Talk:Saburō Sakai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pyramid scheme[edit]

I'd like to see more info on the "kōdachi" cited source. Perhaps a literature number or the title in Kanji so it can be found. When trying to follow that source, it was unclear as specifically to which title it is referring. Perhaps including the Author or is kōdachi the author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.39.74 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In "Zero Fighters of Our Grandfathers"(pp.338-346.), "Sakai participated in Tenka Ikka no Kai ("the biggest pyramid scheme in history."). Most of his junior pilots lost their property because of Sakai. And Sakai shed bad rumors of his former boss that warned him after the boss died. Therefore, Sakai was hated by his former comrades." Sakai has also confessed it in an interview by the author "kōdachi". What is the source that Sakai never was a part of a Pyramid scheme? If 66.58.141.104 thinks it should not be posted because it is a disgrace for Sakai,I am okay with that.--Sicmn (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


There never needs to be a source that someone did not do something. Actions are sourced; proof is required to verify actions. It is incumbent on the editor to provide verifiable sources for new information. That would be akin to me demanding that you cite a source proving that Sakai never danced on the head of a pin... ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is entirely off the mark. We can confirm that Sakai participated in the Pyramid scheme in the Source. And we can see it in the blog of this author.(For example, http://ameblo.jp/zero21nk/entry-10927275886.html) If you deny it, please show the source. If that's what you want, I will not add it. Do you have a source to deny it?--Sicmn (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
: I am not attempting to deny it. I am saying the request for a source that somebody did not do something is, by its very nature, an unreasonable request. By the logic used elsewhere in these edits, his "confession" can not be used, because it is personal testimony. If we can not use his statements as fact for his history in WWII, then we can not use his statements for his participation - or lack thereof - in this "Pyramid scheme." ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for sources its content is false. "it is personal testimony" is your personal opinion. The author is a person familiar to Japanese Navy pilots. I've had enough, becouse I do not mind that it is not posted.--Sicmn (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move temporarily. Wait more detailed information of Original Text for translation.

Sakai participated in Tenka Ikka no Kai ("the biggest pyramid scheme in history."). Sakai was accused of soliciting his junior pilots most and that they lost property because of Sakai. Sakai and his story were used an advertisement for Tenka Ikka no Kai, and he is credited with making money from the scheme. It is also claimed that Sakai spread rumors about of his former boss, and that he was not liked by his former comrades.See: Zero Fighters of Our Grandfathers, pp.338-344. Sakai was disliked by junior pilots because of his preaching and violence. Shoichi Sugita, a fellow ace, also called him "a liar".See: Zero Fighters of Our Grandfathers, pp.329-332. Four former Japanese Navy pilots attended Sakai's funeral.See: Zero Fighters of Our Grandfathers, pp.345-346. --Destinjon (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation of troubles Sakai caused are spread over plural pages. It explain the background Sakai slandered dead comrades, probably. These seems to be known in Japan, but the content are extremely difficult, complete translation is hard job. Probably, I will not add it, and leave things to others.--Sicmn (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong details about his injury...[edit]

