Wikipedia:Featured article review/Operation Downfall/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Operation Downfall

[edit] Review commentary

Original author, Raul654, aware. Messages left at MilHist and Japan. Sandy (Talk) 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Has no in-line citations at all (1c) and contains weasel words ("Everybody has" in one of the paragraphs). It appeared on the Main Page in 2004, which leads me to believe that it's a very old-school article before in-line cites were required. Hbdragon88 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of the claims in this listing are wrong. There are 10-20 parenthatical citations. And the phrase "everybody has" does not occur anywhere in the article (which has not changed in over 2 weeks) Raul654 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say 1. c. isn't met here, regardless of whether the 10-20 parenthetical citations count or not. Also, the lead is rather short. LuciferMorgan 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the overall level of citation isn't really adequate, regardless of the exact number involved; for example, there are direct quotes (which is what I'm guessing the contents of the "Assumptions" section are) which aren't cited. Kirill Lokshin 02:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Everyone" is in the section of casualties. "Everybody based their estimates on the experience of the preceding campaigns, but they could draw different lessons:" I thought this was a rather obvious fact, to introduce the various estimates done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by Adm. Nimitz's staff, by Gen. MacArthur's staff, etc., etc.

—wwoods 23:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, the the person who made this FAR nom does not understand the concept of weasel words. Weasel words are a way to drop an unreferenced commentary or opinion into an article ("Some people say..." is the the canonical example). Saying "everybody did this" and then enumerating who did what is, as this article does, by definition, not weasel words. In fact, give how wrong both of the nominator's claims are, I'm starting to doubt he even read the article, and I'm tempted to remove this FAR listing. Raul654 03:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree with a removal, as the complete lack of inline citations in the beginning sections of this article would merit its listing here, regardless of what you may think of the nominator. Gzkn 06:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 has no right to remove this FAR listing - I don't care if he is the Featured article director. I'd like to say I read the article, and perhaps rather than criticising the reviewers here he should get to work. His attitude is rather unwelcome as far as I'm concerned. LuciferMorgan 16:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lucifer, and it's absolutely nothing personal. Rather, it's a systemic issue: WP needs to be seen to be democratic, and part of that is that office bearers are, as far as possible, on the same functional level as the rest of us. Tony 07:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would suggest that this article remain under FAR. Here are my comments:

• For some suggestions on the citations, I just added some {{fact}} tags in the article.
• A description of the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps would be needed. Or a wikilink if there is an article about this group. If this is an organisation of adult civilians, then it is unclear to me why the text about a high school girl follows it. If there was an organised mobilisation of children, then that should be described as well.
• Can something be done about the hyperlinks to the images on the CIA web site? Either obtain an licensed image or expand the text.
• The sentence, "This gave the United States a justification for their use..." sounds like speculation. Did someone say this? Or is this the opinion of the author?

--RelHistBuff 12:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There are things to admire in this article, but there are problems with the prose. For this to be "among our very best", as required, the writing will need to be thoroughly copy-edited. Let's look at the lead.
  • "Later, in the spring of 1946, Coronet was the invasion of the Kanto plain near Toyko on the island of Honshu." Remove "later", since it's obvious that the spring of 1946 is later than "November 1945". More importantly, Operation Coronet "was" an invasion? Having correctly used the conditional "would" elsewhere, the same should apply here. Better: "would involve", because it surely consisted of not just invading. Or did this bit happen and the others didn't? I'm confused, and I shouldn't be.
• "Japan's geography made this invasion plan obvious to the Japanese as well,...". Just why this is the case isn't clear to me (perhaps I'm missing something obvious). And why "as well"? Unclear.
• "The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyushu, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions, though varying widely, were extremely high for both sides.
• The stubby third para is more awkward for starting with "However,...".

