This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please add comments ot the bottom of this page.
A very large block of text is a copy directly from http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/summer_2001_two_japans_1.html. According to the copyright notice on that page, free use is not confirmed. I have pulled all the copied text (which is unfortunate because it was really good). If someone can confirm that we are allowed to use the text as is, please source your confirmation of copyright on this page and add the text back to the article. Rossami 23:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not only have I read the Wikipedia article on copyrights, I have also read the relevant US law. I refer you specifically to the copyright clauses on the National Archives website including
Add to those disclaimers the facts that
With all that, I do not believe that Wikipedia automatically falls under the fair use clause. If you are qualified to give a legal opinion based on the available evidence, please do so. Otherwise, I ask again for affirmative evidence that the cut text did not constitute a copyright violation. Rossami 04:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I got tired of the useless assertations, so I took an entirely radical and unthinkable step to solve the problem. I asked them.
NPOL being the policy branch of NARA. There's an email address and a phone number attached, but I'm not putting them up unless requested to do so.
There, was that really so hard? -- Cyrius 20:10, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wow. An excellent start, and an interesting read. I think it would be pertinent, however, to expand upon the significance of the event in the introduction. This was the first Japanese attack on any US target during the prelude to WW II, right? Obviously, it didn't garner a lot of direct response, nothing like the response that Pearl Harbor, the Maine, or the Lusitania did, but I think it's a much more significant event than simply one of many attacks. Also, please cite your sources in a dedicated References or Sources section. LordAmeth 15:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The is not alone in telling that the Panay was deliberately bobmed by the Japanese. But could anyone explain to me the why? Why were the Japanese officers deliberately attaking a ship of the neutral USA? thestor 12:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There is lots of extended blah-blah about people who offered or donated trivial amounts of money in regret for the Panay bombing. This is a bunch of triviality and non-encyclopedic in nature and does not belong here. I have erased some of it now, and I am tempted to erase all of it. What is important (and encyclopedic) information is the large amount of money paid to the U.S. by the Japanese government. It is hard to believe why someone would want to write all the stuff about triviality by private individuals. Someone needs to learn about how scales of importance apply to events - and not to babble about things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.90.237 ( talk) 15:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like some weird nationalist revisionism to me. I’d say edit it out. Came to the discussion page for this. Freakdog ( talk) 04:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The post incident section seems to take up about three-quarters of the article, but focuses largely on the responses of some (by no means all) Japanese citizens. It's also largely taken from one source.
I suggest it gives the matter undue weigth in an article on this subject; it should be substantially trimmed, and the original article linked for further reading. The subject of Japanese dislike of the militaristic stance their country had is a worthwhile subject, but such an in-depth treatment of a single aspect of it is out of place here.
Xyl 54 (
talk)
00:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like whitewashing and it’s out of place. “A bunch of concerned citizens gave $$ because of the following reasons A B and C “— and then move on. Freakdog ( talk) 04:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
hi, my purnell's The Illustrated encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons & Warfare under " D1A, Aichi" (p. 674) states "Most saw action in China, one unit dive-bombing and sinking the USS gunboat Panay in the Yangtze in 1937." just wondering why the article doesn't mention these aircraft (also no mention of this in the aircraft's wikiarticle). thanks, Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
For some reason this article completely omits mention of Lt. Arthur Anders, the so-called "Hero of the Panay" who was awarded the Navy Cross as a result of his actions during the incident. Anders' son is the Apollo astronaut William Anders. It's a glaring omission.
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please add comments ot the bottom of this page.
A very large block of text is a copy directly from http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/summer_2001_two_japans_1.html. According to the copyright notice on that page, free use is not confirmed. I have pulled all the copied text (which is unfortunate because it was really good). If someone can confirm that we are allowed to use the text as is, please source your confirmation of copyright on this page and add the text back to the article. Rossami 23:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not only have I read the Wikipedia article on copyrights, I have also read the relevant US law. I refer you specifically to the copyright clauses on the National Archives website including
Add to those disclaimers the facts that
With all that, I do not believe that Wikipedia automatically falls under the fair use clause. If you are qualified to give a legal opinion based on the available evidence, please do so. Otherwise, I ask again for affirmative evidence that the cut text did not constitute a copyright violation. Rossami 04:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I got tired of the useless assertations, so I took an entirely radical and unthinkable step to solve the problem. I asked them.
NPOL being the policy branch of NARA. There's an email address and a phone number attached, but I'm not putting them up unless requested to do so.
There, was that really so hard? -- Cyrius 20:10, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wow. An excellent start, and an interesting read. I think it would be pertinent, however, to expand upon the significance of the event in the introduction. This was the first Japanese attack on any US target during the prelude to WW II, right? Obviously, it didn't garner a lot of direct response, nothing like the response that Pearl Harbor, the Maine, or the Lusitania did, but I think it's a much more significant event than simply one of many attacks. Also, please cite your sources in a dedicated References or Sources section. LordAmeth 15:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The is not alone in telling that the Panay was deliberately bobmed by the Japanese. But could anyone explain to me the why? Why were the Japanese officers deliberately attaking a ship of the neutral USA? thestor 12:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There is lots of extended blah-blah about people who offered or donated trivial amounts of money in regret for the Panay bombing. This is a bunch of triviality and non-encyclopedic in nature and does not belong here. I have erased some of it now, and I am tempted to erase all of it. What is important (and encyclopedic) information is the large amount of money paid to the U.S. by the Japanese government. It is hard to believe why someone would want to write all the stuff about triviality by private individuals. Someone needs to learn about how scales of importance apply to events - and not to babble about things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.90.237 ( talk) 15:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like some weird nationalist revisionism to me. I’d say edit it out. Came to the discussion page for this. Freakdog ( talk) 04:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The post incident section seems to take up about three-quarters of the article, but focuses largely on the responses of some (by no means all) Japanese citizens. It's also largely taken from one source.
I suggest it gives the matter undue weigth in an article on this subject; it should be substantially trimmed, and the original article linked for further reading. The subject of Japanese dislike of the militaristic stance their country had is a worthwhile subject, but such an in-depth treatment of a single aspect of it is out of place here.
Xyl 54 (
talk)
00:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like whitewashing and it’s out of place. “A bunch of concerned citizens gave $$ because of the following reasons A B and C “— and then move on. Freakdog ( talk) 04:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
hi, my purnell's The Illustrated encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons & Warfare under " D1A, Aichi" (p. 674) states "Most saw action in China, one unit dive-bombing and sinking the USS gunboat Panay in the Yangtze in 1937." just wondering why the article doesn't mention these aircraft (also no mention of this in the aircraft's wikiarticle). thanks, Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
For some reason this article completely omits mention of Lt. Arthur Anders, the so-called "Hero of the Panay" who was awarded the Navy Cross as a result of his actions during the incident. Anders' son is the Apollo astronaut William Anders. It's a glaring omission.