User:Cla68

Articles

I usually work on World War II (WWII) Pacific campaign articles for two reasons: (1) I'm interested in U.S. and Japanese military history and both intersected in the Pacific in WWII, and (2) I believe that the Pacific campaign doesn't get as much attention as it should in comparison with the European campaigns of WWII.

Military history articles that I've worked-on (with key help from others) and nominated for Featured Article (FA):

File:Cla68.jpg

Me snowboarding at Snowbasin, Utah on a cold day in 1997.

• Operation Ten-Go
• Naval Battle of Guadalcanal
• Battle of the Eastern Solomons
• Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands
• Battle of Rennell Island
• Battle of Savo Island
• Battle of the Tenaru
• Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo
• Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)
• Battle of Edson's Ridge

"To do" list (in roughly this order):

• Action along the Matanikau (September 1942)
• Battle of Cape Esperance
• Battle for Henderson Field
• Battle of Tassafaronga
• Operation Ke
• Guadalcanal Campaign
• Solomon Islands campaign
• Operation Hailstone
• Operation Tan No. 2

What I mean by "to do" is to attempt to bring these articles up to FA quality, it they aren't there already. I don't mean to imply any ownership over these articles.

Advice on preparing a history article for FA

Some tips that I've discovered in choosing, editing, and submitting history articles for FA:

• Choose a non-controversial subject. If the article you want to work on is under the ``protection`` of one or more POV-pushers, you're just going to immensely frustrate yourself trying to work through the wall of interference that those other editors will throw up as you try to improve the article. The best is if you can find an article that has been left alone for some time (check the history). Of course, choose a subject that's interesting to you. If you choose to improve an article that has several sub-articles (like a military campaign that includes several sub-battles), take the sub-articles to FA first. Then, the "parent" article will have basically written itself from the completed sub-articles.
• Acquire your references first. Having the right references is the most important part of writing the article. Search the Web or the local library and find all the references you'll need for the article. I suggest at least three. Books are better than websites because they're often more credible and websites come and go. Try your local public or university library or you can buy used books online very cheaply. Add your list of references to the article first, so that other, helpful editors can also jump-in to assist if they want to and have access to the references you list (this has happened to me). The more references you can acquire and use, the better. What one historian misses may be recorded by another historian. Try to get references that give the point of view from all sides of the event.
• Cite (inline) liberally. You can't have too many footnotes, but you can have too little. Cite every assertion. Also, spread your citations out among your references so that it doesn't look like you're using one or two sources for everything.
• Illlustrate. Find pictures and maps with ok copyright status (or create supporting maps or images yourself), upload them to Wikimedia Commons, and add a Commons link from the article to the Commons gallery where you list all of the images related to the article. This way editors in the other Wikipedia language editions can access the images you upload and use them for the articles on the same subject that they're writing in their language (yes, I've seen this done with images I uploaded to the Commons). Adjust the flow of the text of the article to support images you add that emphasize particular events. In this way you can make your article more of a multi-media presentation instead of just a written report on something. I've sometimes made the decision on whether to start an entry about an event based solely on if there were enough images available to adequately illustrate the article.
• Step back periodically. If you're stumped or your writing isn't flowing well, take a break and do something else with your free time for a day or so. An idea for the article may occur to you when your mind is on something else. Happens to me all the time. An encyclopedic-style article can be written in a concise and neutral manner, yet still produce some dramatic tension for the reader if written well.
• Write neutrally. I know that this is one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia, but, it still bears repeating. If someone can read your article and not be able to tell which side you're taking on the battle, event, or issue, then you've succeeded in writing it neutrally.
• Don't forget the "human element" After all is said and done, the story you are telling involves your fellow human beings involved in a very dramatic situation. Try to have at least one item in the article that expresses this human element, whether it be a quote from a participant, an image clearly showing a person, not just a landscape or an object, or the mention of one individual's or group's thoughts, exploits, or experience. Since this is an encyclopedic entry, the human element example needs to be brief and not too POV (for example, overly extolling the "heroism" aspect of any individual's participation in the event. Heroism is very subjective in its interpretation by different cultures.) for one particular side or it will be counterproductive.
• Submit for peer review. The motivated and helpful peer review editors, either with the military history project, or the general peer review forum, will point-out any flaws or issues with your article that you might have missed. Resolve the issues that they hightlight in their review.
• Don't fight with the FA reviewers. After you nominate your article as an FA candidate, assume that the comments or criticism that comes from the FA candidate reviewers are being made in good faith. Respond constructively and try to correct whatever they point-out, even if you don't agree with it. If they ask or object to something that isn't reasonable, another reviewer will usually come to your defense.
• Further advice... Further good advice on preparing an article for FA nomination is here: [1] on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history page.