According to "Samurai", Sakai's account of his war years, he was injured when he approched a flight of TBF Avenger torpedo bombers, not SBD's. He thought they were Wildcat fighters (the aircraft look similar at a distance). He specifically mentions the fact that they had belly guns (which the SBD did not have). In addition, he refers to the pieces of .50 cal ammo that were removed from his wounds, and the SBD rear guns were .30 cal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.204.81.54 (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with the person above. It is also mentioned in "Samurai!" by Saburo Sakai, Martin Caidin and Fred Saito. Hellcat fighter 14:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely SBDs. Saburo probably misidentified them, or it was an error on the part of Martin Caidin.
So what is your source for them being SBDs? His autobiography clearly states he spotted two separate flights of four TBF Avengers each. No SBD ever had a belly turret, and the TBF looked very similar to the Wildcat, which is what he initially mistook it for. According to all the information, including the fact that he had never seen a TBF before and he had just shot down a Dauntless only minutes before, the planes he encountered were TBFs and not SBDs. I'll change it if no one else will. F33bs (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So which aircraft was it guys? In the text of this article, somone tried to change the references to an SBD Dauntless that shot Sakai, too a TBF Avenger without changing all of the text calling the aircraft an SBD! So what is the truth of the matter? Most of the references online that I have seen refer to an SBD Dauntless rear gunner having done the deed but it is possible it was a TBF Avenger. So what's the final verdict because the article's text on the incident is confusing. Maphisto86 (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the book Samurai!, or at least the Martin Caidin-coauthored American publication of it as Sakai's autobiography is misleading. That book, as with many of Caidin's works, is full of inaccuracies--enough so that using it as a documentary reference for this page is perhaps questionable. A better source, and one which is already listed as a reference, is Winged Samurai by Henry Sakaida (the portion relevant to the SBD-TBF debate was coauthored with John Lundstrom). Sakaida's book makes clear that Sakai's intended targets were SBDs from VB-6 (it is also worth noting that in his introduction to the book, Sakai even mentions one of the VB-6 SBD gunners, Harold Jones, whom he later befriended; Jones himself was uncertain how much damage he had done to Sakai's plane, as every SBD gunner that could do so was firing at him). Published in 1985, this is still the more recent scholarship, and I would evaulate Sakaida and Lundstrom as more valid sources than Caidin, particularly since unlike Caidin, Sakaida interviewed Sakai in person.Mdyank77 (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, in terms of the recency of the scholarship, that although the reference list puts the publication date of Samurai! as 1985, the American edition was in fact first published in 1957. There have been many subsequent editions, but to my knowledge the content has never changed. I'm not saying that the whole book is rubbish--it's actually still in print by the U.S. Naval Institute--but it does contain a concerning number of historical inaccuracies and is not therefore a good stand-alone source; of course, as an autobiography it is questionable whether it ever should have been considered s stand-alone source in this instance regardless of the known flaws.Mdyank77 (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PBS series[edit]

I just watched the PBS series "Secrets of the Dead" episode on the "Pug" incident. More detail are included in Pug Southerland's article. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_dogfight/index.html


Details included in the episode include the following:

The American attack on Guadalcanal was surprising and the nearest fighters that could reach the island were those in Rabaul. The island was at the limits of the Zero's range. Important equipment was removed to make the aircraft lighter, including the radio. Mounted with external fuel tanks, Sakai and his fellow pilots few four and a half hours to Guadalcanal and dumped their external fuel tanks before engaging the American pilots. Sakai commented on how there had to be 70 ships and how surprised he was to see that many ships below. He described looking down and seeing two Japanese fighters attempting to kill the Wildcat piloted by "Pug" Southerland. He was impressed by Pug's skill, noting that he should have been easily shot down. He engaged Southerland. Sakai's guns hit Southerland's Wildcat numerous times, but the more heavily armoured fighter absorbed the impact. Southerland was quoted as hearing many bullets hit the armoured plate directly behind his seat. At one point, Southerland used a maneuver in which he slowed and forced Sakai to pass him in order to gain the advantage, but did not fire when he had the opportunity to shoot Sakai down. Sakai was quoted as believing he had made a fatal mistake and was about to be shot down. The episode focused, among other things, on why Pug did not fire. It was ultimately determined that his guns were most likely damaged from earlier encounters and would not fire. Sakai managed to slow alongside the Wildcat and saw Southerland, bloodied and injured. He returned to a position behind Southerland, and, according to him, decided to avoid shooting at the cockpit, and shot at the plane's engine with his 20mm canon (a fact supported by the findings in the engine wreckage in the episode).

After looking for more planes, and not finding any, he saw several dots in the distance that he mistook for Wildcats (I don't recall which of the above mentioned bombers the episode said he encountered, but the article above says 30 caliber bullet), but he was shot at by the rear-facing gunner of that bomber. The bullet that hit him (at least the one discussed) was said to have gone through his windscreen, which slowed the bullet enough to prevent it from killing him. As it was, it passed through his head on his right side, through his brain, and out the back of his head. He lost the sight in his left eye, and also could not move the left side of his body. Thinking he was about to die, he looked for an American ship to kamakaze into, to die like a samurai. However, he found none and after some setbacks (some dives, spins, and whatnot), he managed to make the 5 hour return flight with only a compass and other basic instruments, almost crashing when he landed, but surviving.

