


 * Optigan13 -- Remember that this is really all about just one short sentence added to this article. Reconsider just one of the sentences from the talk page which your rash edit deleted:
 * It is noteworthy that this short sentence is only slightly different from other similar sentences in articles about other vessels in the JMSDF fleet; and this minor distinction is neither unjustified, irrelevant nor inessential.
 * Optigan13 -- In conclusion, I can do no more than urge you to think again. --Tenmei (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A simple "Optigan13 why did you revert my edits?" would have sufficed. I reverted the talk page because mixed in with the lengthy post, you continue to grossly mischaracterize Nick Dowling and your fellow editors efforts with attacks such as "if I hadn't pushed hard against Nick Dowling's unexplained resistance", "Nick Dowling asserts with near-religious fervour", "yes, but Nick Dowling's leadership qualities seemed to ensure that the group would also assent in wrongly construing their successes as sufficient cause". All of which (on top of previous posts) assert that he is angrily conspiring against you in bad faith, and that the other editors are not acting with a mind of their own. He and the other editors deserve the same respect and assumptions of good faith we have extended to you. This doesn't necessarily mean that they have to agree with you with respect to article content. I reverted the article additions because after several (many uninvolved) editors tryed to develop a well worded compromise version above and waited patiently for just under a week to allow you ample time to respond and suggest changes to the wording, the text was added. Soon after the text was added you then added more material to slant back towards your own interpretation of the sources. Which myself and the other editors disagree with. So as stated earlier, could you please explain your concern about the article content, but in a simple and concise matter and without attacking your fellow editors? -Optigan13 (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I really need to address Optigan13's posting seriatim? Would it make any difference? Would the investment of time and attention prove worthwhile? Maybe the same consequences will flow from simply referencing a number of crucial steps which are recorded as part of the readily accessible history of this article? --Tenmei (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC) in the premise is an impoverished logical strategy. Nevertheless, it did prove to be a useful and effective rhetorical tactic in creating the consensus which is reflected in the compromise language above. Indeed, no further exposition or discussion is necessary at this time in the context of the "Design and Specifications" section. That aspect of this article can be set aside for the moment. There will be plenty of opportunities to return to this section in 2009 as we come closer to the date when JDS Hyūga is scheduled to be commissioned.

However, the gravamen of the introductory paragraphs stands somewhat apart, arising from history and on-going disputes which have developed from quite different grounds.

Nick Dowling incautiously reverted one sentence above, and an exchange of views ensued at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. The demand for Formal Mediation was unaddressed. The same pattern is repeated again -- and again, a curious post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy was offered as a substitute for addressing the substance of citations which support the disputed sentence.


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

In this context, the demand for Formal Mediation seems likely to fail; but what alternative is better? Please re-visit this issue in a context informed by Assume Good Faith. Please reconsider this problem in light of Verifiability which explains, in part, that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

If this is not a pointlessly disruptive edit, what else might it be which informs my persistence? --Tenmei (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that this "reset" exchange-of-views should also encompass the following which may have been otherwise overlooked:
 * See also
 * Constitution of Japan, Article 9, 1947
 * Classification terms, historic consequences:
 * Washington Naval Treaty, 1922
 * London Naval Treaty, 1930
 * Second London Naval Treaty, 1936


 * Perhaps it will be seen as helpful to forewarn that when the exclusive focus on one sentence in the second paragraph is resolved satisfactorily, I plan to turn my attention to one word in the first sentence.
 * The Hyūga-class helicopter destroyers are a type of helicopter carrier (though called helicopter destroyers (DDH) for political reasons) being built for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF). 
 * It is noteworthy that this short sentence is only slightly different from other similar sentences in articles about other vessels in the JMSDF fleet; and this minor distinction is neither unjustified, irrelevant nor inessential. --Tenmei (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page contribution
Optigan13's response to the words above was to undo them entirely -- to delete the entirety of Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer and the carefully drafted text which was added at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. I know of no conventional rationale which justifies that kind of action, but at the very least it should be reasonable to demand that Optigan13 meet some minimal burden of persuasion and production -- neither of which are evident here.

