Talk:60th anniversary of the end of the war in Asia and Pacific commemorated

I know it is a habit among English speaking world, but dare say "VJ Day" sounds POVed, at least reflecting only the sole side, the Allies. Even in words, it sounds alogical "Japan commemorated VJ Day". --Aphaia 14:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It is accurate, though. The Allies did achieve Victory over Japan (VJ Day). The reason there is only really the Allied side in this article is simply because I couldn't (and still can't) find any quotes from Japanese veterans about the end of the war. I would also love if someone could add something on VJ commemorations in the US, New Zealand, Australia, Asia, and any other appropiate place. Take care SoLando 21:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

SoLando, you miss my point. I don't complain about the content, it is easy for me to imagine you failed to find those pieces of information mainly because of language barrier. My complaint is around the POV of this TITLE.

The problem is this POVed title makes me hesitate to add information from Japan. I tried to add commemoration celemonies and some related political events but this title isn't suitable for those informaiton. As for Japanese, Koizumi (the Prime Minister of Japan) is mentioned on this article. I propose more neutral headline like "The end of the Pacific War commemorated". --Aphaia 23:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If anyone doesn't oppose or propose much better headline, I'd like to move it to "60th anniversary of the Pacific War ..." for the sake of NPOV. Thank you for your attention in advance. --Aphaia 00:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Pacific would be appropiate. VJ Day also remembers the conflict on the Far East mainland (Burma, Malaysia, India, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.), and if Pacific was used, it could be construed that it ignores the Commonwealth contribution. SoLando 01:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Though the term "Pacific War" is a proper (thus technical) term, but it could imply what you suggested. I am satisfied with the title you named and hope the other too. Aphaia 01:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well done to all involved. This title is much better and the article is shaping up nicely, I think. Can we remove the {{NPOV}} tag now? --Chiacomo (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

(nods) but it needs "cleanup" tag now due to my addition; your copyediting is welcome. By the way, as for veterans' quotes I can't find like that from Japanese media. As written, families rather than veterans are focused on in this day. Commemoration quote(s) might be available, but no veterans quote. Dear. --Aphaia 07:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Japanese veterans' quotes

I saw a Japanese veteran last night on Newsnight. Unfortunately, I've forgot what he said :-( Its a pity Newsnight doesn't have any transcripts online. Did anyone (for whatever reason) record last night's program? SoLando 08:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Jeff's comment

Okay, I don't mind that someone with a POV axe to grind tries to include "NPOV" information about how evil America is in all such article, as the data is usualy true, if generally poorly cited. But can such people please stop putting every stupid sentence on seperate lines!! I'm going to merge your paragraphs this time, but in future I may just start deleting one sentence paragraphs which seem somewhat redundent. Nyarlathotep 20:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Jeff, I can't guess why your comment following my original message. Could you explain what made you talk in so hostile please? Aphaia

Um, not sure myself, I just put it someplace in the talk page. I stongly object to these silly sequences of one sentence paragraphs pretending to be NPOV information, but invariably POV by virtue of being off topic. Don't know who put them there, don't care really, just felt like bitching about it and merging them into one paragraph. But Davodd had more guts and just deleted the lot of them, which made for a much better solution. Nyarlathotep 07:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Davodd, It would be okay to leave some of the firebombing comments in, we'd all be better off if we remembered that all sides do nasty things in war, but I'm glad you eliminated them from that early paragraph, as they needed to be put later in the article.

