Talk:Judge (sumo)

Prose and content

> The role of referees is not limited to matches. Behind the scenes, they are also responsible for establishing the banzuke, the ranking system that serves as the cornerstone of professional sumo. When wrestlers are eligible for promotion to the two highest ranks in the hierarchy (yokozuna and ōzeki), it is also their responsibility to ask the Sumo Association's board of directors to promote those selected, with their opinion serving as the basis for the promotion process and their recommendations never being ignored. Is this meant to be "The role of judges"? If not I'm not quite following how judges factor into this or why we need an explanation of wrestlers' promotion process.

• •  Done corrected

> The fairness of the decisions handed down by the gyōji was increasingly called into question, because lords sponsored wrestlers. Over what time period? Who was calling this into question, other lords?

• • The period is specified as the 1750s. I've rephrased it a little—let me know what you think.

> Three judges were led by a head judge, who had total authority and whose personal decision could not be questioned. Do we know why this format was chosen? (Four judges for the four sides maybe?)

• • There is no information on this in the sources, but it is highly likely that this was the case

> Both Uragoro and the TSA need more context. While I can assume Tokyo Sumo Association is a local overseeing body, there's no way for me know who Uragoro is, why he left/return, and why it's a big deal that he did. A date is also needed, because we're jumping roughly a hundred years from the last given date.

• •  Done

> You don't need to reintroduce gyoji as a term again.

• •  Done

> You mention the office evolves, but jump straight to the final reform in 1968. It would better to list as many reforms as possible here.

• • This is a topic covered in the articles on sumo; reforms have occurred very infrequently over time. It is, after all, a sport that dates back several centuries, and even today, certain traditions remain unchanged since the Edo period. While other reforms have taken place, the sources do not make much of a mention about them. I also provide a few details about the sources in a reply below; that's another topic related to the WP:SUMO articles.

> The system for electing judges that had been in place until then was also abolished in favor of the system that remains in place today What was the old system? Why was it abolished?

• •  Done detailed it

> I guess one concern I have for the History section is all the sources are from the 1960s-90s. Has anything happened in the last 30 series?

• • This is the second most criticized topic regarding sumo on Wikipedia. Most of our sources are news articles that, for the most part, cover only biographical details. For everything else (such as the rules, history, culture, and terminology), we rely primarily on books published during the "golden age" of foreign sumo wrestlers (the 1990s), because US-born wrestlers were succeeding in the sport, which drew media and literary attention to the subject. Since then, nothing noteworthy has been published, and we do indeed lack recent sources. For the articles, I sort through what's been written and remove anything I know to be outdated.

> Initially, this difference between clans explained why judges interacted little with each other after matches, simply going home immediately after finishing their duties. Today, however, it is accepted that judges from the same team chat amiably and go out together to forge bonds. I'm not sure the sources back this up in its current form. Both sources are personal anecdotes from the person involved, so we can't make sweeping statements of what was accepted and what wasn't then and now. We should definitely include these interviews somewhere, but a rewrite of this is required.

• • Deleted it, better that way

> Far from complying with ethical rules designed to avoid conflict of interest, it is not frowned upon for a judge to be involved in the matches of his own students. On the contrary, sports commentators are relatively fond of such situations, trying to guess whether the teacher was frustrated or happy with the outcome of a match involving a student. This pops up a few times in the article, but I'm afraid the tone is too informal for an encyclopaedia. It's a good note to bring up though.

• •  Done, rephrased it

> since the 1969 May tournament. Is there no wikilink to either the en or ja wikis we can add here>

• • There are articles about tournaments on Japanese Wikipedia, but they focus primarily on the tournament's schedule and the results. On English Wikipedia, we also have the List of years in sumo, but we lack the information needed to cover earlier years.

> I would like a sentence or two saying why Taiho was wrongly declared the loser. What did the judges do wrong? It's not at all obvious the result happened because the judges overturned the referee.

• •  Done

> Top division Ura was known to be a nightmare wrestler for the judges responsible for defining kimarite, as he was known for winning with rare techniques

Again, "nightmare wrestler" is too informal.

• •  Done rephrased it

> The quality of the techniques used in the ring is recognized as an important criterion in the eyes of the Judging Department.[1] It is customary for the board of directors to follow the recommendations of the judges.[2]

Could this be integrated more into the above paragraphs, to avoid the shorter paragraph?

• •  Done

> The fourteenth and fifteenth days are exempt from this practice, and their matches are decided in the evening, after all matches have been completed Why are they exempt?

• • As is traditional in sumo articles, sometimes things are the way they are simply because that’s the tradition... :) More seriously, it’s highly likely that the goal is to draw attention to the final days of the tournament by scheduling matches between wrestlers with the same or similar records, or who have a rivalry. Unfortunately, without a source, I’d rather not speculate.

Ref handling

I'll be doing the source check tomorrow. However, I'm afraid there's a fair few issues with the refs' formatting that needs to be addressed. Let me know if you need a hand with any of these

• A few of the sources I checked had authors attached to them that weren't shown in the citation. Kuniyuki Kamimura wrote both the "Sumo Scene" articles for example.
• Ideally every Japanese title needs to use "Script-title=ja" instead of "title". Likewise a trans-title so non-Japanese speaking readers can get an idea of the source (you have this for some refs, but not all).
• Ideally in your biography you should have publisher locations for all books or none of them for consistency's sake.
• You have a few CS1 warnings popping up, mostly on your publisher locations.
• Likewise, ISBNs need to have the same format, whatever you choose.
• You hyperlink the website/publisher sometimes but not others.

RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok all  Done - OtharLuin (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies again for the delay on this.

Mostly happy with the prose this looks now, and I'm poised to pass that aspect (I need to do a ref check though). The Taihō vs Toda addition in particular was very nice. I did a brief CE earlier of some grammar issues, but just wanted to check one thing; there's this bit:

In the event of a kimarite (winning move) that is difficult to decide for the gyōji tasked to announcing it to the public, it is up to the judges in the video review room to provide counseling. Top division Ura was known as a wrestler who used complicated and rare techniques, making him difficult to keep up with for the judges tasked with defining kimarite (winning techniques)

Is kimarite the same term for both winning move and winning technique? If so it doesn't need to be relinked . RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done, it's the same thing I don't know why I used two different terms - OtharLuin (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Ref review

This table lists 16 random passages from throughout the article (20.5% of 78 total passages). These passages contain 25 inline citations (21.7% of 115 in the article). Reference numbers refer to this revision. Generated with the Veracity user script. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Overall, looks good on the ref front. A few issues that need to be addressed, but no major red flags or anything else that would indicate further reviews of the other sources needed. If the Partials can be addressed I think we'll be ready to wrap this review up :) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I’ve gone over all the comments. Here’s a quick recap:

- I had previously stated that there were four judges around the ring; if they’re led by a head judge, that means there are three others. Let me know if you think that phrasing is too borderline.

- 20 or 23? I decided to standardize it based on the most recent source, which seems to align with the list of current judges as listed on the Japanese Wikipedia.

- I could have sworn the article mentioned “the only ones,” but even DeepL contradicts me, so I removed that reference.

- I rephrased the sentence regarding the voting process

- OtharLuin (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, so you did on the three judges point. Thanks for clarifying. The rest of the changes look good to me so I'm happy to pass this now! :) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)