I hope this helps the detail in the article regarding one of Sakai's bestknown dogfightsTheHYPO 06:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Fortress kill?[edit]

I have a problem with the assertion that Sakai's shooting down of Colin P. Kelly's B-17C 40-2045 on 10 December 1941 was the "first" Fortress shot down in the Pacific war. B-17C 40-2074 of the 38th Reconnaissance Squadron, piloted by Capt. Raymond T. Swenson, was attacked by Zero fighters while on approach to Hickam Field on 7 December which set his magnesium flares alight. The hard landing broke the burning airframe in half aft the wing and it was written off. I would say that 40-2074 was the first Fort shot down. (Salecker, Fortress Against the Sun, page 17-18, 2001.) Mark Sublette 20:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 20:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

As per B-Class tags it needs appropriate citations. i think all major points could be cited but it could do with some more citations. These need to follow the correct Wikipedia:Citation templates and conform to WP:CITE which they do not at the moment. Woodym555 20:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total Kills?[edit]

How many kills did he have? It's not mentioned anywhere I can find in the article. 69.86.232.64 (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Caidin, author of "Samurai" (he wrote it using Saburo's narrations as base) calculated 64 - IMHO he had a good reason to inflate the number (just as any other writer trying to earn money by writing fabulous stories about the "knights of the skies"). Saburo allegedly never claimed a specific number. The real number will never be known, but probably ranges from 32 (conservative Japanese historians divided all wartime claims by their pilots by 2) to the most quoted 64.

Military means obedience[edit]

In exchanging of total colaboration, during Cold War, "Uncle Sam" forgot all crimes of Emperor Hirohito.A brazilian general Aurélio de Lira Tavares told decades ago:Military means obediency.This great japanese patriot told the true:japanese military, just were followig Hirohito's orders, during World War II.Saburo Sakai was a great ace and a great man. Agre22 (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

I don't think anyone was attacking Mr. Sakai... -Someone not logged in his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.130.104 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misplace material[edit]

The following was added by an IP on Dec 17, 2010, with little regard to integration to the existing text:

Additonal Combat: My quest began sometime shortly after World War II. I was a young boy (probably around 10 or 11) when my grandfather told me the story of how my father, Lt Colonel Francis R. Stevens, had been killed in the skies over New Guinea early in the War. Years later, • A series of pictures of my father’s plane being shot down (the very photos that had been the object of my quest). • A picture of the man who had piloted the Japanese Zero that had fired the fatal bullets, the famous air ace, Saburo Sakai. • A group photo of Sakai and the other pilots in his fighter squadron, taken just seconds before the siren sounded announcing the impending arrival of the flight of B-26’s, which included the “Wabash Cannonball,” my Dad’s airplane. • A letter written by Sakai, recounting in considerable detail the events that unfolded in the short time between the taking of this last photo and my father’s plane crashing into the waters off Lae, in northern New Guinea - to include a second-by-second description of how he had attacked the “Wabash Cannonball” and shot it down.

It was, as you can imagine, quite an emotional moment for me.

I was able to add one anecdote of interest to Caidin and Hymoff, the story I have seen in print several times since, of how Dad wound up on the plane that Lyndon Johnson was supposed to ride on that fateful mission. What happened was that Johnson had originally gotten on the “Wabash Cannonball,” but had forgotten to take his camera with him. While he was retrieving his camera, Dad, unaware that Johnson had designs on sitting there, climbed into the seat that his friend had recently vacated. When Johnson returned to claim his place, Dad, in a lighthearted manner, told him that he would just have to find himself another airplane to ride that day. As fate would have it, the plane that Johnson wound up on developed engine trouble and never made it to the target, while the “Wabash Cannonball” was not to return from the mission. And the rest, as they say, is history.