Reflections on Wikipedia

Now that I've been actively editing on Wikipedia for a year or so, I thought that I'd list, for what it's worth, my opinion on the good aspects of the project and issues I think negatively affect the project. This list is a work in progress and I may add/delete items from it at any time:

"Good" things:

• The Wikipedia software- What great software that allows us novices to craft attractive, illustrated, cited articles with a minimum of work on formatting. Truly the key that makes Wikipedia work as well as it does.
• Members of the Military History Project- A great group of people who work very well together and really help build the military history body of knowledge on the encyclopedia. The project's current chief coordinator's leadership is a big part of that also.
• Wikimedia Commons- Having an image repository with apparently unlimited storage capacity is of great benefit to the project. I've seen images in the Commons being used in articles in different languages about the same subject. It really facilitates building an encyclopedia for the world.

Issues:

• Anonymous editor policy- I'm afraid that I just can't agree with the policy of allowing anonymous "IP" editors equal access to editing. In my experience, the vast majority of IP editor's contributions are either vandalism or uncited half-truths that damage the articles that they're added to. I read somewhere (I don't remember where), someone's idea of "s-protecting" all articles once they advance past the "stub" stage. I support this idea.
• Dispute resolution process- Too slow and not available enough. The policy of trying to get editor's to work out their differences on their own doesn't work often enough to make this policy completely viable. There's just too much POV-pushing going-on to allow that to happen. I think the encyclopedia needs more "adult supervision" i.e. more arbitrators, mediators, policy-makers, etc., whose rule is law. I understand that what might happen is that if arbitration is more available everyone might ask for arbitration for every little dispute. I still think, however, that more arbitrators are necessary.
• Definition of an administrator- Wikipedia tries to say that administrators are simply editors with "brooms and mops." In practice, though, this doesn't seem to be true. The "rank and file" editors look to the administrators for policy guidance, not just for help in keeping Wikipedia "tidy." Also, the power to block, ban, and delete is significant enough that I think the "broom and mop" analogy doesn't hold up. Wikipedia administrators have a lot of power. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. I'm just saying that stating that they don't really have a lot of power isn't particularly true. In fact, I've seen the administrators themselves refer to how much power they have. For example in a recent RfA discussion, I saw an administrator refer to giving administrative rights to someone as giving them "the keys." "Keys" means something entirely different than a "broom and mop."
• Number of editors who make meaningful contributions- The number of editors, from what I've observed, on Wikipedia who truly work to bring neutral, well-written, and cited articles to the project is surprisingly small. Most of the rest seem to be here to push a particular POV or don't try to do quality work, especially when it comes to in-line citations. Somehow Wikipedia needs to keep the quality editors and motivate everyone to edit their articles as if they were preparing them for FA nomination (citations, citations, citations, and copyediting). I hear that the science editors especially get tired of defending their articles from POV-pushers and poor editing attempts and depart the project.
• Images policy- The current policy keeps too many good images from being added to articles that could really use them. I'm not sure, though, what the answer is to this. Could the Wikimedia foundation purchase the rights to large groups of electronic images? I don't know. But, it might be one option. Perhaps a process in which editors could request a certain image be purchased to support a particular article, with justification? Just a thought.

