This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I've fleshed out the fleet listing, divided the surface/submarine fleets up and removed training ships from the list. I also removed the Chikugo and Takatsuki classes, as GlobalSecurity.org says that they've all been "striken" - I can only guess that means htat they are decommissioned. If someone can verify this, please post here to confirm. Thanks, John Smith's 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I fixed some incorrect numbers. I think that the training ships that are part of the existing classes should be listed, as outside of maybe an added classroom they are the same ships and will serve the same purpose as the other ships when needed. Yes, the Chukigo and Takatsuki class ships are all decomissioned. Spejic 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:External links we should always prefer internal links to external ones. If information from the site was used to improve the article then it should be cited under "References", which the GlobalSecurity site already is. If the other site was used as a reference, then please cite that one in the references section as well. Bare external links should be used sparingly, and for articles like this should be generally restricted to official pages only. Adding anything more invites linkspam. - Loren 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I have asked John Smith's to revert back the two images removed as they are properly licenced. They were tagged for consideration for removal under an old licence but are now properly licenced. I also understand that editors should not interfere with images that are tagged as these are dealt with by admin. The users error is understandable, but any other objections? Thanks Des Desk1 09:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice length overall, nice intro, nice infoboxes, and pictures. But each individual section is really short. Is there any expansion that can be done? LordAmeth 09:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJrIF7pHyO0 -- 293.xx.xxx.xx 21:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought that the general trend of this article was to be more general. Is a listing of all aircraft really needed? Spejic 04:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
And now I don't understand what is happening here. The same person both moved away all information, and is asking for more? What is this supposed to mean? Could people discuss or at least explain big changes here before making them? Spejic 16:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
"Expand the section with information on the main aspects of the Japanese Naval fleet. JMSDF Fleet article link must be given in the main part and that article will have details of all current ships in JMSDF. Similar to Royal Navy today section in the Royal Navy article and Ships section in the U.S Navy article. Chanakyathegreat 07:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I am confused by the termology. The article refers to "destroyer escorts" and "frigates". Which term is the official one in the JMSDF? Also it refers to "helicopter destroyers", " guided missile destroyers", and "destroyer"s, but all of them carry helicopters and guided missilies! Again if this is the correct terminology of the jmsdf it should be explained. David.j.james 15:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed this picture as it is low resolution and the lighting is poor. I also could not make it fit well with the others. If anyone wants to restore it, please put it in carefully so the layout of the page isn't distorted. John Smith's ( talk) 11:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless anyone has objections, I will look into removing some of the pictures. Currently the article has too many, and in some cases they are distorting the layout (e.g. edit boxes lower down). John Smith's ( talk) 19:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
From the Web site of the U.S. Forces Japan:
http://www.usfj.mil/Japanese%20military%20rank%20chart.pdf 172.189.213.185 ( talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have done my best to rewrite the article to improve grammar and make it easier to read. I have cut bits of material where I was not sure what the original editor was trying to say. We should use the term "JMSDF" throughout the article, rather than switching between that and "MSDF" or "Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force".
Furthermore I have removed a few pictures, as at the moment I think there are too many towards the latter part of the article. The remaining ones need to be re-organised so that they do not "cramp" the edit buttons for sub-sections. John Smith's ( talk) 13:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the entry to say that two are under construction and removed the bit on "planned" as I don't think any more are planned at the moment. But maybe someone could enlighten me if more are going to follow in the near future (I could imagine they would after a while when the Shirane class needs replacing). John Smith's ( talk) 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a source for the recent collision: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20091029a1.html "The collision between a Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer ( Kurama) and a South Korean containership on 27 October 2009 in the Kanmon Straits may have been caused by wrong guidance given by a radar traffic controller minutes before the clash, the Japan Coast Guard". N2e ( talk) 16:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This could use a better bibliography. I will add a brief one if not objectionable. Ed Gris 02:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Gris ( talk • contribs)
I don't know how many people read this page, but when and why were all details of the ship & boat classes removed from the page? I think a simple table is a good idea. After all there's one for aircraft. Why on Earth not one for the ships and subs? John Smith's ( talk) 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The ENTIRE Article did not include any of these, including the wikilinks.
antisubmarine warfare,
antiaircraft,
antiaircraft warfare,
destroyer,
aircraft carrier,
helicopter carrier,
submarine,
guided missile destroyer,
AEGIS air-defense system,
surface-to-air missile,
antimissile warfare,
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System,
Standard Missile SM-2MR,
Standard Missile SM-3.