From: My Father and I and Saburo Sakai Colonel Francis R. Stevens, Jr., USA-Retired http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/stevens.html

HarryZilber (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New source material[edit]

At what point does a single new reference book justify a complete revision of a Wikipedia article?

Reading through this article as recently edited, it looks like a hack job on the subject, with each entry individually disputed; i.e., "Sakai said:" followed by the entry, and followed by a refutation of his statement. In no other article do I see that kind of formatting. If there is a controversy over the history of this man, then it needs to be addressed in a separate section.

Additionally, the alleged Ponzi scheme issue needs to be discussed if it is to be included. This is a potentially libelous issue, controversial, and unverified in an english souce.

Finally, can the english version of this entry be completely changed by someone's translation of a foreign text? I know there is a larger world out there, but there are plenty of english sources for material on this man, and completely rewriting it based on an untranslated work seems poor precedent. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Difference from official records are pointed out in other articles for NPOV.(For example, Erich Hartmann , Hans-Joachim Marseille) If you have a counterargument against official records, you can add it. Article that was posted only testimony of the person is contrary to NPOV.--Sicmn (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
: The reversion made is in conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. The minor edit of the lead kept the data from the prior version, included additional sourced material, and corrected some atrocious grammar. It also corrected a decidedly POV issue. It also included the range of Sakai's claims, both the official credit and those claimed in his personal memoirs and biography.

There is no problem with a refutation of a pilot's claims; however, the article can not be written in such a way as to paint the subject as a liar - which is precisely what the "Sakai said:... BUT" format does. Additionally, it is poor english.

What is being claimed as "Official record" is an unverifiable analysis of incomplete records as the final arbiter. As that new data is at odds with over 60 years of historical analysis and personal testimony, it must be considered but can not be considered the final and perfect source. As it was customary in the IJN to award credit to the unit, and not the individual pilot, such records are by default suspect when it comes to final tallies.

I have examined the pages of other Japanese pilots, and this one has been singled out to refute every claim made by the subject. Reading this, it appears that someone has an axe to grind with the subject, and waited until Sakai's passing to avoid addressing them while he was still alive. I am certain that this is not the case, but it is the impression that is left with the reader.

