Talk:Mamoru Shinozaki

link title== When did the Japanese nationalists get ahold of this article? ==

There are some pretty vitriolic claims that he misrepresented Japan, and the source is...  an old article by a Japanese person,  in a book I'm not sure we have access to. I wish butthurt special snowflakes would quit editing this article. I'm as much of a Nipponphile as anyone (anime gen) bit Japanese racist war atrocities are pretty well-known. Could someone edit article for facts and tone? I don't know enough about this fellow to do it efficiently. Tabbycatlove (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The lede's obviously been given a once-over by some Nippon Kaigi type, but the body text in turn is credulous and sourced almost entirely to Shinozaki's own memoirs (or sources that just repeat them uncritically. The Singapore Infopedia article is actualy waaaaay better than what Wikipedia has rn. Basically Shinozaki probably did something to help Singaporeans but the famous "good conduct passes" are completely undocumented by anyone other than himself. So the article's a bit of a mess all around. 135.0.27.43 (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mamoru Shinozaki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612154926/http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_1222_2006-12-09.html to http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_1222_2006-12-09.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612155815/http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_1221_2006-12-29.html to http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_1221_2006-12-29.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612160839/http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_1220_2006-12-29.html to http://infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/articles/SIP_1220_2006-12-29.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Deep concerns about the neutrality of this article
With the greatest respect, when the first (critical) source is from a Japanese government institution, it leads me to be concerned about the neutrality of the opinions stated. Indeed, the article remains poorly sourced throughout. It needs a rewrite. · &#124; (talk - contributions) 21:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To that extent, I'm adding a NPOV template. There's been a previous discussion on this, seemingly, and I don't think that concerns have been resolved all that much. · &#124; (talk - contributions) 21:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding template is not a helpful method to improve this article, I think. Writing Shinozaki's article is very difficult because his autobiography is filled with lies, and many books which based on Shinozaki's autobiography may reproduce Shinozaki's lies. Furthermore, not only the articles which written in English but the articles which written in Japanese and Chinese are important to know his true career　and acts. I don't know your mother language but if your mother language is English, I recommend you to read old day's Straits Times through this site, and don't rely　on Shinozaki's autobiography or books which suspected to cheating Shinozaki's autobiography. I also try to do so.--UikiHedeo (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My temporary works ended. Please check the contents and if my edition solved NPOV problem, plese remove the template. If there still exist such problem, please point it out again.--UikiHedeo (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A week has passed. I added citations and I guess that the NPOV problem resolved. So I removed NPOV template.--UikiHedeo (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

about the edition at 08:41, 4 January 2018‎
Thank's for an IP user pointed my edition "lack objectivity". But Wikipedia's standards don't prohibit us writing controversial statements which supported by citations in leading section.(WP:WHENNOTCITE) I wrote "Shinozaki's autobiography criticized by many Singaporeans", because many resources criticized Shinozaki's autobiography, and you can check them in the contents of this article. So I think "objectivity" problem is not existing.

I also think that "clean up" template is not adequate to using for the NPOV problem. Please use other templates and explain your definition of "objectivity" more clearly. --UikiHedeo (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Merely providing citations is not enough to provide NPOV. Tone and language (e.g. "distortions and lies of many historical facts", "merely an interpreter") is loaded and editorialising. Shinozaki's POV (however self-congratulatory it is) is constantly emphasised as his own, while other sources tend to be stated without similar attribution, almost passing off as verified fact. Contrasting viewpoints are consistently placed throughout the article, adjusting the overall tone - consolidating into a section on controversy and using neutral sources for main body would be more productive. Interpretation and/or provenance of sources is suspect - e.g. source 25 does not seem to mention Shinozaki plying Gardner with alcohol, Japanese sources could use links or Japanese titles for verifiability.


 * Basically, article has swung to the opposite end of the spectrum. Perhaps some of these issues can be explained by English not being your first language, but even then, there are NPOV red flags all around. Refer to the Singapore Infopedia article linked in the GA review thread to see how a controversy can be written about in a more objective manner. - 7.12am, 5th January 2018


 * Thank you for your comment. I think I understood your points of view.


 * If the problems derived from my "tone and language", I'm positive to improve such problems. I may re-write "merely an interpreter" as "an interpreter". But the "distortions and lies of many historical facts" is not my "editorialising" but many Singaporean newspapers and Japanese researchers called Shinozaki's autobiography in such words. You can find them in many resources which I already cited.


 * I emphasised Shinozaki's POV constantly while other sources tend to be stated without similar attribution, because Shinozaki's POV is criticized by many historians as a Questionable source (WP:QS) while other sources (e.g. Singaporean newspapers, other JMA staff's memoirs) are not. I dare use his autobiography as a source, but the problem of WP:PEACOCK always exist. So I always emphasise Shinozaki's POV.


 * You say that consolidating into a section on controversy and using neutral sources for main body would be more productive, but there not always exist "neutral sources", especially about the theme of "Shinozaki's life", there exist few resources and Shinozaki's autobiography is one of them, so I dare use his autobiography as a source, but which were once criticized by many historians and Singapore residents as that "true history was not as Shinozaki wrote". So I first write what Shinozaki wrote, then write which had said as not like Shinozaki wrote.


 * I think writing what Shinozaki wrote in main body and consolidating criticisms into a section is inadequate. You recommend "Singapore Infopedia"'s manner, but I think they are not "objective", because they uses Questionable source in main body and don't check its contents by other credible sources (e.g. Singaporean Newspaper's articles) or what many historians said about Shinozaki's autobiography.


 * I once pointed Singapore National Library that Singapore Infopedia's article had many problems which rely on Shinozaki's autobiography. They modified article using Singaporean newspaper's article written in English, but their citation is not so careful(e.g. their article lack contents about Shinozaki's testimony on war crime trial on Sook Ching Massacre which caused many Singaporean resident's protests) and they still don't use articles written in Chinese.


 * Source 25 mentions Shinozaki plying Gardner with alcohol, I think. "Gunner's Evidence" section wrote that "He was paid sums ranging from $10 to $45, and was provided with beer and cigarettes." Is it insufficient? So I'm positive to add some resources written in English. Any way, your suspicion is groundless, I feel that I'm very positive to show the provenance of sources and very loyal to the tone of source. --UikiHedeo (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sentence structure needs to be clearer
I've tidied up some of the grammar but some of the sentences need to be made clearer. As I'm not familiar with the subject matter it's difficult to know how to best edit some of the text. PlantSwordfish (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you for your edition of the article. Would you point out which sentences need to be made clearer? I want to explain them more clearer.--UikiHedeo (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This page might be removed from Google search result
How can I resist to such attack? --UikiHedeo (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC) --UikiHedeo (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)