The following was posted on my talk page, and I have copied both the whatever-it-was and my response because they are relevant here. I can't be certain, but I take it as a threat. If not, someone needs to explain it to me because it should be more than clear by now that I do not understand what is happening nor do I grasp why. My best guesses are not flattering, generous, kind:


 * Optigan13 posted:
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply:
 * Optigan13 -- NO. The related edits you reverted at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer and what you reverted on this very talk page were entirely content-focused, as has been (1) the entire substance of my terse one-sentence contribution to this article and (2) my extensive defense of that one sentence across an extended, detailed, and repetitive record of thwarted efforts to engage a thoughtful and careful discussion and analysis. If you construe things otherwise, your reading is mistaken.  The least I can do it to tell you here and now that your concerns are unfounded.  Close scrutiny will not support what I take to be your interpretation; but without more detail, any assumptions about what you view might be are too insubstantial for me to address with any constructive rebuttal.


 * Optigan13 -- I can say this: Mine was not a heedless act of folly. Whether or not you take this statement in the spirit in which I offer it remains entirely up to you. Nevertheless, if you feel strongly enough about whatever it is you find objectionable, please feel free to take advantage of whatever options you find in the Wikipedia review system.  My edit, my words, and my conduct can withstand scrutiny from an unbiased review.


 * Optigan13 -- In the dramatic context you would seem loathe to survey, what more can I have done than to have sought both informal and formal mediation? I invested a not-insubstantial amount of time in trying to attract reasonable minds to assist in resolving the impasse you now perceive.  This investment allows me to ask whether you have done the same.  More to the point, what are you prepared to do now?


 * Optigan13 -- I can only try to reassure you of my certainty that closer reading, evaluation and thoughtful review will vindicate both my conduct, my writing, my intentions, and the gravamen of the substantial contribution to NPOV which this article requires. Whether or not you see it this way is irrelevant amongst the broader readership my edit is designed to inform.


 * Optigan13 -- In terms of what you reverted on this very talk page, my prose can only be evaluated as modest, controlled, seemly and correct -- and, more importantly, it is supported by credible citations. In addition, the words which precede the deleted text, I reveal my quality. You claim to see it otherwise, but simply reverting my contribution without more than a terse edit summary is unconvincing, unavailing.


 * Optigan13 -- I repeat for redundant emphasis: Whatever it is which informs your edit, I can only guess. I do note that there are no in-line citations which would help me understand the otherwise impenetrable logic which presumably informs your decision to undo prose which took quite some time to create. I can only urge you to re-visit my words with a more careful attention before you determine to set out on a further course of action as you have done.


 * Optigan13 -- Caveat: Do not revert both my edit to the article and the invitation to further discussion which is posted on its talk page. Frankly, you have been too rash. I can't be more blunt.  Perhaps on re-reading, you will begin to see that my comments are constructive, reasonable, appropriate.  My one-sentence edit, as-a-matter-of-fact, is necessary, essential, valid -- as your heedless actions have so unexpectedly illustrated.