This article is definitely worth retaining, so I hope that the writing can be improved. Tony 13:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that some copyediting would be good - I will if/when I have time. The last section in particular seems a bit choppy. It would also be nice to see the first few sections having the same level of citations as the last ones. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Can this sentence (containing external jumps) be converted to a cited statement to avoid the external jumps? Readers shouldn't have to access external websites when reading the article.
  • (Also, compare the estimate made in early July with the estimate made in early August.)
• Sandy (Talk) 14:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Waited a few days, no one else addressed it, converted the external jumps to prose myself. Sandy (Talk) 23:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So, how are the footnotes looking? I agree that the links to the CIA website are awkward. I'd like to just copy the two maps, but the article (still) says,"Copyright pending. Not for distribution or reproduction without permission of the author, the Center for the Study of Intelligence, and Harvard University." (Although that hasn't stopped someone from adding them to de:Operation Downfall and fr:Opération Downfall.) The maps just illustrate the fact that the defending forces had tripled in strength, which is already stated in the paragraph.
—wwoods 06:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a little worried about the clause, "the fact that Japanese civilians were being encouraged to become suicide attackers". I had put a cite tag on that one, but it was removed with the edit summary that this was common knowledge. But I still wonder about this. I am aware that kamikaze attacks were planned among the military. As for civilians, the Japanese did commit suicide in Okinawa and other islands to avoid capture. But I was wondering if there was a campaign for Japanese civilians to become suicide attackers in the event of an invasion of the home islands. Hence, the cite tag. --RelHistBuff 10:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There's some description earlier, at the end of Operation Downfall#Ground forces. I suppose it could be expanded.

—wwoods 18:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, I believe that last quote concerning the high school girl should be removed. It is picking on one small shocking point of what is purportedly a national campaign. Even if the statement is sourced, having this isolated statement without the complete context is more worthy of tabloid journalism rather than an encyclopaedia. The description of organised civilian suicide attackers should cover its campaign and organisation on a high-level but properly detailled because this is clearly a controversial assertion. In any case, such a description should cite the source, because I do not believe this is common knowledge. --RelHistBuff 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reasons are, frankly, unconvincing. That particular incident is not out of the ordinary at all; removing it would reduce the quality of the article, so it will be staying in. Raul654 19:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Raul, I don't disagree with your reasoning, but I do object to your dictatorial "so it will be staying in". It's a wiki, so a more cooperative angle would be more productive. The risk is that some reviewers might ignore your point because of the last six words. Tony 14:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that a cite should be added to the clause, "the fact that Japanese civilians were being encouraged to become suicide attackers" and more information is needed for the “Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps”. If one googles “Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps”, there are only 236 results. Most of these are links to this article on mirror sites of Wikipedia. The rest are blogs and forums that discuss the corps using similar language to the article which may imply that the bloggers got the info from Wikipedia. Hence, it looks like WP:OR unless this is corrected by the cites and additional info. --RelHistBuff 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Status?? Diff since nom. Sandy (Talk) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I would ask for an extension of the FAR deadline to address the concerns above. They are fixable, hence FARC is not necessary yet. --RelHistBuff 14:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bit to the paragraph about the militia forces. As for the name, I don't speak the language, but from googling around, my best guess is that “Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps”, "Peoples' Volunteer Fighting Corps", and "National Volunteer Combat Force" are variant translations of "Kokumin Giyu Sento-Tai".

—wwoods 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Looking up using the other terms produced a few more sites. Again mostly bloggers and private websites with similiar descriptions. I assume the differences in descriptions are that different books were used as a source. Anyway it is clearer now. With that info, I toned down the "suicide attackers" clause. As the corps description is now cited, there is no need for the clause to be cited. --RelHistBuff 08:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the sentence on Yukiko Kasai, as it is properly sourced and the source is well-known and accepted, it does satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. However, the reason I do not believe it is appropriate in an encyclopaedia is that it is an anecdote. In all military situations, one can find examples of extreme behaviour. A historian is able to study and make general conclusions (for example, on kamikaze). We should write on those conclusions. But to pull out some anecdotes that mainly illustrate a particular point-of-view on a battle, mobilisation, prisoner treatment, etc., would be a subtle violation of WP:NPOV. --RelHistBuff 09:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's a useful anecdote, illustrating the extreme fanaticism/desperation of the Japanese. When you have to stretch your definition of combatant down to 'schoolgirl' and of weapon down to 'pointed piece of metal'... Also, "the Japanese predilection for fanatical resistance" is an objective fact. Iwo Jima and Okinawa were the first battles in which more than 5% of the Japanese were taken prisoner.

