Talk:Mamoru Shinozaki

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shinozaki Mamoru/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 03:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I shall review this article against the GA criteria over the next couple of days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Technical review

• This section uses the Featured article tools. Please note compliance with this section is not a GA requirement, but I use it in my GA reviews to help improve the article further. As such, non compliance with this section will not lead to the article not being listed as a GA.

• Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required).
• Linkrot: external links check out (no action required).
• Alt text: the images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [1] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• Structure:

• subsections: suggest deleting the "History" heading, and replacing it with an "Early life" level two section header. The other sections - "Conviction", "Overseas Chinese", "Endau" and "Bahau" would then be converted to level two headers also;

• I have implemented this. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Prose: some of the writing seems a little awkward or long winded and could be tightened. I have made a couple of minor changes, but there is more work required. I will list a few examples of what I think needs fixing, but overall I think that the article needs a run through by a copy editor. For instance:

• This sentence is very long and probably should be broken up: "While in Singapore as the press attache to Japan's consul-general, he took Colonel T. Tanikawa, the planning chief of Japan's Imperial Army Headquarters in Tokyo, and Major Kunitake who was on Tsuji Masanobu's Malaya Campaign planning staff, on a spying mission";
• This sentence is also quite long and should be broken up: "He was tried and sentenced despite protesting his innocence (claiming that he was not fully aware of the actual agenda of the Japanese officers he accompanied earlier) to three years' hard labour and a fine of $1,000"."
• "These actions also made him highly unpopular with some in the Japanese military that in June 1942..." This is quite an awkward sentence and probably needs rewording.
• "under Kempeitai arrest during the Sook Ching". Is there a word missing after "the Soon Ching"?
• This is not a complete sentence: "But most probably an opportunity by the Japanese authorities to disperse the Chinese and prevent a core of subversives from forming, should the British try to re-take Singapore".
• "After the Japanese surrender, Shinozaki was captured but did not remain long in the internment camp in Jurong". This would be tighter as: "After the Japanese surrender, Shinozaki was captured and briefly sent to an internment camp in Jurong."
• This is a run-on sentence: "In 1973, he was interviewed by Lim Yoon Lin of the Institute of South-East Asian Studies for its oral history programme, his transcript called "My wartime experiences in Singapore" continues to give an invaluable insight into the Japanese occupation of Singapore".
• this seems too conversational: "On the plus side, in Bahau one had the freedom to talk and move without fear of the Kempeitai"
• "resistance groups put behind enemy lines". Who do you mean when you say "enemy" here. Is it Japanese, or British?
• this seems too conversational and should be reworded: "To keep the MPAJA off the backs of the Endau settlers";
• this seems too conversational: "even risked his neck".

• Formatting: there are some inconsistencies in style that could be tightened:

• Note 14 seems inconsistent in style with the others. Additionally, are there page numbers that can be added to aid in verification?
• the format of Notes 15 and 16 seems inconsistent with the others. I suggest converting them to short citations like the Shinozaki refs and then adding the long citations to the Bibliography;
• in the Bibliography, Foong is listed, but there are no Notes to the work (i.e. citations). Some citations should probably be added to the text where appropriate.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• citations: a number of sentences appear to be uncited. The following sentences/paragraphs need citation:

• "But his biggest single act of mercy..."
• "The Eurasians and Chinese were the obvious targets in any anti-Japanese..."
• "The association set up its headquarters at the old Chinese Chamber of Commerce building in Hill Street"
• "But most probably an opportunity by the Japanese authorities to disperse..."
• "There were coffee shops and a few restaurants..."
• "There was no hospital in Bahau then"
• ""In early 1990s, Shinozaki died of an illness in Tokyo"
• "Today's cynics might still demur and claim perhaps there was"
• "But victims and their families brutalised"

• As the subject might be seen to be controversial, I would suggest limiting the use of the subject's own book in sourcing. If it has to be used, I'd suggest verifying the information and adding a second source for each point.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Major aspects:

• is it possible to find a more accurate date of death? Currently it is a bit vague. Have you searched for obituaries in newspapers?
• "Shinozaki was born in Japan in February 1908". Where in Japan was he born? Do any of the sources say?
• are there any details of his family? For instance, did he get married and have any children?
• "...a fine of $1,000". Did a British court actually fine him $1,000? Surely it would have been pounds sterling? Or is this an amount equivalent to $1,000?
• in the lead this claim is made: "A book he wrote after the war called Syonan—My Story, continues to give an invaluable insight into the Japanese occupation of Singapore today." It does not appear in the body of the article, though.
• in the lead this claim is made: "He was later credited as the "Japanese Schindler"..." It does not appear in the body of the article, though, and no context about Schindler is provided.
• the section about Critics and supporters doesn't really provide much information on what his critics say. What is there amounts to only a sentence. Is there more that could be said here? Obviously it depends upon whether or not reliable sources exist.

• Focus:

• the article goes into considerable detail about daily life in Endau and Bahau, but some of this seems off topic. The article should be written about the subject's involvement in the the settlements, providing only enough context to enable a reader to understand his involvement.
• this seems off topic: "In 1946, Chin Peng, the Secretary-General of the MCP had been decorated by the British for his anti-Japanese activities. By then he was leading the MCP and by 1948 would be engaged in a guerilla war with the British that came to be called the Malayan Emergency."

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• some of the wording seems non-neutral and probably should be rephrased. I will list a few examples, but as per the section on prose, the whole article should be worked through to remove similar instances:

• "secret and dangerous deal with the terrorists". The word "terrorists" is negative here, I suggest rewording it to a more neutral term.
• "post war witch hunts". Calling something a witch hunt characterises it in a certain fashion and creates a perception of a point of view. It should probably be rephrased to something neutral such as "inquiry" or something similar;
• "Today's cynics might still demur and claim perhaps...". This is editorialising.
• "the British roped him in to help". The term "roped him in" has negative connotations and should be rephrased.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• No issues detected with this.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

• "File:Shinozaki Mamoru.jpg", if possible, can the date of when the image was taken be added to the image description page?
• "File:Sook Ching Centre site.JPG": probably needs a licence that indicates that Singapore has freedom of panorama. Per this page on Wikicommons [2] {{FoP-Singapore}} (on Commons) is probably the correct licence;
• "File:Bahau.JPG": probably needs a licence that indicates that Malaysia has freedom of panorama. Per this page on Wikicommons [3], {{FoP-Malaysia}} (on Commons) is probably the correct template to use;

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• In its current state, I am of the opinion that this article does not meet the GA criteria. Nevertheless, I believe that with a bit of work, it could be brought up to scratch. As such, I will place the article on "hold" for seven days to allow editors time to deal with the issues I have raised.
• When you have dealt with an issue, please feel free to notate your actions in the relevent section of the review. I will come back to the article on 28 Dec 12 and review the changes and reassess it against the criteria.
• If any editors have concerns about my review, or wish clarification of my points above, please add a comment to the discussion section below. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have failed this GAN as no significant work has been done since posting this review. If editors wish to re-nominate, please feel free once you have attempted to address these concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion/clarification

• Please add any questions or comments about the review in this section. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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. · | (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. · | (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[4], 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)