Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a23691697f87cb43

Jump to content

Talk:Japanese cruiser Hashidate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Sphilbrick in topic Issue regarding a source

Issue regarding a source

[edit]

A reader contacted Wikimedia via OTRS to report:

Each of the following pages in Wikipedia has the same error:

Japanese cruiser Matsushima Japanese cruiser Itsukushima Japanese cruiser Hashidate Japanese cruiser Naniwa Japanese cruiser Takachiho Japanese cruiser Yoshino

Each of these warships participated in the Battle of the Yalu fought on 9/17/1894. Each of the above Wikipedia articles gives specific details about the number of shells fired, and/or hits received. In each and every case the source of reference for those details is the same. The source is quoted as a book entitled "The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Powers and Primacy" by S.C.M. Paine. Each reference lists the pages 133-134 as the source.

I have a copy of the book and the pages 133-134 refer to a prior naval engagement that took place on 7/25/1894 and only the Naniwa was present. The book does describe the Battle of the Yalu but only in general terms; not even the names of the ships involved are mentioned.

The writer may have cited the wrong source, but the source cited in each of the above articles is most assuredly incorrect.

I believe the book used to cite the claims is:

  • S. C. M. Paine (11 April 2005). The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-61745-1.

I did not find the information in the book. I hope some editor can either verify that the information is in the source, identify a different source to support the claims, or remove the claims.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply