Talk:Kantai Kessen

In 1907??

Currently : "In 1907...[the United States'] racist immigration policies indicated potential American racial enmity towards the Japanese. Furthermore, the United States Navy had recently surpassed the United Kingdom's Royal Navy as the largest and most powerful fleet in the world." WTF? In 1907 the US had no immigration policy; the first immigration quotas weren't imposed until the 1920s. Similarly, it's absurd to claim that the USN had surpassed the British RN at the time of the Great White Fleet; the US only attained naval parity with Britain with the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. Solicitr (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, wow, I had never read that section of this article. Okay, made an attempt at a re-write, but will need to come back to provide the supporting citations. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Solicitr: there was the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act; racist for sure, but to the benefit of the Japanese as the article notes. Gunbirddriver: a good first cut at improving that section. Hga (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Too many statements are poorly sourced

There are multiple extremely broad statements that might as well not be sourced. Here are some examples:

1. Multiple statements are followed by a citation which refers wholesale to Evans & Peatty's Kaigun, a 1000 page book, with no page numbers. Such citations are practically no better than no citation at all. All they provide is a misleading impression that this Wiki article has sources. As the citations are not verifiable, all such statements should be deleted until the author can provide verifiable citations. Several statements followed by Fn. 9, 10 & 12 refer to entire books with no page numbers. As they are unverifiable, these statements are should be deleted. Pensiveneko (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2018

False statements should be removed, but if a statement is correct it should be sourced. Please refer to Wikipedia:Citing sources; Dealing with unsourced content, which states:

• If the material added appears to be false or an expression of opinion, remove it and inform the editor who added the unsourced material. The {{uw-unsourced1}} template may be placed on their talk page.
• In any other case consider finding references yourself, or commenting on the article talk page or the talk page of the editor who added the unsourced material. You may place a {{citation needed}} or {{dubious}} tag against the added text.

Note that it does not suggest you just remove the material. You are expected to try to discover if it is true or false, if true than find a supporting source yourself, if you fail in doing that then place a citation needed tag next to the passage that is in question.

See Follow the normal protocol: When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. Deleting accurate material is contrary to Wikipedia protocol. Deleting is not the first step. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

2. The Imperial National Defense Policy of 1907 directed the focus of Japan's military away from Imperial Russia, whom they had defeated in the war of 1905, to the United States, who had negotiated the peace agreement embodied in the Treaty of Portsmouth, an agreement the Japanese saw as unfavorable.[2] The citation is to a newspaper article from 1905. I read the provided link and it does not substantiate the claim that "the Imperial National Defense Policy of 1907 directed the focus of Japan's military away from Imperial Russia." The article reports on the status of the peace negotiations. As this statement is blatantly false, or an interpretation of the events not in any way supported by the provided source, it should be deleted. Pensiveneko (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2018

It should be deleted if it is false. If the sourcing is bad than you should ask for sourcing (ie {{citation needed}}). It is true that the Treaty of Portsmouth was not viewed by the Japanese as favorable. They had won decisively but the treaty did not reflect that fact. It is also true that in the twenties and thirties Japan and the United States looked upon each other as potential rivals for influence in the western Pacific. Both parties war-gamed with the expectation that they would be combating one another. We could improve the sourcing, certainly, but I believe the general point is correct. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

3. It was clear[citation needed] from the surprise attacks they suffered at Midway that they would have to rethink how they operated their naval forces to prevent their carrier force from being surprised and destroyed in a future air attack.[8]

First of all, "it was clear" is a meaningless statement in this context. It was clear to whom? If it was clear to the author, then the statement is an opinion or the author's interpretation and should not be permitted to pollute an encyclopedia. In any case, the author pretends that his statement can be cited to Parshall & Tully (in which case, he should've written "Parshall & Tully believe that...). I read the referenced page, and there is no such statement to be found. In the referenced page, Parshall & Tully state that the battle plan for the carrier plan was changed after the Battle of Midway. They do not once state that it was clear that the Japanese had to change their plans. The statement as it is might be a defensible inference in an exchange of opinions. It is not defensible in an encyclopedia entry. It should be deleted. Pensiveneko (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

They certainly did change their plans, as Parshall & Tully point out. The main change was to move heavy surface vessels to a picket position before the carrier force to act as an early warning for possible air attack. Those employed in the battleship and cruiser force saw themselves as being sacrificed to provide a measure of protection to the air arm. I have not looked at this in quite a while, but I do recall the discussion.