How on Earth is anyone going to write anything at all about the JMSDF without any of these,
and especially since one of the primary missions of the JMSDF has been
antisubmarine warfare for decades?
Also, the new and important warships of the JMSDF carry the
AEGIS air-defense system,
and furthermore, the size of these AEGIS ships is the same as the size of a
light cruiser instead of a
destroyer.
Hence, for all practical purposes, the JMSDF has
guided-missile cruisers that carry the AEGIS air-defense and antimissile systems, the
Standard Missile SM-2MR, and the
Standard Missile SM-3 for
ballistic missile defense.
98.67.106.59 (
talk) 22:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
As a former USN liaison officer to the JMSDF I can attest that we always referred to the JMSDF (both informally and in official documents) as the "Japanese" Maritime Self Defense Force and not the "Japan" Maritime Self Defense Force. Oldbubblehead ( talk) 06:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Ineedtostopforgetting:, per Template:Infobox military unit, the allegiance category is reserved for "Used to indicate the allegiance of units which are not part of the regular armed forces of a sovereign state; can usually be omitted otherwise. In the case of National Guard or Naval Militia units, the State of origin should be indicated." This does not apply for the JMSDF. Garuda28 ( talk) 04:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Without a citation or source, the following statement at the bottom of the Capabilities segment looks like a subjective opinion, especially with the quotation marks on "passive" making it look like sarcasm:
"These capabilities are force multipliers, allowing force projection of Japan's sizable destroyer and frigate force far from home waters, and acquiring them is contentious considering Japan's "passive" defense policy."
At the very minimum, we need an answer and a linked, credible source for who is considering this contentious. Otherwise I would suggest deleting this part. 81.191.83.149 ( talk) 15:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I've fleshed out the fleet listing, divided the surface/submarine fleets up and removed training ships from the list. I also removed the Chikugo and Takatsuki classes, as GlobalSecurity.org says that they've all been "striken" - I can only guess that means htat they are decommissioned. If someone can verify this, please post here to confirm. Thanks, John Smith's 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I fixed some incorrect numbers. I think that the training ships that are part of the existing classes should be listed, as outside of maybe an added classroom they are the same ships and will serve the same purpose as the other ships when needed. Yes, the Chukigo and Takatsuki class ships are all decomissioned. Spejic 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:External links we should always prefer internal links to external ones. If information from the site was used to improve the article then it should be cited under "References", which the GlobalSecurity site already is. If the other site was used as a reference, then please cite that one in the references section as well. Bare external links should be used sparingly, and for articles like this should be generally restricted to official pages only. Adding anything more invites linkspam. - Loren 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I have asked John Smith's to revert back the two images removed as they are properly licenced. They were tagged for consideration for removal under an old licence but are now properly licenced. I also understand that editors should not interfere with images that are tagged as these are dealt with by admin. The users error is understandable, but any other objections? Thanks Des Desk1 09:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice length overall, nice intro, nice infoboxes, and pictures. But each individual section is really short. Is there any expansion that can be done? LordAmeth 09:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJrIF7pHyO0 -- 293.xx.xxx.xx 21:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought that the general trend of this article was to be more general. Is a listing of all aircraft really needed? Spejic 04:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
And now I don't understand what is happening here. The same person both moved away all information, and is asking for more? What is this supposed to mean? Could people discuss or at least explain big changes here before making them? Spejic 16:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
"Expand the section with information on the main aspects of the Japanese Naval fleet. JMSDF Fleet article link must be given in the main part and that article will have details of all current ships in JMSDF. Similar to Royal Navy today section in the Royal Navy article and Ships section in the U.S Navy article. Chanakyathegreat 07:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I am confused by the termology. The article refers to "destroyer escorts" and "frigates". Which term is the official one in the JMSDF? Also it refers to "helicopter destroyers", " guided missile destroyers", and "destroyer"s, but all of them carry helicopters and guided missilies! Again if this is the correct terminology of the jmsdf it should be explained. David.j.james 15:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed this picture as it is low resolution and the lighting is poor. I also could not make it fit well with the others. If anyone wants to restore it, please put it in carefully so the layout of the page isn't distorted. John Smith's ( talk) 11:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless anyone has objections, I will look into removing some of the pictures. Currently the article has too many, and in some cases they are distorting the layout (e.g. edit boxes lower down). John Smith's ( talk) 19:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
From the Web site of the U.S. Forces Japan:
http://www.usfj.mil/Japanese%20military%20rank%20chart.pdf 172.189.213.185 ( talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have done my best to rewrite the article to improve grammar and make it easier to read. I have cut bits of material where I was not sure what the original editor was trying to say. We should use the term "JMSDF" throughout the article, rather than switching between that and "MSDF" or "Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force".