 * Optigan13 -- Remember that this is really all about just one short sentence added to this article. Reconsider just one of the sentences from the talk page which your rash edit deleted:
 * It is noteworthy that this short sentence is only slightly different from other similar sentences in articles about other vessels in the JMSDF fleet; and this minor distinction is neither unjustified, irrelevant nor inessential.
 * Optigan13 -- In conclusion, I can do no more than urge you to think again. --Tenmei (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A simple "Optigan13 why did you revert my edits?" would have sufficed. I reverted the talk page because mixed in with the lengthy post, you continue to grossly mischaracterize Nick Dowling and your fellow editors efforts with attacks such as "if I hadn't pushed hard against Nick Dowling's unexplained resistance", "Nick Dowling asserts with near-religious fervour", "yes, but Nick Dowling's leadership qualities seemed to ensure that the group would also assent in wrongly construing their successes as sufficient cause". All of which (on top of previous posts) assert that he is angrily conspiring against you in bad faith, and that the other editors are not acting with a mind of their own. He and the other editors deserve the same respect and assumptions of good faith we have extended to you. This doesn't necessarily mean that they have to agree with you with respect to article content. I reverted the article additions because after several (many uninvolved) editors tryed to develop a well worded compromise version above and waited patiently for just under a week to allow you ample time to respond and suggest changes to the wording, the text was added. Soon after the text was added you then added more material to slant back towards your own interpretation of the sources. Which myself and the other editors disagree with. So as stated earlier, could you please explain your concern about the article content, but in a simple and concise matter and without attacking your fellow editors? -Optigan13 (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I really need to address Optigan13's posting seriatim? Would it make any difference? Would the investment of time and attention prove worthwhile? Maybe the same consequences will flow from simply referencing a number of crucial steps which are recorded as part of the readily accessible history of this article? --Tenmei (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Revision as of 15:28, 4 September 2007 -- Marcd30319
 * Newer edit → External links:
 * + http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3000171&C=landwar


 * Revision as of 16:43, 4 September 2007 -- Marcd30319
 * Newer edit → External links:
 * + http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200708/200708270007.html
 * Newer edit → External links:
 * + http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20070825.aspx


 * Revision as of 14:25, 30 October 2007 -- Buckshot06
 * Newer edit → The 'Hyūga-class destroyers are a new type of small aircraft carrier (though for political reasons called a helicopter destroyer (DDH) ) being built for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF).


 * Revision as of 19:42, 19 November 2007 -- BillCJ
 * m (moved Hyuga class destroyer to Hyuga class helicopter destroyer: Better name, as "aircraft carrier" is a loaded term, per text)


 * Revision as of 05:45, 29 February 2008 -- Saburny
 * Newer edit → The Hyūga-class helicopter destroyers are a new type of small aircraft Helicopter carrier (though called helicopter destroyers (DDH) for political reasons) being built for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF).


 * Revision as of 10:43, 13 July 2008 --- Nick Dowling
 * m (fixed ref and tagged claim which is currently being discussed on the talk page)
 * Newer edit →The JDS Hyūga is the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War. {.{dubious}}

Arbitrary break and call for consensus
Tenmei, I would strongly suggest you try to present your case in a more succinct fashion to be able to more effectively engage with the other editors working on this article. I'm personally finding it difficult to keep track of the precise issues here which are being overwhelmed by surrounding text. I'd suggest you use bullets or numbered lists to show the offending (current) line of text and your proposed (new) wording. Now, if I understand this right, you are disputing the following sentence, which is referenced: I'm assuming this sentence is problematic purely because we've already discussed the opening paragraph and the controversial destroyer vs. aircraft carrier design and settled on a compromise won by consensus; this sentence then conflicts with that. For clarity's sake, what is your proposed rewording? I would volunteer the following: Is there a consensus for this change? Coldmachine Talk 07:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "The JDS Hyūga is the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War."
 * "The JDS Hyūga is the first vessel of this type to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War."


 * NO. Coldmachine -- Your proposal was quite   unhelpful.  What can you do to facilitate a move towards Formal Mediation?--08:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this issue merits informal mediation, let alone formal mediation. There is controversy surrounding the use of the term 'aircraft carrier', and opposition to ignoring the capacity of this vessel to carry aircraft at all (i.e. calling it a destroyer). There is plenty of scope for compromise and consensus building still. I see that, reviewing the problems, you wish to refer to this vessel as an aircraft carrier is that so? And that I was mistaken in the above paragraph where I thought you were opposing the 'offending' (current) line of text which, in fact, you wish to keep? I still believe the proposed rewording which I have put forward would be a solution to this problem: at the moment there is a risk that editors are exerting ownership of this article. Coldmachine Talk 09:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * YES. Coldmachine -- This restatement is helpful . Your re-wording of a familiar proposal helped me see beyond the blank wall which attended my reading of earlier versions of the call for renewed efforts in moving beyond an awkward impasse.


