Talk:Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer

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's (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever

Aircraft carrierA 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Citing sources.
• 3. Please see Wikipedia:No original research.
• 4. Please see Wikipedia: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:

• Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever. --Tenmei (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever --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 [1]. 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)

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":

• Herman, Arthur (2007-09-09). "Pacific armadas: growing Far East navies mean new challenges for U.S." New York Post. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
• Shaplen, Jason T. (2007-12-31). "Washington's Eastern Sunset". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-07-13. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• "Japan's About-Face". Wide Angle. Season 7. Episode 2. 2008-07-08. 40:04 minutes in. PBS. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

— Bellhalla (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)