—wwoods 19:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Wwoods. Yes, it's anecodatal; on the other hand, as Wwoods says, it's an objective historical fact that the Japanese resistance was fanatical by any definition ( fa·nat·i·cal (f…-n²t“¹-k…l) adj. Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal.), and that the Japanese attempt to mobilize the population matched this zeal, and the anecdote serves to illustrate this finely. Raul654 02:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Status? Still a lot of uncited figures used in the article (I feel exact numbers usually need cites), and still paragraphs without citations. Move to FARC to keep momentum. LuciferMorgan 20:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The number of citations has now been doubled, and there isn't a significant uncited paragraph in the article. I think this one is good to go. Raul654 21:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some of the refs (updating URLs and adding access dates), and concur that the level of referencing is now adequate. I changed the awkward sentence mentioned above ("Everybody based their estimates on the experience of the preceding campaigns, but they could draw different lessons:" to "Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:") It looks like the phrases about suicide attackers, giving the U.S. a justification, and Patriotic Civilians Fighting Corp have been addressed - is that correct? I concur that the anecdote about Yukiko Kasai, the high school girl, is awkward and context is not provided; I think it should be better addressed, but I'm not sure how. I'd like an update from Tony on the prose before closing. Sandy (Talk) 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the anecdote, making equivalences of "Japanese population = fanatical" is a generalisation. The military leadership, I agree, the civilians, no. Just to be specific, I am concerned about the violation of criteria 1d. --RelHistBuff 09:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Anytime you talk about the overall feelings of a population, it is (by definition) a generalization; that doesn't make it any less of a fact in this case. It is commonly acknowledged that both the Japanase military and civilians were fanatical. Consider the example on Saipan, where hundreds (thousands?) of civilians literally threw themselves off cliffs rather than be captured. Raul654 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Battle of Saipan article does not describe the Japanese as fanatical. In that battle, the civilians were told that they would suffer cruelties if captured, hence many committed suicide (not suicide attacks). One could say they were deluded, but not fanatical. The millions of civilians in Japan were not "fanatically" preparing for an invasion force. Most stayed in bomb shelters or turned off all lighting covering their windows and prayed for the war to end. This is not to deny that the Yukiko Kasai incident occurred nor that the military attempted to mobilise civilians. Yes, that did happen. However, I am concerned that including the anecdote and using phrasing such as the word "fanatic" will skew the opinion toward the effect that one might think the Japanese civilian population was "fanatical" in general. Hence my concern with critierion 1d. --RelHistBuff 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, on second though, you might have a point there - that it might be worth making the distinction in the text between civilian and military. Raul654 21:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Per your request, Wwoods now has added a description of the patriotic fighting core, which now immediately preceedes the description of Yukiko Kasai. Raul654 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The characterization "fanatically" is now in a quote attributed to Americans. The quote about Yukiko-san doesn't actually give her opinion; quite possibly she — and the middle-aged men being issued satchel charges and bamboo spears to fight tanks — had mixed feelings, but decided to exercise "the better part of valour".

—wwoods 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose closing this one. There's tons of exact numbers quoted of personnel etc., and they aren't cited. Where have these numbers come from? Thin air? No, they've come from sources, and should be inline cited. Move to FARC. LuciferMorgan 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally I'd like to have it on the record that the number of inline citations an article has isn't indicative of an article being "well referenced", something the FA director should also remember when passing so many FAs. If everyone wishes to close this one then the FAR process as concerns cites is rather lax in my opinion - look at all the different numbers, ie. 35, 000 this, 1, 000 that etc., all stuff that can be easily mistaken. LuciferMorgan 00:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

From a quick scan, it seems to me that almost all of the numbers are in sourced paragraphs. Which ones concern you?

—wwoods 07:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

One cite means a whole paragraph is sourced? Since when? All of the numbers concern me - just because there's an inline cite at the end of a paragraph, it doesn't mean a specific number is cited. LuciferMorgan 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is getting plain ridiculous. First, you complain about lack of citations. So Wwood and I more than double the number of citations. Then you complain that many specific numbers given in the article are not cited, when in fact we are hard pressed to find *any* that are not cited. And then when asked, rather than coming up with any specific examples, you simply complain about the ones that are clearly cited, because you can't be bothered to look any of them up. I think you've made YOUR opinion on the matter quite clear, in that you simply intend to complain ad nasueum about things that are perfectly good and proper. Raul654 16:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When a whole paragraph is drawn from one source, I don't see much point of putting in multiple references to, e.g., "Frank, Downfall, p. 209–10."