 * Yes -- taking the last clause first: "... there is a risk that editors are exerting ownership of this article." Even if this were shown to be a valid concern, I wonder if it might be seen as narrowing the issues if I were to concede "ownership" of articles about every other ship in the JMSDF fleet, excepting only JDS Hyūga?  This could be construed as a dramatic, succinct, clear way of saying that everything I so strenuously dispute in this venue becomes unjustified, irrelevant and inessential in those contexts.  Moreover, I can effectively concede "ownership" to Hyūga class helicopter destroyer.  Done.  No problem.


 * No -- moving backwards through your prose: "... you wish to refer to this vessel as an aircraft carrier is that so?" This stray arrow hits the center of the target.  "I" don't wish anything, not really.  "I" don't care.  Controversy arises solely in a single sentence in the article, and the dispute only begins with any attempts to assert that this ship is not an aircraft carrier in that specific paragraph of the introduction. In my view, the WP:NPOV of non-Japanese Wikipedias mandate this short sentence or something like it in articles about JDS Hyūga. However, as I would have thought I'd already explained ad nauseam, WP:Verifiability informs my persistence because, quite simply, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."  At first blush, this crude formulation of the problem at hand may lead you to begin  trivializing, and you would be wrong to give in to that compelling tendency -- see also
 * Constitution of Japan, Article 9, 1947
 * Classification terms, historic consequences:
 * Washington Naval Treaty, 1922
 * London Naval Treaty, 1930
 * Second London Naval Treaty, 1936


 * Yes and No. -- You wrote: "There is controversy surrounding the use of the term 'aircraft carrier', and opposition to ignoring the capacity of this vessel to carry aircraft at all (i.e. calling it a destroyer)." Yes, the first independent clause is precisely correct; but I'm not sure whether the rest of the sentence needs to be resolved or even addressed here.


 * Thank you, Coldmachine, for helping create this opportunity for a small step in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tenmei, thank you for discussing your concerns in terms of relevant policies and the need to ensure that we are in line with them. Given that different reliable sources state that the ships' are aircraft carriers, or helicopter carriers, or destroyers WP:NPOV means that a statement which says only that they are aircraft carriers is not appropriate given that there is no agreement over what kind of ships they are and WP:V also means that all these different classifications which are reliably sourced should be included. WP:LEAD calls for the lead section to reflect the content of the article, which in this case is the paragraph developed above which discusses how the Japanese government's classification of the ships' as destroyers has been criticised and different sources use different classifications. As such, I support the text proposed by Coldmachine and think that it is better suited to the lead section than the current text which states that the ships' are aircraft carriers. I would be happy to consider alternatives to this wording though. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As alternative wording, how about "The JDS Hyūga is the largest aviation ship to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War"? (it's not really the first ship of this type to be constructed given that the Ōsumi class LSTs are also large ships with full-length flight decks which were designed to operate multiple helicopters). Nick Dowling (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Complaint lodged at WP:AN/I
Please note that I have requested that an uninvolved administrator review User:Tenmei's comments and behaviour over this article at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In light of the disputes I've fully protected the article. Please resolve your disputes here, have an uninvolved admin make the requested changes, and then request unprotection.  Cheers.  --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, it's really the nature of the discussion here which I see as being the problem. Nick Dowling (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At the most basic level, this WP:AN/I complaint easily answered -- No.
 * Nick Dowling's complaint is an interesting gambit, and it may be possible for helpful consequences to develop. As for the substance of the tedious allegations, addressing them seriatim could  have value.  We'll see.
 * In the meantime, instead of merely stewing, I'd like to hope Nick Dowling would occupy himself with answering all or some of the questions which still remain unaddressed. It is possible that something helpful might develop from the attempt.  What about those questions which were presented in a green font for special emphasis ? --Tenmei (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure: I'm happy to discuss your concerns, and you have been encouraged to do this throughout this talk page. However, most of what you've posted in green are a series of statements rebutting my response to your offer to discuss the article in which you state only that my views are "wrong" or "potentially valid, but unavailing" - these aren't questions and the only response I have to your request that I respond to your comments in green is to point out that myself and several other editors have since developed a paragraph which discusses the fact that different reliable sources label these ships differently (including some sources stating that they are carriers) and this has now been added to the article along with supporting citiations for all the different classifications. The external links have now been converted to inline citations (which was easily done as they were reliable sources which supported the various statements and statistics in the article at the time) so another response to your concern that external links aren't adequete doesn't seem nessessary.