I will (again) attempt to modify this to an acceptable form, and if it is reverted again I will contact an Admin. The history shown on this page is one of constant reversions indicative of an edit war trying to force on specific view meant to cast a negative view on the the character of Sakai. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ignore wikipedia etiquette. You should make concrete suggestions before removing. You need to learn what NPOV means on Wikipedia. It doesn't mean "anything that goes against your POV". Please add citations to reliable sources when editing. "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" on Wikipedia.
And Please specifically pointed out the current problem, because your opinions contain problems that have already been fixed.
"Sakai said:... BUT" Similar format has been commonly used in other articles.
For example:
Lyndon B. Johnson
"He said it was also attacked by Japanese fighters but survived, while others, including other members of the flight crew, claim it turned back because of generator trouble before reaching the objective and before encountering enemy aircraft and never came under fire; this is supported by official flight records.[25]"
Erich Hartmann
"It is often said that Hartmann was more proud of the fact that he had never lost a wingman in combat than he was about his number of kills; however, he did have at least one shot down."
Changing the format is no problem. Could you please tell us the details of more suitable format?
I do not mind you contact an Admin. I will follow the judgment of experts. I can not agree with your forcibly removal. Official records have been posted in other articles. I think it is to be judged by the same criteria as other articles.--Sicmn (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least there seems to be a little improvement in our conversation; however, I would strongly recommend that you not claim the contributions of other editors are vandalism. That would do a lot to improve the impression that is being made, and helps others work with you more cooperatively.
I will be changing a few items that you have made, mostly to correct improper english and to improve tone. If english is not your primary language, I think that you are missing the fact that the way some of the entries are written, they appear biased and not encyclopedic to a native english speaker. This is reasonable Whorfian hypothesis and perhaps you should be working cooperatively with a native english speaker to get your points included without giving the impression that you are being combative and biased.
Keep in mind that the "official records" you continue to source are actually an analysis of official records by a particular researcher, and not the records themselves. This distinction is important. Your main argument still seems to be "Official records say this" and then you point to ten pages of analysis in a particular source work, notably one which is not available in english and therefore not available to the collection of english Wikipedia editors as a whole. Wikipedia is relying on your personal translation of this work to completely rewrite the history of a man who has enough source materials available in english for an encyclopedia entry.
Additionally, the claims you are making about the validity of Samurai! as a source does not belong in the lede. The lede is for a brief summary of Sakai, not the reference work. I will move that into its own section, but retain it. It contains incomplete sentences and some confusing wording, so I will rewrite a portion for you.
I will also be reverting some sourced items that you removed, including the claim about Sakai's 60th kill. With the issue of the conflicting references addressed, it is up to the reader to determine the validity of the statement. The same goes with his family history - it is referenced that his family was of samurai ancestry, and it plays an important role in his biography. It will be going back in for those reasons.
Finally, I do agree that assertions can be refuted as you have evidenced. The trouble is how it has been done, and it is not in keeping with the examples you have provided. As you are trying to refute every story that has been included from Samurai! then it belongs in a completely separate section, and I would recommend you include it in the section I will be making on your behalf for the controversy over Samurai! in general.
ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind that you correct improper english and to improve tone. But you have changed the contents. If you think you corrected it, you should improve your english editing skills. Please do not forcibly edit by the word of "improve your english editing skills". I can not tolerate it.
You need to specifically point out the part of the problem before editing forcibly.
"28" is the number Sakai was honored by Japanese Navy. It is not "an analysis of official records by a particular researcher". It is the introduction of the official record. And other official records support it. Sakai admitted that "64" is a fiction in Interview,too.
And "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." on Wikipedia. Editors should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. But You look like you promote one particular point of view over another. All views need to be treated equally.
I have edited based on the example presented previously. I think your editing is not the standard. Please show an example of article you think the standard. --Sicmn (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting choice you have made here. It is not my job to teach you proper english, nor is it my job to teach you what an encyclopedia is.
  • "And Some stories printed in "samurai!" are fictions." is not even remotely proper and acceptable english.
  • ""Samurai!" has not been published in Japan for his credit." is questionable at best, and is unclear. Whose credit? Credit for what?
  • Including a disputed claim of the validity of a particular source in the lede is not the appropriate use of the lede.
  • Editors do not analyze and determine fact or truth, we merely report what sources have said. No one source is the ultimate authority, and just because one source refutes another does not mean that we can decide to use one or the other - we must use both. Because of this, I will be modifying the Nishizawa entry as well.
I have attempted to be collaborative, and to include - in appropriate areas - all of the information you have presented, including the pyramid scheme issue that was contentious with other editors. I am as interested in the facts as anyone else, and included 28 as his official score (and stated it as such) as well as documenting the 64 claimed in his autobiography. That is fair and balanced. Stating that the number 64 is fiction is not fair and balanced. That is not a neutral point of view, it is a direct assertion claiming that a source is lying.
Your response has been both combative and insulting. What you can or cannot tolerate is immaterial. Editing is not done forcibly; it is merely done. Expect more of it.
ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can not specifically present Uncorrectable English, you should not have remove posts by the reason. Editors have often correct mistakes in a text. But Removal must be carefully considered on Wikipedia. I also think your response has been both combative and insulting. Please do not attack by Unrelated, Resolved or No specific problems.
There are a lot of mistakes in your rewriting. The Original and your rewriting are details should be the same. If you use English freely, it means that you have described the intentionally false. It is the problem that damage your credibility. You can ask the details of the question points on Wikipedia by using the template.
For example, Template:Who[who?]
Please use them before you remove or rewrite.
And there is reason in what you say. I regretted that there was a lack of detail for that.
"Credit for what?"
"When Takashiro(高城, The holder of a right of publication of Samurai! in Japan) translated Samurai!, he knew that it is an preposterous story(荒唐無稽). Takashiro thought "If it is published in Japan, Sakai will be a laughingstock." So Takashiro did not publish Samurai! in Japan. And he has written a new biography with Sakai."
I have read "Samurai!" and Japanese biography "坂井三郎空戦記録". They are actually two different books. Also Heroines does not appear in Japanese biography. Heroines seems fictional characters. His wife "Hatsuyo" is a different person from "Hatsuyo" of Samurai!.
"Editors do not analyze and determine fact or truth, we merely report what sources have said."
It is you are right. "28 as his official score (and stated it as such) as well as documenting the 64 claimed in his autobiography" is no problem. But you have added a particular point of view and moved a different point of view. And "Debate and Controversy" Section that you have created is your point of view. "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." If you want to add them as "Debate and Controversy", objections is required. What are sources there are the debate or controversy? It looks like you analyzed and determined them. This article is about Sakai, not Samurai!. Samurai! is a point of view about Sakai.
I agree to make a section about the number of aerial victory. And I will be careful to edit in more detail. Thank you.--Sicmn (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try again. Your english is too poor to qualify you to edit the english Wikipedia site. I will not be teaching you.
Additionally, if you wish to use non-english sources for the english site, you must provide a reference to an professionally translated version of your source. Your word choices are clearly biased, and include inflammatory terms. This is covered under original research, and your translation choices must be verifiable.
Stick to rewriting the Wikipedia site in your own native language. I will be removing all references to reference works which are untranslated, unless you provide a verifiable translation of that work by an academic third party.
ScrapIronIV (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your english and editing on Wikipedia is too poor. Your rewriting is different from the original.
For example:
"Additionally, at least one reference refutes the assertion that his squadron included fellow aces Hiroyoshi Nishizawa and Toshio Ōta."
This is your false. It should not be divided from the original sentence.
And you need to learn NPOV on Wikipedia before you edit it. The new section is made in your point of view. Your edit are clearly biased, and wiseacre. Please write in a way that concretely conveys the point of the problem. Where is my word choices that are clearly biased, and include inflammatory terms? You should read recent research in English if you can not read Japanese. I will add the recommended English source.
Your making a section is too bad. Try again. I will add two new sentences. Please do not forcibly Revert and point out somthing by giving a concrete example if my English is poor.--Sicmn (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here to copy-edit your work. Wrong is wrong - punctuation, capitalization, and grammar. Some of this was OK, and I left that in.
Unfortunately, we do not get the luxury of deciding whose story and which references are true or not. Neither you nor I get to say "this true accounting" when referencing a source. I am eager to get my hands on a copy of "Eagles of the Southern Sky." As thorough as it may be, we do not have the privilege of saying it is the one true source. That is the only reason I removed it from the lede. If you rewrite that from an NPOV perspective, it should be included.
As for the "Sakai Saburo research book," I will be removing all POV insertions made for it. It does not qualify as a verifiable resource for the english Wikipedia site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScrapIronIV (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citations to non English sources are allowed on Wikipedia. But It is probably difficult because this study compare many official records and his testimony. So I will translate from The Japanese language Wikipedia into The English language Wikipedia. It is simpler than my sentences. But you can access it easily. And you can find a problem in my translation specifically.--Sicmn (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Samurai!"[edit]

