Talk:Japanese Wikipedia

The use of Flash here is concerning. Flash is a shūkanshi, which in general is not reliable enough and should be discouraged per WP:RS. Is there any better source to use instead? --2001:240:2428:5951:8602:AC8:4458:1C8C (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It's been more than a year. If the paragraph about Oyamada is not going to be better sourced, it doesn't make sense to keep it here. All the news coverage indicates is that it was Oyamada's controversy, not Wikipedia's. --2001:240:2471:DA45:EBF5:2D1F:3399:44AC (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Removed. --2001:240:2466:3790:A4E0:32EF:DD6B:DD69 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you the same person who made the above two comments? toobigtokale (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I thought it was obvious enough. --2001:240:2460:8806:3F8C:CDF2:675F:F4C9 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Kim et al. (2023), cited in the "Alleged historical revisionism" section, does not support the claim that historical revisionism is indeed prevalent on the Japanese Wikipedia. The paper shows that World War II–related articles on the Japanese Wikipedia are significantly more likely to be subject to edit wars, and then hypothesizes that there is a "possible presence of groups of editors seeking to disseminate revisionist narratives". However, the paper makes no attempt to test whether this hypothesis is correct.

To present this research with such a weak claim at this length under the heading "Alleged historical revisionism" strikes me as a strong POV pushing, in clear violation of WP:NPOV. Pacifio (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I added the article. I disagree that it’s intentional POV pushing; the current wording does not imply that the paper definitively proves the existence of historical revisionism. I think it’s more to do with how the authors presented the paper itself, the title of the session and paper allege historical revisionism. I agree that they don’t directly test for it.

I think a possible solution is clarifying that discrepancy better, although would need to do so without making it original research; otherwise I think what’s currently written isn’t false or necessarily intended to be biased, just incomplete and needing improvement. toobigtokale (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Also I agree that it’s currently too long for how indirect the evidence is; I was unhappy with that too. It’s just hard to concisely explain technical things on such a serious topic without coming across as hand-wavey 🫠 toobigtokale (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not evidence, just a hypothesis, and the authors make no attempt to show that it is correct. In fact, most of the paper is devoted to discussion on the method of identifying controversial articles, or which topics are most controversial and subject to edit wars, which has nothing to do with historical revisionism on the Japanese Wikipedia.

I understand that Wikipedia editors are not supposed to evaluate or interpret sources and instead present information the same way it is discussed in academia, mainstream media, etc., but the fact is simple: there is simply nothing of substance to Kim et al. (2023) that can be used in a reference work like Wikipedia to suggest the presence of historical revisionism on the Japanese Wikipedia. Pacifio (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia editors are not supposed to evaluate or interpret sources

You should have stopped there. If you have issues with the reliability of the information in the source, then you can get it checked out at WP:RSN. And we can also discuss how much information from it to include, per WP:DUE. But, otherwise, the source stands on its own merits. Silverseren^C 16:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying "the source stands on its own merits"? Pacifio (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean that you, as a Wikipedia editor, can't decide that a source is bad because you disagree with the information/conclusions it comes to. If there is no issue with a source's reliability in itself, then you have no standing to try to remove its inclusion in the relevant article. Silverseren^C 16:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have already explained that the paper does not attempt to test whether the hypothesis that historical revisionism is prevalent on the Japanese Wikipedia is correct, which is the point that User:toobigtokale confirmed in his reply. What I should be doing as a Wikipedia editor is therefore to wait for the subsequent credible research papers that do the testing to be published, rather than making assumptions about whether the hypothesis is correct by "evaluat[ing] or interpret[ing] sources". Pacifio (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hold up, I don't think the source is uncredible or somehow worthless. Most papers in the humanities that use computational methods are similarly indirect. Case in point, try to describe how revisionism can be precisely measured computationally, with no ambiguity. It's impossible; all we can do in many scenarios in the humanities is establish indirect metrics. Then once there are enough of a combination of metrics and qualitative analyses, an academic consensus forms (still indirect, but this happens for all research that's not math). I just think this needs to be presented better; making it clear that it's an indirect method and not an academic consensus. Deleting it entirely is unreasonable, especially given that there's few other papers in the area. It'd make more sense to delete it if the body of research was so developed that there were better options to choose from. As it stands it's one angle of examining the issue. toobigtokale (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's also a bit concerning to me that you've switched the initial scope of your concerns from "it's biased" to "it's worthless". Do you feel both, and if so why didn't you say the latter earlier?