 * Please note that I have responded to your post about the need to follow guidelines above. I think that this sums up my position and I hope that you find it useful. Do you agree with it? Please note that I am happy to acknowledge that instead of simply removing your statement that the ships are aircraft carriers at the start of this dispute I should have replaced it with text stating that some sources state that the ships are aircraft carriers while other sources state that they are helicopter carriers or destroyers - I believe that I have rectified this mistake by proposing the text on the disagreement over their classifications above which was endorsed by other editors before being added to the article. Please note that it uses the reference you included originally as one of the sources which states that the ships are aircraft carriers. That said, I continue to consider that your comments on this discussion have frequently been needlessly uncivil, and note that several editors have asked that you focus on the issues rather than attack other editors.


 * You have not responded to the repeated requests asking that you please post a clear statement explaining your concerns about the article, and if you would like to do so I would be happy to respond to it - I genuinely don't understand what it is you're so concerned about and would appreciate an explanation. For example, are you concerned about something other than or in addition to the relatively narrow topic of the ships' classification as used in military publications and the media? (which is the only topic I have any views on here: for instance, I know almost nothing about the Japanese Constitution or about any implications these ships may have relating to it - my only interest is to ensure that the article does not make statements about the ships' design and characteristics which are not in line with the full range of reliable sources ). Nick Dowling (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit to protected page
I would like to engage discussion, support, and consensus for an edit to the initial sentence of the protected page -- changing just one single word. In my view, quality of the article will be enhanced by substituting the word "constitutional" in place of the word "political" in that one sentence.

As you can see by clicking on the links provided here and here, the second paragraph of the current Global Security.org citation is not inconsistent with this suggested edit; and the prominent position at the beginning of this analysis-text indicates the importance of this word-change. This proposed edit finds additional support in the first sentence a recent Council on Foreign Relations analysis of the Japanese military -- Teslik, Lee Hudson. "Backgrounder; Japan and Its Military," Council on Foreign Relations. April 13, 2006.


 * Current version
 * The Hyūga-class helicopter destroyers are a type of helicopter carrier (though called helicopter destroyers (DDH) for political reasons) being built for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF).
 * 1. "16DDH "13,500 ton" ton Class". Globalsecurity.org.
 * 2. "Hyuga class (CVHG) (Japan), Helicopter Destroyers". Jane's Fighting Ships (online extract). Jane's Information Group (2008-03-14).


 * Proposed version
 * The Hyūga-class helicopter destroyers are a type of helicopter carrier (though called helicopter destroyers (DDH) for constitutional reasons) being built for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF).
 * 3. Teslik, Lee Hudson. "Backgrounder; Japan and Its Military," Council on Foreign Relations. April 13, 2006
 * 4. "16DDH "13,500 ton" ton Class". Globalsecurity.org.
 * 5. "Hyuga class (CVHG) (Japan), Helicopter Destroyers". Jane's Fighting Ships (online extract). Jane's Information Group (2008-03-14).