Anyway, certainly the article can be improved and better cited, some whole scale revisions may be in order, but let us be slow to delete the work of others without looking to see if it is correct and supportable. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There's a rather large difference between "unverified" (by page number) & "unverifiable". I've read Miller, Parillo, & Wilmott, & AFAIR, the claims made under those notes are supported by the books in question; I don't have them handy to cite them, however. Have you bothered to even look? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Very true. At least we know where to look. I will see if I can find something helpful. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Of course it's not literally "unverifiable," but neither would it be literally unverifiable if no source whatsoever was given. Whoever wants to verify it will just have to put in the time and energy to do it. However no one would be expected to do that. The author would be expected to provide citations in a format that allows readers to verify them. Broadly stating that certain entire books in your opinion support the statements don't really amount to useful citation.

They changed their plans after Midway. Does that mean that "it was clear" that they had to? Parshall & Tully at least do not say so, although the author of this article claim that they did.

As to using "citation needed" marker--perhaps that is appropriate when one or two statements are missing citations in an otherwise decently written article, but we are here faced with an article that is 90% unverifiable (in the practical sense) and proven to have misled or incorrectly cited sources. Pensiveneko (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I have started to look at the sources listed here to see if they are useful and to look for new supporting sources to use. I have a couple of the sources used here and am trying to track down specific page numbers. I should be able to track down what the editor was referring to, if in fact it is supported in the work that was citated.

Looking over the article I would agree that it is a little off. What I would think it should explore is the Japanese naval plans of fighting a defensive battle in the western Pacific against a depleted USN, which would have happened if Navy War Plan Orange was put into effect, as Kimmel had planned to do in response to a Japanese incursion into the Phillipines. The strike against Pearl Harbor was an offensive strike that was not a part of the Decisive Battle Plan the Japanese intended to fight. Still, the actions (or inaction) of the Japanese Combined Fleet through the first two years of the war are explained by their intention of conserving their strength to fight the major action they were waiting for.

What points were you thinking of adding to the article or changing in the article? Are you able to cite sources that would support what you want to add? The article is overly simple and could use some reworking and reformatting. I was working on another project but would be happy to set it aside and work on this one with you if you like. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I did go through this article and located supporting citations. As the details came to light I ended up doing a significant rewrite. I have posted it here in the following collapsible section for the editors to review, edit and comment. If acceptable I will use it to replace the current article.

Thanks for your consideration. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"it's not literally 'unverifiable'" Then quit saying it is. If you don't have, frex, Kaigun in front of you, yow do you know the page number given as source actually contains the information claimed? If you do, how hard can it be to look in the index for the subject in question? It'll be listed on a dozen pages (maybe); how hard can it be to find? I'd far rather have a cite pointing in a general direction, so somebody who does have Kaigun can look it up & add the p#, than no source at all. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I re-wrote the article with page numbers cited. It can be viewed in the collapsible section just below titled "Kantai Kessen edited rewrite article". You have to click "show" if you would like to preview it and offer comments or changes. That would he helpful. Gunbirddriver (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of the article Kantai Kessen

Please review the proposed rewrite of the current article located in the collapsible section by clicking "show". Changes and comments are welcome. If the editors' opinions are favorable we can make the change. Thanks for your consideration. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I have made some minor changes to the proposed rewrite based on its internal logic. Roger Hui (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The text current says:
    The Russians had lost 28 battleships and 4,800 dead, while the Japanese suffered ...
This seems wrong. (a) No nation at the time (or ever) had 28 battleships. (b) The Russian losses contradict the number presented in the Battle of Tsushima page. Roger Hui (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It sounded like a lot to me as well, but it was what the source said on page 42. Let's drill down and get it right. We will need to look at a couple other sources. Great edits by the way. Thanks so much for helping on this. Unless you have an objection, I think we are pretty close. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That book by Marston is actually a collection of chapters written by different authors. I am not sure how that is best handled citation wise. The section mentioning the Russian losses at Tsushima was written by Dr. Ken Kotani. We will fix it, but if you are aware how best to handle multiple authors of a single book I would be obliged. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Famous Sea Fights From Salamis to Tsu-Shima by John Richard Hale lists the Russian fleet as having 8 battleships, 6 cruisers and a number of torpedo destroyers, with only one cruiser and two destroyers surviving to reach Vladivostok (pp 407-422). Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the image of the two battleships, the smoke emanating from the stacks of the second indicates it is burning coal, so the image is taken sometime before the 1930s. If you look at Fuso above you can see the heavy coal smoke, whereas the Mutsu below in 1940 is burning much cleaner oil. The purpose of pointing it out was to help underscore the passage of time and changing technologies, but it is not all that important. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe we are ready to make the change on the article. If there are no objections I will do so. Thanks for all your help. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Moved re-write to main page as per discussion. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI: I just used the ORES AI article quality tool on the article, and it rated the new version 5.46, FA quality. The immediately previous version is rated 4.32, class C quality. Congratulations, and thanks. Roger Hui (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

How about that! I think it looks pretty good. Thanks Roger! Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)