All in all, though, I believe Wikipedia offers an invaluable and easy mechanism for bringing informative, sourced, balanced, and illustrated articles on events in history to the web. That is one of Wikipedia's main strengths that can't be taken away in spite of its issues in other areas and I appreciate being able to participate in the project and working with others in the Wikipedia community. Special thanks to Kirill Lokshin, Wwoods, Grant65, Looper5920, and others for invaluable advice, assistance, and guidance.

Useful sites

• "Grammarbook".- Briefly presents the rules of English grammar, one of the most important of which is the "who vs that vs which" rule.
• "Uncyclopedia". {{cite web}}: Text "accessdate" ignored (help)- Parody/satire site that uses the Wiki software for a joke encyclopedia.
• "The Pacific War Forum". {{cite web}}: Text "accessdate" ignored (help)- Message board for those interested in the Pacific theater of WWII.
• "Eric Goldman: Wikipedia Will Fail in Four Years". {{cite web}}: Text "accessdate" ignored (help)- A good column that addresses some of the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but he discusses some valid issues.

Welcome and appreciated compliments from fellow editors

For your massive contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of the Pacific Theater of World War II, I hereby bestow upon you the Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award. Kirill Lokshin 22:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This motivated barnstar is given to Cla68 for his tireless contirbutions to Wikipedia's coverage of the Pacific Theater of World War II and US Navy and Marine Corps history. Presented by Looper5920 18 November 2006

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar For helping me with the copyedit of Aleksandr Vasilevsky, this RAK Star for you! :) Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar I hereby award this barnstar for your efforts in tirelessly researching references for the Japanese war crimes article. Keep up the good work! John Smith's 16:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Featured Article Medal What??? 5 FAs and still not having this one? That's a major oversight! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

		Pacific Theatre, 1941-45 Barnstar
		For sustained, solid research and editing, in adding references to many Pacific War articles. Grant65 | Talk 06:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For the constant stream of FA's. Keep it up! James086Talk | Contribs 13:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Places I've lived:

• - "born and raised."
• - five years and and my current residence (Kanagawa prefecture).
• - one year.

Places I've visited (stayed more than 24-hours):

• 
• 
• 

Some of my favorite places:

• United States:
  • Sedona, Arizona- In spite of the hordes of tourists is still a gorgeous place, especially at sunset
  • Los Angeles, California- A really great city once you learn your way around
  • French Quarter and Faubourg Marigny, New Orleans, Louisiana- In spite of the tourists, still has a real feeling to much of it. Faubourg Marigny is the place to go to experience close to the same "vibe" without the tourists

• Japan:
  • Oirase River- numerous waterfalls in a beautiful setting
  • Sukayu- perhaps the largest conyoku onsen in Japan. Has to be experienced to be believed.
  • Hakkoda- Great summer hiking, deep powder snowboarding, and several classic, old-style onsen in the surrounding area.
  • Sendai- A lovely town with friendly people and lots of things to do in and around the city
  • Kitaazumi District, Nagano- my favorite ski resort area
  • Shibuya, Tokyo- In spite of its reputation as a "young" (teen-ager) hang-out, I think it provides the best mix of shops, restaurants, izekaya, bars, and nightclubs in Tokyo without being as hectic as Roppongi or as seedy as Shinjuku (although I like those places also)
  • Yokohama- Has just about everything that Tokyo has but with a more low-key atmosphere

• South Korea:
  • Seoul- This city is really developing into a nice place, with a lot better selection of stores, restaurants, etc., opening up. Great subway system also and the taxis are still really cheap.
  • Sinjang-dong, Pyeongtaek- A crass, exploitative, money-trap? Perhaps, but still a great place to meet some very colorful and interesting personalities.

This user lives in Japan.
この利用者は日本に住んでいます。

This user is a participant in WikiProject Japan.

This user is a member of the
United States military history task force of WikiProject Military history.