In the same way that a very cursory scan of the first couple of paragraphs in the two above-linked sources may serve to better inform those wanting to evaluate the proposed edit, this significant word-change is likely to better serve readers who cursorily scan only the first paragraph of this article about a ship. --Tenmei (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd endorse that if it were 'constitutional' without the capital 'C'. The reference is also from a notable source (Council on Foreign Relations). Coldmachine Talk 21:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, both CFR and Global Security texts use lower case "constitution". Words corrected above. --Tenmei (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks good to me. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, too. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The constitution of Japan doesn't say what the JMSDF should call their ships that carry rotary-wing aircraft. Doesn't the pertinent part of the constitution say only that it must be a solely defensive force? The revision suggested above implies the government is correct: that a helicopter carrier, called by some other name, somehow [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Tragedy_of_Romeo_and_Juliet#SCENE_II.__Capulet.27s_orchard. smells] differently! Perhaps the parenthetic text would need to be "(represented as being defensive, helicopter-carrying destroyers (DDH) for constitutional reasons)." Of course this takes more than a single-word change. But to do less is to swing from one POV to another, without acheiving neutrality. (sdsds - talk) 03:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha, Sdsds -- You are entirely correct in recognizing that this one-word edit nimbly skirts many of the unresolved issues in this article. Indeed, the very fact that the article has been page-protected is a consequence of adding the last sentence of the second paragraph; and the ensuing dispute hasn't even reached an NPOV threshold, as revealed in the developing record at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎.  Nevertheless, this section of the talk page is focused on one word in one sentence -- a small step in a constructive direction.


 * In a venue significantly marked by dissent, disputes, distrust, and miscommunication, it becomes all the more important to identify any small fragment of agreement which can evolve as a foundation from which to build towards something different and better.  As you may know,  Verifiability reminds us all that "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."  This proposed edit does enjoy the requisite "verifiability;" and, fortuitously, it is not inconsistent with other salutatory objectives as well.


 * The question at hand becomes narrowly focused: Do you endorse or oppose this proposed edit; and if so, why? If you view this edit as too modest, or the step forward too timid, or the substance of consensus too frail, then the question becomes for you, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully oppose the single-word edit suggested. Neutral point of view, which is policy, is of importance equal to Verifiability and "is non-negotiable and expected of all articles." To achieve this neutrality, the article must represent without bias all significant views published by reliable sources. The cited Chosun Ilbo source for example, written as it is by their senior reporter for military affairs, clearly meets the standard for a view which must be represented. That reporter writes, "Many Korean and foreign media outlets are calling it Japan's first post-war helicopter carrier or light aircraft carrier." That source also asserts the political controversy about the nature of the vessel is its "most noteworthy" aspect. No single-word edit will change the lead paragraph to correctly represent the importance of this political controversy. Instead, either a multi-word edit like the one suggested above, or an edit that provides a wikilink to Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, would be ways to move the article towards an NPOV presentation of the subject matter. (sdsds - talk) 06:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sdsds -- As I see it, the tenor of your opposition could not be more welcome. Please allow me to re-frame your argument -- to "spin" your own words so that you and others might be persuaded to endorse this single edit. For the purposes of this edit only, I'm seeking to meld a consensus which includes those who think exactly as you do and also those who have no idea what you're talking about and also those who couldn't care less about whatever it is you're going on about because, in any case, they're focused on other considerations which underpin an interest in this article ....


 * It perhaps bears repeating that Verifiability reminds us all that "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The fact-of-the-matter is that you do accord value to what you think is true -- so do I; but I'd argue this one edit doesn't take us there yet. Your opposition doesn't need to arise yet -- not in this narrowed context.  Soon, very soon -- but not yet.