I translated from The Japanese language Wikipedia into The English language Wikipedia by a way of Wikipedia. But ScrapIronIV removed it. Why?
"The claim that Sakai performed three tight loops in close formation over the allied air base with Hiroyoshi Nishizawa and Toshio Ōta. Sakai also claimed that the date is May 27 or June 25, 1942. But the records of these days or the others do not have the possibility of this flight."
At first I translated from the original source.
But ScrapIronIV removed different views of "Samurai!" in spite of the source. His claim in Talk:Hiroyoshi Nishizawa is "An obscure foreign research book, untranslated and available only in Japanese, is not adequate source material to reverse the story (published worldwide) reported on the english Wikipedia site." It is only your point of view. Non English sources are allowed on Wikipedia. The article"Hans-Joachim Marseille" or others also are edited by foreign research books, untranslated and available only in German. If you want to forbid it, you must change the Wikipedia policy.
"Samurai!" was judged a preposterous story in Japan that is used as the background for it. So "Samurai!" is not published in Japan. And recently English sources (For example, "Eagles of the Southern Sky" ) also deny "Samurai!". This point of view must be treated as coequal with the point of view of "Samurai!".
But I translated from The Japanese language Wikipedia because I considered that ScrapIronIV can not read the source. If you claim my translation is bad, you should present an alternative translation. You must not promote the point of view of "Samurai!".--Sicmn (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my point of view; all I have asked for was to give it due weight. I have no issues with the information being included, but your source is not enough to rewrite previous history. Extraordinary claims require significant sources. Your continued use of words like "official" and "true" are definitely POV terms, and give undue weight to your source. Given the bias you have consistently shown in your word choices, when you personally translate words claiming an accepted source to be "preposterous," your neutrality comes into question.
I will be reverting you (again) not because of the data you are entering. It is because of the poor english used, and the inclusion of the debate over sources in the lead - where it absolutely does not belong.
And I will say it one more time... The format "Sakaid said: [story] But..." is completely unacceptable in style. Basically, you are calling Sakai a liar. That is not something any editor is allowed to do. Reference the discrepancy, but do not format it in such a way that gives a non-neutral perspective. If you can not understand the subtleties of english, you should not be editing the english site, or providing your own translation of sources.
ScrapIronIV (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A machine tarancelation also trancelated "preposterous", not my choice or bias. Naturally, the readers that know Japanese autobiographies and readers of Samurai! differ and don't dovetail, because Sakai in Japanese autobiographies differs from Sakai as the main character of Samurai!. It is related to their distrust for Samurai!, and vice versa.
The "official" records is published on the internet by Japanese Government. And The sources give proper the official records. These is significant and proper sources on Wikipedia.
Be careful it is not only the article of Sakai as the main character of Samurai!. I will be careful not to disregard the view of Samurai! too.
Read Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
Read Accessibility in Wikipedia:Verifiability."Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf."--Sicmn (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewrite[edit]

