Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/May 2013

The notes for Shūsaku Endō are quite distracting. Can anyone see a good reason for the notes being the way they are? --Rsm77 (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As the current article uses Grouping footnotes, It is distracting. The problem can be solved by using Harvard citation.

(Example)

Aaaaaaaa.^[1] Bbbbbbbb.^[2]

I am considering writing an article on DH Publishing (DH Publishing, Inc., ディ・エイチ・パブリシング株式会社), a Japanese company that publishes English language books in the US. One of the sources for Tsugumi Ohba is a book published by this company.

However, I am having trouble finding secondary sources in English about this company. Is anyone good at looking for info in Japanese from secondary sources? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid they don't have any more of a web presence in Japanese than they do in English. Cckerberos (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to add sources to the article Wokou, but I am being reverted by three editors, one of whom called me a "loser" in Korean in his edit summary, another who does not give a coherent explanation for his reverts, and the last of whom is blasting me as a "nationalist", without providing evidence, and seems to have admitted on the talk page that he didn't actually read my edit before reverting it. I'm not really sure what's going on here but I welcome other eyes on this article. Shii (tock) 12:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That's been going on for quite awhile, with an abundance of finger-pointing, arguing, and pouting over who the wokou were, their nationalities, who they attacked, etc. Check out the archives and you will see a stunning cascade of protracted debates. I decided to steer clear because I don't know enough about the subject and the editors involved are bitterly relentless. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection for the article on WP:RPP. Sources are being removed, and unsourced lists of Japanese samurai "culprits" added, over and over. Shii (tock) 15:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been having several issues with User:Ryulong with one particular issue: Japanese naming conventions. For example, Ghost in the Shell japanese cover shows as "攻殻機動隊" with "The Ghost in the Shell" under it. And because of this Ryulong includes "The Ghost in the Shell" alongisde the kanji within the nihongo template. So it looks like Ghost in the Shell (攻殻機動隊 The Ghost in the Shell, Kokaku Kidotai Gosuto In Za Sheru) when using nihongo template. I've attempted to explain to the editor that there are no japanese reliable sources (or any source) includes "The Ghost in the Shell" with the kanji unlike previous adaptations Ghost in the Shell (film) that has its japanese title as "Ghost in the Shell/攻殻機動隊" (despite the cover NOT having a "/" on the logo) and Ghost in the Shell (video game) in which its title is "攻殻機動隊 Ghost in the Shell". I know this sounds difficult to follow. But basically there's no proof that "The Ghost in the Shell" is part of the Japanese title for the original manga.Lucia Black (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

When did you make this? The book has "攻殻機動隊 THE GHOST IN THE SHELL" on its cover in Japan. I think that's pretty clear.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeing that this does fall under this project's scope I am linking the discussion here. The question is should Wikipedia:WikiProject Hentai be a taskforce under WP:ANIME? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of stuff on Twitter about NHK somehow spying for the North Koreans, I can't make out what the issue is, has anyone else seen this?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the name Tsukamoto Sōichi, NHK's Seoul bureau chief, was found on the membership list of a NK propaganda website. NHK said this was for informational purposes since there were parts of the site that could only be viewed by registered users. Everything I found on this was from about a month ago and it doesn't seem to have made it to the mainstream media. Cckerberos (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

image:Japan Re-entry Permit Cover.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Stature of kamikaze pilot.jpg and File:Statue of kamikaze pilot.jpg have been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Konnichiwa WikiProject Japan. I have started a discussion at the Village pump on the use of official broadcast dates used by Japanese television stations and other sources versus the actual broadcast dates in articles regarding Japanese TV shows. For reference, the original discussion at WT:ANIME is here. Any input is appreciated. Thank you and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In March 2013, Ryūkyū Province and Ryūkyū Domain were discussed and archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Ryūkyū province and domain.

In May 2013, Shinkai Shaw here converted the province article into a redirect. The edit summary which explained this was brief -- "Japanese Wikipedia deleted."

In order to better understand, this may be helpful:

• Ryūkyū Kingdom (琉球王国, Ryūkyū Ōkoku); compare 国 = ja:琉球王国
• Ryūkyū Province (琉球国, Ryūkyū-no kuni); compare 国 = ja:琉球国 (令制)
• Ryūkyū Domain (琉球藩, Ryūkyū han); compare 藩 = ja:琉球藩

Japanese history distinguishes these closely related articles:

• Ryūkyū Province (1609-1947) has a centuries long history which starts in 1609
• Ryūkyū Domain (1872-1879) has a very short history with very specific start and specific end dates

It matters that Ryūkyū Province -- like other provinces of Japan -- is defined by location. In contrast, Ryūkyū Domain -- like other domains of Japan -- is defined in terms of terms of (kokudaka), not land area.