Furthermore I have removed a few pictures, as at the moment I think there are too many towards the latter part of the article. The remaining ones need to be re-organised so that they do not "cramp" the edit buttons for sub-sections. John Smith's ( talk) 13:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the entry to say that two are under construction and removed the bit on "planned" as I don't think any more are planned at the moment. But maybe someone could enlighten me if more are going to follow in the near future (I could imagine they would after a while when the Shirane class needs replacing). John Smith's ( talk) 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a source for the recent collision: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20091029a1.html "The collision between a Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer ( Kurama) and a South Korean containership on 27 October 2009 in the Kanmon Straits may have been caused by wrong guidance given by a radar traffic controller minutes before the clash, the Japan Coast Guard". N2e ( talk) 16:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This could use a better bibliography. I will add a brief one if not objectionable. Ed Gris 02:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Gris ( talk • contribs)
I don't know how many people read this page, but when and why were all details of the ship & boat classes removed from the page? I think a simple table is a good idea. After all there's one for aircraft. Why on Earth not one for the ships and subs? John Smith's ( talk) 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The ENTIRE Article did not include any of these, including the wikilinks.
antisubmarine warfare,
antiaircraft,
antiaircraft warfare,
destroyer,
aircraft carrier,
helicopter carrier,
submarine,
guided missile destroyer,
AEGIS air-defense system,
surface-to-air missile,
antimissile warfare,
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System,
Standard Missile SM-2MR,
Standard Missile SM-3.
How on Earth is anyone going to write anything at all about the JMSDF without any of these,
and especially since one of the primary missions of the JMSDF has been
antisubmarine warfare for decades?
Also, the new and important warships of the JMSDF carry the
AEGIS air-defense system,
and furthermore, the size of these AEGIS ships is the same as the size of a
light cruiser instead of a
destroyer.
Hence, for all practical purposes, the JMSDF has
guided-missile cruisers that carry the AEGIS air-defense and antimissile systems, the
Standard Missile SM-2MR, and the
Standard Missile SM-3 for
ballistic missile defense.
98.67.106.59 (
talk) 22:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
As a former USN liaison officer to the JMSDF I can attest that we always referred to the JMSDF (both informally and in official documents) as the "Japanese" Maritime Self Defense Force and not the "Japan" Maritime Self Defense Force. Oldbubblehead ( talk) 06:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Ineedtostopforgetting:, per Template:Infobox military unit, the allegiance category is reserved for "Used to indicate the allegiance of units which are not part of the regular armed forces of a sovereign state; can usually be omitted otherwise. In the case of National Guard or Naval Militia units, the State of origin should be indicated." This does not apply for the JMSDF. Garuda28 ( talk) 04:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Without a citation or source, the following statement at the bottom of the Capabilities segment looks like a subjective opinion, especially with the quotation marks on "passive" making it look like sarcasm:
"These capabilities are force multipliers, allowing force projection of Japan's sizable destroyer and frigate force far from home waters, and acquiring them is contentious considering Japan's "passive" defense policy."
At the very minimum, we need an answer and a linked, credible source for who is considering this contentious. Otherwise I would suggest deleting this part. 81.191.83.149 ( talk) 15:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)