After a recent review of the article, there are multiple issues, not the least being a lack of reliable sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out some problems regarding your suggestion. Sakai published a lot of autobiographies in Japan. Their stories and personal background are very different from Samurai!. Therefore, Sakai in Japan differs from Sakai as the main character of Samurai!. It looks queer to eperts in the field know Sakai's autobiographies in Japan. But, In English-speaking countries, Sakai is known only as the main character of Samurai! published 50 years ago. The various problems resulting from this gap must be solved before rewrite.--Sicmn (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, there has to be consideration for the use of reliable sources as this is the lynchpin of the Wikipedia project. When there are contentious issues arising as to use of reference sources in languages other than English, this is also a major element in deciding how to proceed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, you are much more experienced than I in these matters, and I will defer to your judgement here. The compromises I have tried to make have been to include both the assertions from Japanese sources and the contradictory english ones; however, that has not been successful. Those versions are not very readable, and tend to be confusing to the reader. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consideration for the use of reliable sources is mainly Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Whether it's a English source or not doesn't matter on Wikipedia. The users must not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. But the translators are bound to provide a quotation of relevant portions of the original source or details. The source is the autobiography Sakai wrote by his native language, different quality from Samurai!. I think the contentious issue is the format of the gap between Samurai! and Japanese autobiographies. Please let me know if there are the revision required by Wikipedia rules or your doubts.Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ--Sicmn (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This type of situation has occurred before especially when it involved the use of non-English sources that are often very difficult to analyze as to WP:Reliable Source. My suggestion is to create a "sandbox" edition of the revisions that are being proposed, based on unique or difficult to obtain reference sources. The alternative is to utilize the talk page to "test" proposed revisions. These actions may preclude a constant challenge of the new material. As you may not be aware, one of the Wiki dictoms is "B-R-D" which stands for "Bold- Reverse- Debate" which is now what needs to happen here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One other aspect of dealing with controversial subjects or topics is to create either a sub-section or even a "connected" or "daughter" article that explores or develops this topic in greater detail and fills into the WP:Undue aspect of the Wikipedia format. See<http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/08/world/saburo-sakai-is-dead-at-84-war-pilot-embraced-foes.html> for a carefully written and neutral statement on the controversial aspects of Sakai's life. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, What is the reason for removing it? I disagree with removing Japanese autobiographies differing from Samurai's viewpoints without a justifiable cause. On Wikipedia, It is not good to edit in such a way as to remove conflicting sources. It looks like Edit War are starting to heat up.
It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Editors must not promote one particular point of view over another. NPOV does not mean exclusion of certain points of view. We must avoid to write the article by only Samurai's viewpoints. (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ) And non-English is not a valid excuse for judging whether it is the Verifiable source or not. The users must not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost)
Try to fix problems in accordance with WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. (See Wikipedia:Editing policy) If you think the source or translation are wrong, point it out.
Certainly, many materials published in US are based on only Samurai. But, this article isn't just for Samurai!. Recent studies and Japanese materials are not consistent with Samurai!. There is no need or reason to separate Japanese autobiographies from others. The difficulties of verifying a source do not impact its reliability. The neutral statement is depends on whether the person know more than just Samurai.--Sicmn (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese autobiography[edit]