I disagree with both claims btw. The source adds value to the article, even if it does not prove things 100%. That's the humanities for you. I'm also completely open to collaborating on a rewrite of it. I liked your prev changes and even am happy to discuss rewriting to remove POV concerns. That doesn't smell like bias to me. toobigtokale (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You are significantly mischaracterizing my argument. I never claimed that the source was "uncredible" or "worthless". Indeed, I never used the latter term. Not did I deny that the paper is written by subject-matter experts. Terms like "worthless" are also never defined, and they are a distraction from a constructive discussion.

Those who want to reject my argument can either (a) deny that Kim et al. (2023) does not support the claim that historical revisionism is indeed prevalent on the Japanese Wikipedia, but only presents a hypothesis, or (b) deny that we should wait for the subsequent research that tests the hypothesis to be published. What is your argumentative strategy? Pacifio (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Wat

"there is simply nothing of substance to Kim et al. (2023) that can be used in a reference work like Wikipedia to suggest the presence of historical revisionism on the Japanese Wikipedia"

This implies it is not useful here (scrap the word worthless since you don't like it, but same thing really)

For your arguments:

a) I do deny that. It is an indirect measure, which is already allowed even in articles about health and science.

b) I do deny that. Reread my previous comments.

I'll wait for other peoples' contributions. I'm happy to rewrite info about the article if they think it's worth it. I try to not get involved in these kinds of debates. I only participated now because I think the issue is important, but when arguments devolve to repetition... idk I could be spending my time contributing elsewhere. toobigtokale (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like the terminology I've used, I'm not wedded to it. Frankly, I don't know why you've become so heated in this conversation when all I'm doing is showing you the objective facts and what we can logically deduce from them. It is objectively true that the paper merely hypothesizes, or does not "definitively prove" (in your words), the existence of historical revisionism, and it is also objectively true that we do not assign a dedicated section to cover such a claim on Wikipedia when the claim in the source is so weak. "[I]n articles about health and science articles", for example, we write John (2023) concluded that the vaccine is safe; we don't write John (2023) stated that it is possible that the vaccine is safe when there are other credible sources discussing the topic, such as the Sato–Kitamura dispute (unless, for example, the claim had received significant media coverage and is notable on its own). Pacifio (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

let's wait for other people to contribute, i doubt we'll convince each other of much toobigtokale (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You cannot avoid having to show where you think my argument is mistaken by saying "let's wait for other people to contribute". Pacifio (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I shortened it a bit, thoughts? I'm willing to work to revise it more. toobigtokale (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit. I am still not sure whether articles associated with right-wing topics is the best way to articulate what is stated in the paper. Would changing it to articles discussing topics susceptible to historical revisionism or articles discussing topics susceptible to right-wing revisionist narratives be an improvement? What do you think? Pacifio (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes either sounds good. I’m glad you’re on board with the edits toobigtokale (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I used the latter phrasing you suggested. Do you think this is sufficient to remove the npov template? toobigtokale (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the POV template since the problem seems to be fixed now. I also made some minor changes to the article to improve readability. Pacifio (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The conclusion in Kim et al. (2023) was too weak to be presented as fact in the article, and removing that part leaves nothing directly related to the "Controversies" heading in the article, so I thought we either needed to remove the mention of the paper from the section, or reorganize the article to properly contextualize the information presented, but I conceded the latter point because I didn't want to continue this heated discussion (especially given that an uninvolved editor suddenly jumped in and rushed to attack me (argumentum ad hominem) without carefully reading what I had said earlier). Hopefully one day an experienced editor will step in and fix the article by reorganizing relevant information into proper order, proportions, and headings. Pacifio (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to mention allegations of historical revisionism in the lead section, not just in the body of the article? 133.106.196.251 (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Imo yes.