Please Stop the Pro-Western POV

Please stop the pro-american/uk edits.Obviously the firebombings are a huge part of the so-called "victory". NPOV 23:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The firebombings, I'm certain, contributed to the victory -- they do not, however relate to the commemoration of the "victory"... Perhaps they'd be better placed in a WP article. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No they are not a huge part of *this* story. But they relevant enough to mention, just not in the first half of the story. One could get away with a single short sentence in paragraph 3, but I would not do it. The proper solution is to end the article with two short paragraphs which say (a) someone important actually feels that celebrating VJ Day is tasteless, and (b) they feel this way because America did bad things in the war. You can't just insert tangentially related facts into paragraph three, and you can't just insert three one line Anti-American talking points as sentences, as that is more POV than leaving the info out. If you want to include your quotes of that general making an ass of himself, just go search Chompsky's site for VJ Day, or better yet find some Japanese American's criticizing the celebration. Nyarlathotep 23:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Patent nonsense. It is grossly overbearing american/uk POV to report a 100%celebratory article about an event that many millions consider to be a result of and part of war crimes. It would be like reporting on the war in Europe and not mentioning the holocaust. Please remember this is not a western clique. NPOV 23:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Please also remember that we are reporting news -- current news -- and that you are more than welcome to include current news from any reputable source which would include criticism of the celebration. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Patent nonsense. It is grossly overbearing american/uk POV to report a 100%celebratory article about an event that many millions consider to be a result of and part of war crimes. It would be like reporting on the war in Europe and not mentioning the holocaust. Please remember this is not a western clique. NPOV 23:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

(besides Mr. or Ms. NPOV's argument) The point is the Japanese people don't commemorate "VJ Day" but "the End of War", precisely "the Deads during the war" (though there have been argument about the people commemorated but I don't touch it now). It is the day of prayer and commemoration for Japanese. Not celebration. So it is very bizzarre and irritate for me at least this article and its headline pretends the whole world "cerebrate" "VJ Day". That is why I feel the headline is inappropriate to express the whole of events in that day. I don't want to add information about commemoration celemonies to the article under the current headline, because it seems to me heavily inappropriate. --Aphaia 00:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

---

What would be a more acceptable title? I though perhaps "WWII Allied nations commemorate Victory over Japan" but that would still not be appropriate for the content you mentioned... Perhaps "World remembers end of war with Japan, WWII" or something? --Chiacomo (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand that the firebombing was atrocious, but a current source linking the bombing to the celebration would be more appropriate... as this article concerns the commemoration and not the victory itself. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Honestly I can't figure the relevance of Tokyo bombing on March, 1945. Yes, it was one of significant events but there were more events which had stronger relevance (like two atomic bombing and Soviet engagement). Moreover, Mr. or Ms. NPOV if you want to refer to bombardment, it would be better to refer to bombardments on August 14, 1945, performed during the time after the Japanese gov't indicated to their surrender to the Allies till the surrender was announcement at the next day. Sorry to say, I wonder if you have accurate knowledge on these issues. --Aphaia 23:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Unpublished, unfeatured due to POV Edit war

Being that this article is in the midst of a POV edit war, I have removed it from featured story and published status. -- Davodd | Talk 00:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

One Question??????

If we were reporting that al-queda was having a special "celebration day" next month commemorating their "victory"(in their sick minds) on 9/11 and their press release didn't mention the many innocent deaths they caused...would you still be saying I could not add to our story references to the deaths and horror their "victory" caused??? NPOV 00:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I would probably try to find a current source to cite and then include the details. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a cogent argument. re fallacies in the above arguments by User:NPOV: Fallacy Of Composition, Affirming The Consequent, Pious Fraud, Argument By Emotive Language, Appeal To Pity, Begging The Question, Bad Analogy, Argument From Spurious Similarity, Argument By Selective Observation, among others. -- Davodd | Talk 00:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The question was whether anyone would object if I used a 4 year old story about the attacks to quote the facts regarding the victims. NPOV 00:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe the Tokyo bombings should be included in this article. This is about the 60th anniversary of the end of the war. It would be more appropriate to have a quotes section, with quotes from indivudual veterans from the major countries involved ABOUT the end of the war. SoLando 01:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. If you like, you are welcome to submit another article about commemoration Tokyo Bombing, not only March 10, but also Dolittile attack, May 1945, or Osaka Bombning on August 14; it would have been catchy successive commemorations; But as for the current article, Tokyo bombing doesn't seem to be a relevant topic. --Aphaia 02:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Every statement of fact must be cited.

To avoid an author's bias, every statement of fact should be cited to a recent source. -- Davodd | Talk 00:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

There was a good source, in fact several; but they were also edited out. NPOV 00:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems that an Administrator is distracting me from this discussion

Administrator Chiacomo is aggressively pushing me to change my user name right now on his and my talk page. That is taking my time away from this discussion. NPOV 01:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

VJ day or VP day?

What's the official name?