This article needs to improve that it promote Samurai's viewpoints and reject Japanese autobiographies differing greatly from Samurai. "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another."(See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), "Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access."(See Wikipedia:Verifiability), "Verifiable sources may have technical or personal restrictions (written in languages other than English, on websites that require a certain software, available on a type of media that requires the reader to have a certain type of technological appliance to access it)"(See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost)Unfortunately, users are deprived of the chance to get a lot of knowledge by the view of a specific user. My suggestion is to include both arguments in the article. Japanese autobiographies are the important sources Sakai wrote in his native language.

According to Japanese autobiography, His father was born as the third son of a wealthy farmer. As was often the case in Japan, the second, third son of farmers were not given their father's wealth. When Saburō Sakai was 5, his family left the head family because of the dissatisfaction. Therefore his family was forced to take a poor living. Saburō Sakai was born as the second, his given name from his grandfather's name "勝三郎 katsusaburō". See: Saburō Sakai Kusen Kiroku Volume 1, pp. 34-35. Original source; "私の父は, 村でも大きな農家の三男として生まれたが, 農家の次男, 三男に生まれた男の運命は, 今も昔もさして変わらず, 私たち兄弟が生まれても財産分けをしてくれない長兄のやりかたに見切りをつけて, 私たちの一家は, 夜逃げ同様で生家を出たらしい。私が五歳の時であった。私たち一家は, 家出してももちろん本家から財産を分けてもらえなかった。一家はたちまち生活に窮した。おもしろいことに, 私は次男であるが, 名前は三郎である。次男なのに三郎, へんだなと思って母に問いただしたら, 祖父の名の勝三郎から三郎の二字をもらったという。" When his father died, leaving his mother alone to raise six children. See: Saburō Sakai Kusen Kiroku Volume 1,pp. 37-38. Original source;"私が小学校六年生の秋のことであった。父はちょっとした風邪がもとで, 母と私たち六人の兄弟妹を残して, ぽっくりと死んでしまった。"--Sicmn (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Saburō Sakai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saburō Sakai. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Saburō Sakai. 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:

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) 03:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very American POV/Saburō's efforts to get RAAF flight crew recognition[edit]

So we're not going to mention Saburō's post-war investigation to find the crew of a Lockheed Hudson he shot down and his 1997 recommendation to the Australian government for said aircrew to be awarded commendations for their valour and bravery? I mean, the way this article reads, you'd be forgiven in thinking there were no other allied belligerents in the Pacific Theatre other than the US. His efforts were well known in Australia through the late 90s, early noughties.

(Episode available from ABC Australia, transcript here: https://www.abc.net.au/austory/enemy-lines-july-1,-2002/10447776) (14.2.97.241 (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Section dedicated to myth?[edit]

Why is the whole last paragraph at the bottom of the "Southeast Asia" section retelling a false story as if it is true even after saying it is false? I feel as any paragraph starting with "A myth which has been perpetuated over time, but has been declared as a product of the imagination..." has no place in an otherwise historical retelling and should be deleted. MG George H Thomas (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saburō_Sakai&oldid=1210179437"