MOS:LEAD The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Imo based on coverage of the issue it's a prominent controversy. Other topics belong in the lead too, but it's just that nobody has added them yet. There's nothing that requires us to wait until those get added. toobigtokale (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how a single article from Slate, two pages of coverage in an OUP book whose subject is not on Wikipedia, and a few publications in academic journals constitute a 'prominent controversy.' The crucial point here is that these are all primary sources of the alleged controversy, and there is a near total absence of secondary sources covering it here (except, perhaps, Kitamura's personal blog post—which doesn't count when assessing whether the paragraph meets MOS:LEAD). 133.106.212.155 (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

A few publications in academic journals is sufficient in many fields to constitute a prominent controversy. There are few publications in English about the content of the Japanese Wikipedia altogether; these constitute a good chunk of what's been said, so imo still worth inclusion. Either way, given that there's a controversy section in the article it seems inappropriate to not have a single sentence about controversy, even if not about the revisionism. I think we need to hear more opinions; would like third party input from unrelated fields. toobigtokale (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

As for concerns about coverage:

Works by Sato published in other publications and conferences

• Time Magazine
• Salon
• BBC Sounds (13:20, guest on show)
• The IA Conference
• WikiConference 2021
• OSSELC21
• Undark Magazine (op-ed)

Third party sources that cover/mention Sato's work

• BBC
• Fast Company
• The Nation
• Gigazine (probably less reliable though)

Not to mention the Wikimedia foundation funded research on editor behavior and networks on controversial articles on the Japanese Wikipedia, with Sato's article prominently mentioned in it.

Evidently all of these publications found it important enough to cover. I didn't include all of these sources on my original writing because it seemed redundant. If I did, would that make it less ambiguous to other readers that this is a noteworthy topic? toobigtokale (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The degree of controversy—i.e., whether a particular controversy meets the 'prominence' criteria outlined in MOS:LEAD—is to be judged by the number of independent sources covering that controversy, and how extensively it is covered in those sources. It appears that in all four of the third-party sources you provided (with the exception of Gigazine, which you rightly pointed out is 'less reliable'), Sato's work is not the primary focus of the article, and is mentioned only to provide the audience with context for the article's main topic. The first source is about climate change misinformation on non-English Wikipedias in general, the second is about the Chinese Wikipedia, and the last is about a historical dispute.

Covering her work in the lead based on these sources alone may be a departure from how controversies are generally covered in other Wikipedia articles. 133.106.248.53 (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

While I can agree on reducing the size of the mention, having no mention seems strange, given that there is a controversy section and the controversies have been covered by four different primary sources that have been published in around a respectable dozen venues total.

I'd like to hear other opinions if possible. toobigtokale (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, are you one person? You've posted using different ips each time, for sake of transparency think it's important to disclose toobigtokale (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It should have been obvious all along that the Rakuten Mobile editors discussing with you in this section are all me, one person. I would like to clarify that "for the sake of transparency". 133.106.51.137 (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

thanks for the condescending snark, let's keep waiting on hearing from others toobigtokale (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Grapesurgeon: You reverted my rephrasing of the historical revisionism (Special:Diff/1337445000) since you said the paragraph "doesn't say that historical revisionism is caused by 2ch influence, it just says that the culture is influenced by 2ch", but I need your explanation about the paragraph:

The Japanese Wikipedia has been accused of historical revisionism by a number of scholars, especially its pages on World War II. Its culture has been described as hostile and heavily influenced by the right-wing textboard 2channel.

There are concerns about the sentence - at least for me.