 * In the limited compass of the proposed edit, you concisely explain a core concept:
 * Neutral point of view, which is policy, is of importance equal to Verifiability and "is non-negotiable and expected of all articles." To achieve this neutrality, the article must represent without bias all significant views published by reliable sources. The cited Chosun Ilbo source for example, written as it is by their senior reporter for military affairs, clearly meets the standard for a view which must be represented.
 * Others have staked out a similar position, arguing that the two citations which are currently appended to that first sentence represent the "gold standard" of verifiable resources having to do with naval vessels. I wonder if, in support of your opposition to the proposed edit in the opening sentence, can you cite an source which is plausibly equivalent or better than Global Security.org or Jane's Fighting Ships?


 * ASIDE: I see a possibility that this small edit could serve as a meaningful step towards achieving what I take to be objectives congruent with my own. The heart of the matter might be reachable through one enviable sentence in your initial contribution. The central clause is almost like poetry in the ways in which relatively few words are used to encompass the ambit of such a broad array of issues and contexts:
 * The revision suggested above implies the government is correct: that a helicopter carrier, called by some other name, somehow smells differently!
 * I can and do disagree with how you construe the implications of the proposed one-word edit; and at the same time, I can and do give fulsome support to your critical analysis of non-NPOV implications which accompany the imprimatur of official Japanese terminology. Leaving aside that excellent Shakespearean allusion for the moment, a superficial parsing of the gravamen of your "simple" declaratory sentence requires several dense paragraphs. In my eagerness to focus on what is so very correct about this sentence, I'm having a hard time holding myself back to focus on the a priori issue at hand.


 * Rather than examining whether the proposed word change tilts an on-going argument one way or another, it may be more pertinent -- and more constructive -- to note that many readers, and indeed many interested editors who have watch-listed this page, don't recognize that JDS Hyūga is a focal point for disputes about larger issues, nor do they even suspect that there could a non-NPOV issue which demands attention. In the precise context, the effect on these broader matters is neutral.  There is some improvement to gained by the greater specificity of the proposed edit, as I see it, but only to the extent that a "constitutional" controversy is understood to be about fundamental matters as distinguished from a mere "political" controversy which might only involve time-limited issues-of-the-day.  I hope this is sufficient to convince you to endorse this one-word edit, while still maintaining your unchanged point-of-view about the article as a whole?


 * As a practical matter, this proposed edit serves a functional purpose beyond its ultimate result. Perhaps it may be helpful to mention it now.


 * In the context of controversies which played out before this edit was proposed, there is little evidence that some of the more passionate contributors had accorded any weight whatsoever to the issues which are given significant prominence by analysts at Global Security.org and at the Council on Foreign Relations.


 * In the process of evaluating how to respond to this unique edit proposal, it was an attractive gamble that some of these otherwise under-informed contributors might be inspired to familiarize themselves with this subject-matter at here and here. --Tenmei (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Way too many words, people…
It's too bad we can't sell the words on this talk page by the pound; we'd all be wealthy. ;) But, seriously, there are way too many words on this talk page for anyone to be seriously expected to follow this topic. I'm taking off my watch list. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The problem is that this could constitute disruptive editing as a "campaign to drive away productive contributors...that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles." I would therefore remind User:Tenmei of both that policy and TLDR. Tenmei, I would again reiterate my request that you put forward your points succinctly: failing to do so may result in a warning for disruptive behaviour. Coldmachine Talk 18:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of words are appropriate to the subject, and they are required by the context. --Tenmei (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect several editors do not believe this to be true. I'd suggest you heed the advice of your peers; you risk forcing people away from contributing here which can be perceived as disruptive. Coldmachine Talk 13:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree. It's a shame that the amount of energy which has been put into this dispute dwarfs that which has been put into the actual article, which remains disappointingly short. The upshot, however, is that we've now got a fairly good para which describes the disagreement over the ships' classification and which has been endorsed by multiple editors and remains in the article. I'm dropping out of this discussion as it is being propelled by a single editor and going around in circles, but will keep the article on my watchlist and will be happy to comment on any concrete proposals to add or change the article's text. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A more specific recommendation would be that there are too many needless words. For an explanation of needless words see The Elements of Style/Principles and The Elements of Style/Principles in general. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)