VJ Day is the official name in most English-speaking countries. It is the counterpart to VE Day when Germany surrendered. -- Davodd | Talk 03:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

A problem is, it is hard to distinguish to VE and VF in case of those letters underlined ... sorry for digression, but first I couldn't guess at all. --Aphaia 07:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Administrator now threatening to block me if I discuss this article under my username

See NPOV talk page. I suppose I could discuss the article under another username but that would be giving in to this terrible(imo) behaviour. I will not discuss this article until I can do so under the username I started discussing it with. Please go to the watercooler topic I began about this sad soap opera. 67.71.122.213 03:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To help you get a better response, please post this type of comment about alleged Administrator abuse to Wikinews:Administrators, where the appropriate folks can hear your concerns and address any problems. -- Davodd | Talk 03:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Visiting that page points you to Wikinews:Admin action alerts. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This statement shows this is not a real anniversary;

just a western gov. PR event subject to whim.

"The UK previously marked the 60th VE Day and VJ Day in a combined national day of commemoration on 10 July." NPOV 11:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Why the British part was stripped? It seems to have news value and fitted the former part in the reports from Japan, the generations of people who commemorated the war has been shifting --- former by soldiers' parents, nowadays by their children. Statistic data about the nat'l commemoration celemony proves the same tendency. --Aphaia 12:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved from WN:DR

Rules are made to be broken it appears

"Articles written from other news sources are listed here for a period of three days." Neutralizer 19:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it also says there "Articles must fall foul of the Deletion guidelines to be listed here.". Even with some imagination I don't see how this article could fall under these guidelines. --Deprifry 19:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Following discussion moved from Wikinews Deletion Requests:

60th anniversary of the end of the war in Asia and Pacific commemorated

Article is entirely about a past, no-longer current event--Article not newsworthy--Grossly biased US/UK Pov that the war crimes against Japan are something to celebrate.

• Delete; Pure western opinion piece.POV drips from every sentence and link. Pride in the victory and no mention of the victims. Not a current event; a 60th. anniversary of what? Firebombing and atomic bombing women and children? --67.71.122.213
• Keep Article is about current commemorations of the end of the war in the pacific; facts in article propery sourced to cited articles. Above user is trolling. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

COMMENTthe above personal attack "Above user is trolling"note wikipedia definition"In the context of the Internet, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages intended to cause a disruption in discourse."..that personal attack is not appropriate, especially here, and is a slanderous lie. 64.229.30.142 12:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As creator of article, I won't vote. All I'll say is this: the commemorations are not "celebrating" "war crimes". The commemorations are literally to mark the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II and not the many questionable acts committed by all sides during the war. Take care SoLando 04:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid topic. -- Davodd | Talk 06:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Two major commemoration celemonies attended by royals in different countries for a same historical period - contenporary enough, ne. --Aphaia 07:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Its news. Plus, the article could include all info which anyone wants included, but the editor(s) with an anti-US POV refuse to fit their info into context, or even cite sources. Nyarlathotep 07:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, like mentioned it's news and an event commemorated in many parts of the world, with the current title change it's a perfectly fine new article. 130.89.11.31 07:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A full discussion of the decision to drop the bombs would require us to include the Japanese "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor, Japanese atrocities against prisoners of war and civilians in nations they occupied (such as the Rape of Nanking, Manchuria), Japan's refusal to surrender despite military defeat of their naval and air forces, and the probability that millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers would have died in a land invasion. While this discussion is worthwhile, I'm not sure we should go into these details in the news article. Also note that many other news orgs reported this story. StuRat 09:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons above. And take off the tag now, enough votes for it? ClareWhite 12:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-US POV

"Neutralizer", pleas refrain from pushing what appears to be an anti-US POV. The bombing of Tokyo was an awful tragedy but it is not relevant to the context of this article - as others have already pointed out. This article is about ceremonies' that have taken place recently, and should only have text relevant to that fact.

At the risk of repetition from previous statements up ^, the bombing of Tokyo would have been better in a separate article about its commemoration earlier this year.

May I direct you to Bombing of Tokyo in World War II at Wikipedia if you would like to contribute on an article relating to the bombings. Take care SoLando 19:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)