Yes, sources do describe that jawiki is influenced by 2channel, but they don't describe 2channel as right-wing (netto-uyoku) - even if we find a link between them, what's the point of mentioning the word "right-wing", even when sources didn't mention jawiki and 2channel in a political context? I am questioned about hinting that both jawiki and 2channel are "right-wing" when all sources in jawiki didn't describe 2channel as "right-wing".

For instance, Only a user's comment mentioned "5channel" at Sato's blog (I think we all agree that a user's comment is unreliable). Slate and sagepub, that are discussing historical revisionism, don't mention x-channel, while Ikeda and Nishi, mentioning "2channel", don't discuss historical revisionism.

When none of sources discuss both jawiki, 2channel, and right-wing, comparing them in a sentence, like "(The Japanese Wikipedia's) culture has been described as hostile and heavily influenced by the right-wing textboard 2channel", will hint "jawiki = 2channel = right-wing", which looks like a WP:SYNTH for me.

I may have some misunderstanding of English grammar, but it would be best if you clarify the word "right-wing" between "heavily influenced by" and "textboard 2channel" to me. Saimmx (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• On describing 2ch as "right-wing", I had originally put that label there because it's not a controversial view of 2ch; even on 2ch's article it's prominently mentioned in the lead and body. I am willing to remove description of 2ch as "right-wing".
• On whether there's a risk of jawiki being viewed as right wing in that context, that's actually more supported by sources, so the risk of "jawiki = 2channel = right-wing" being a misleading impression is not significant imo. In other words, sources suggest that 1. jawiki is influenced by 2ch and 2. jawiki is right-wing. So there's nothing to mislead readers about here.

On the grammar thing, imo the sentence does not communicate sense that 2ch is causing the revisionism. All it says is that "its culture is [...] influenced by 2channel", but culture is way more than just the revisionism. grapesurgeon (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

To people who are unfamiliar with 2ch, the word, "right-wing textboard 2channel" looks absord here if they don't have the idea that 2ch is a hardcore right-wing site, before clicking the 2ch link. I will say the word will cause between improper understanding about the link between jawiki and 2ch, even if some sources said jawiki being viewed as right-wing, and 2ch being viewed as right-wing as well.

Consider the assertion: "'jawiki is right-wing' and '2ch is right-wing', therefore, 'jawiki (a right-wing site) is influenced by 2ch (another right-wing site)'" - While it looks "not significant" to you, it is for people who are unfamiliar with 2ch, or in the sense of WP:SYNTH.

A better change of the word "right-wing textboard 2channel" can be "anonymous textboard 2channel" since Ikeda mentioned the anonymous issue (こういう「匿名文化」のなかで言論への責任意識が希薄になっているため、ウィキペディアまで２ちゃんねる化しつつある。) - which can support that, "'jawiki is a site with lots of anonymous' and '2ch is anonymous', therefore, 'jawiki (a site with lots of anonymous) is influenced by 2ch (another anonymous site)'". I think that is better understanding of sources without original research. Saimmx (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say 'absurd' (this may be an English fluency issue); "absurd" would imply "outlandish/unrealistic", but textboards are now reasonably common knowledge, and most that most people know of are infamously right wing. The fact that that paragraph has been mostly as it is for years I think suggests that nobody has really been misled by this. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

most that most people know of are infamously right wing - No, it is not, at least not for people who are unfamiliar with 2ch. And I am surprised that you believe most people would believe it. If the word "absurd" is too strong for you, my second choice is "strange".

The issue of an undue paragraph at the #Lead_section is also my concern, actually, but I can't join the discussion because it was a long time ago. Saimmx (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. We have very different understandings of the internet. Calling my opinion strange even is rude, I could say the same of yours but don't grapesurgeon (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I am not calling your opinion "strange", I mean the original word "right-wing" in the original revision. I am sorry if you find my word offensive, and I do not meant to be rube. But as you said, we have very different understandings of the Internet (or maybe politics? I'm not sure), so we have different opinions. Saimmx (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I crossed out some of my lines because they were misleading and offended others.--Saimmx (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)