—wwoods 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. You were the one complaining like a baby about FAR in the first place, and thought as the FA director you could simply stop the FAR - simply you're the one who can't be bothered to cite the specific numbers, and also this is coming from the same person who passes FAs like Smarties. Your opinion sways nothing with me, because I don't think your term as FA director is something to be proud of. If you want fact tags, you'll have them - feel free to whine afterwards like you did in the first place. And by the way, this is my opinion on this specific FAR and your obnoxious attitude in general. LuciferMorgan 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way I'd also like to add that there's a lot of one sentence statements occurring which creates disjointed prose, meaning the article is in breach of 1. a. also. Raul is free to complain about this too - he's invited. LuciferMorgan 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of repetitive style prose occurs also, specifically the endless of the words "would" and "was", which get's tiring. Many sentences either read "would have" or "was to" - another 1. a. violation. I'll be sure to vigilantly look for more flaws in "good faith". LuciferMorgan 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It does make it easier to respond to criticism if it is precise, so adding {{fact}} templates to uncited facts does help. But not if you carpet-bomb the article with them, like this Are you really asking for every single clause in the article to have a footnote? It is pretty damn clear to me where the information in this article comes from already.

"A lot of one sentence statements" and "repetitive style"? Most sentences are single statements - sentences that make more than one statement are apt to be criticised as "snakes". Are you complaining that there are one-sentence paragraphs? Similarly, forms of the verb "to be " are rather common in English prose. Perhaps you would like to contribute by copyediting the article to correct its perceived structural and grammatical faults, rather than throwing stones from the sidelines? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Adding cite tags to every sentence which does not have a reference (and some which do, if you had paid more attention to the citations) is simple disruption to prove a point, and I have reverted.

Second, as to "would have" and "was to", there are only so many ways in the english language to conjugate verbs about events which never took place but were supposed to. Raul654 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And third - there is no requirement that every sentence in an article be cited. In fact, other than a few one sentence stubs, there are no articles at all that are completely cited. Raul654 20:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I added cite tags and they've been reverted - I didn't do it to prove a point, but to answer wwoods question above as to which ones concern me. This is disruptive and belligerent, and frankly an utter joke. Since it seems the FA director throwing his weight around like a clown is condoned here, I have no intentions of further contributing at FAR at all - Raul's attitude is frankly disgusting, and I hope his term as FA director comes to a swift halt. Indeed all he thinks is in terms of numbers - ie. more FAs the better, merely adding more cites to just about everything, etc. 1. a. and 1. c. is clearly at fault here, not that anyone cares. Goodbye and good riddance. LuciferMorgan 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - As to ALoan's statement, I have no intentions of copyediting the article in this environment, and if he feels that compelled maybe he should copyedit it himself. LuciferMorgan 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you insist - I have done some fiddling, but the article was pretty good already, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; that was helpful.

—wwoods 02:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comments—My feeling is that this should not go to FARC, but should stay here just a little longer while it receives its final polish. Here are the changes since Sandy's status comment on 30 Nov, and here are the changes since nomination. But I'd be happy for a little sprucing up. For example:
  • Why "three (3)" etc.? I've never understood why any text includes both, and there's certainly no reason to here. (The usual practice is to spell out single-digit numbers only, unless there's a good reason not to.)
  • "Olympic was to be mounted with resources already in the Pacific, including the British Pacific Fleet, which was actually a Commonwealth formation which included at least a dozen aircraft carriers and several battleships." Remove "which was actually"; either it was or it wasn't, and there are two "whiches". Possibly insert "stationed" after "already"? Replace "which included" with "of", but only if what is specified was the basis of the formation.

See what I mean? That last one is just a single sentence, and while many sentences are well written, there's a case for asking someone different to run over it. This is such a good article that it's worth polishing. Tony 02:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The number is spelled out because it's a direct quote from a cited source. That's what the source does, so that's what the article quotes. Raul654 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That last sentence was my fault, I think. I knew it wasn't ideal, but was at a loss for an elegant rephrasing. I have had another go - "Olympic was to be mounted with resources already present in the Pacific, including the British Pacific Fleet, a Commonwealth formation that included at least a dozen aircraft carriers and several battleships." -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the quote marks; you're right. Tony 11:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As to why it's "three (3)", I figure it's a style adopted to ensure that the information doesn't get lost. Essentially the same reason we have to write out the amount of a check in words as well as numerals. —wwoods 17:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Status: Well, this looks like it's been around the block a few times. Can we close it? Is the nominator still watching with an opinion by any chance? Marskell 18:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Close it - nobody cares what I think anyway. LuciferMorgan 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that —wwoods and Raul654 have addressed some of the issues I brought up. I still have strong concerns about NPOV in its current state. However, as noonly one other editor has spoken up, then please take the consensus decision without me included. My comments remain neither support or object, but simply neutral. --RelHistBuff 07:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), and POV (1d). Marskell 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a tough one given all the comments, but it didn't seem right to close it as the comments on status were "yes, but" or "no, but". As always, moving it down is not a comment on the article condition, but just a desire to keep things moving. If Rel can list specifics on POV we can still move to a keep quickly and clear it out. Marskell 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - consistent with my comments above. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. Raul654 23:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have just two concerns.

The first one is about the use of the Yukiko Kasai anecdote. I do appreciate that wwoods has added the context surrounding the anecdote (description of the mobilisation of the militia). In my opinion, this description is sufficient in describing the rather desperate measures undertaken by the Japanese leadership. The anecdote, however, does not give any additional facts but rather adds an emotional element (due to her age) and perhaps some shock value. Military history articles are very careful in the inclusion of such anecdotes because they can be used to subtly push a POV. I suggest the anecdote be dropped for the sake of criterion 1d.

The second concern is about the use of term “fanatical” for describing the Japanese civilian population. I toned down a phrase so as to match the description of the militia and my result is as follows:

• Given the large number of Japanese troops to be faced and the organized resistance among Japanese civilians ... (italics added)

This has been changed by wwoods to

• Given the large number of Japanese troops to be faced and the organized resistance among Japan's "fanatically hostile population" ... (italics added)

Although the latter is sourced, I believe my formulation is sufficient and avoids an unintended push of a POV that all civilians were fanatical. As the quoted description of the civilian population is already in the “Assumptions” section, repeating it here does not add to the article.

If these two concerns are addressed, then I would vote keep. --RelHistBuff 12:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• • RelHistBuff's suggestion that the anecdote be removed has been discussed extensively, and rejected as being detrimental to the article. Also, about the "fanatically hostile population", it comes from a cited primary source, and it is an objective fact. He might not agree with it, but that's the way it is. Raul654 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Rel, I checked the PDF and "fanatically hostile" is indeed the phrase; your point is good faith, but it would actually be an error to change that and "leave it in quotes". Given that the quote comes from the U.S. military, I don't think the reader will be led to POV assumptions—what kind of wording would you expect, really? I'm neither here nor there on the anecdote. Marskell 20:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm still troubled by the high school girl anecdote (because of my work on medical articles, I'm usually troubled by any kind of anecdote :-). It seems that the "fanatically hostile population" can be dealt with in the same way many POV concerns are dealt with in articles - by specifically stating whose opinion it is, so it doesn't appear to be asserted as fact. The article says "planners" (clearly implying military planners), but perhaps it could be made more clear that this is an assumption made by the US military - a properly attributed phrase would feel less like "fact" about the entire Japanese population, and more like US opinion. Sandy (Talk) 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The fanatically hostile population part is already properly attributed. If you click on the [6] link, it goes to the ref which says: Sutherland, Richard K. et al, "DOWNFALL": Strategic Plan for Operations in the Japanese Archipelago Raul654 20:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I made a slight change "planners" --> "U.S. military planners". Really, I think this one is fine; I can't imagine how anyone will be led astray, especially with the PDF sitting there to look at.
          • On the anecdote, I suppose the only question would be whether you're sure it's not apocryphal. Marskell 20:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
            • The historian whose book it comes from, Richard Frank, is probably the greatest living authority on Japan at the time of the surrender. I have no doubt of either its authenticity, or that thousands of similiar incidents occured. Raul654 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(indent off) I believe Sandy’s idea of noting that this was the military planners’ assumption would remove the appearance of POV. Rather than paraphrasing and focusing only on the “fanatic” part, it would be better to include the complete sentence as stated in the source. I made a change reflecting this. --RelHistBuff 10:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally missed that second use. Your change seems appropriate. Marskell 17:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the anecdote, I was not noting whether it truly occurred or not. In fact, I would assume it was true, although I would also note that Richard B. Frank’s book is known for pushing its own POV. My objection is that it is precisely what it is: an anecdote. I would object to any anecdote especially in war articles. Usually they cause problems in lower-quality articles and are a source of POV-wars. Featured articles, if they are written well, do not need them. The paragraph describing the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps is excellent and is sufficient. It describes persons including girls of high school age (17 years old) were equipped with primitive weapons (such as an awl). The anecdote does not add additional information. --RelHistBuff 10:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. --Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to close this as keep. Moving it elicited comments as hoped but the discussion of the anecdote isn't producing anything new; I think due diligence was done here and it's within criteria. Marskell 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)