What appears to be Shinkai Shaw's point-of-view is inconsistent with what research makes plain. For example, Ryūkyū Province is explicitly recognized in the English language text of treaties in 1894 (a) between Japan and the United States and (b) between Japan and the United Kingdom -- see US Department of State. (1906). A digest of international law as embodied in diplomatic discussions, treaties and other international agreements (John Bassett Moore, ed.), Vol. 5, p. 759. This factor was not considered in the decision-making process at ja:wikipedia -- see :ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/琉球国 (令制).

If this needs further discussion, then this may be a good venue for it. --Ansei (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What we need to do is compare the utility of having two highly related articles, in this case the Province and Domain, as their histories are concurrent, or separated by only a few years difference.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There are a few issues here:

1. Although I see you've made a number of edits to the two articles, their content is still almost identical.

2. I touched on this briefly during the earlier discussion, but it's worth mentioning again as it was the focus of Japanese Wikipedia's decision to delete: there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for the formal existence of a "Ryūkyū Province". Yes, the term appears in the English language treaties, but I can't find the corresponding Japanese texts to confirm what the Japanese usage was. I would not be surprised to learn that 藩 was translated as province.

3. Even if the province was established following the Meiji incorporation of Okinawa into Japan, it seems doubtful that it was a formal province of Japan before that. Some 17th century Japanese colloquially referring to Ryukyu as one the Shimazu provinces isn't much in the way of evidence. In contrast, I've never seen Ryūkyū included in any of the Edo period atlases, surveys, etc., that I've seen.

4. It's really hard to search for this, as "Ryūkyū Province" would be written the same way as the "country of Ryūkyū" is. But I can't help feeling that if such a province had existed, it wouldn't be so hard to find evidence of it. Cckerberos (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Cckerberos -- yes, you acknowledge very clear, objective point-of-facts. This is English Wikipedia and anyone can read the linked text in the published version of treaties in English. Also, you acknowledge the other published source support which can be readily verified. In light of what I've already written, it's hard for me to know what else is required. What is to be done when the dispute boils down to research which produces verified facts vs. __________? I'm puzzled by quibbles which marginalize WP:V.--Ansei (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel these are quibbles, as they seem quite important to me. A statement that "some Japanese" used an expression which indirectly shows that those Japanese regarded the Ryūkyū Kingdom as a Shimazu province does not show that Ryūkyū Province existed as a formal government entity from 1609 (if you want to argue that the Ryūkyūs were regarded a de facto province of Japan, that'd be different). Cckerberos (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Cckerberos -- Thank you for this helpful clarification.

My only concern is that the article about Ryūkyū Province exists. In other words, I see no good reasons for excluding Ryūkyū Province from Category:Provinces of Japan -- compare Shinkai Shaw's deletion edit at Template:Japan Old Province here. Do you not agree that all Japanese provinces and domains have inherent notability?

I am trying to work with you. If I understand correctly, your point of view is consistent with Johannes Rein. (1894). Japan: Travels and Researches, pp. 8-11. In this old general interest book, for example, the Ryūkyū Islands are described as a principality and a han and a ken but not as a province.

Please try again to make your point of view understood at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryūkyū Province‎. --Ansei (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ansei, these are effectively content forks.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Ryulong -- no, this is not about best guesses. Perhaps it will help you to review the two non-congruent categories -- (a) Category:Provinces of Japan and (b) Category:Domains of Japan. The distinction is not meaningless. In specific, the two sets of pigeonholes are explicitly explained with cite support. What part of it did you not understand? The two articles mirror what research finds in unambiguous English language sources. In other words, why is it necessary to point out that the Japan-US treaty and the Japan-UK treaty were not about rice, not about kokudaka?

@ Ryulong -- no, your revert here is unreasonable. In the context created in this venue, your reasoning is heedless. The so-called "consensus" you mention here can only be made up of something other than verifiability. Your edit forces anyone to ask where is this so-called "consensus"? What is is based on? Without more, your revert appears to be based on nothing more than an unexplained intensity of preference. --Ansei (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You've repeatedly edit warred over your preferred two-article system despite people disagreeing with you many times over the course of 2 months. Maybe you should give it a rest.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And perhaps you should take a look at ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/琉球国 (令制) which examines the fact that they have no proof that "琉球国" was ever used in Japanese court documents. So stop restoring your content fork based on an ancient misunderstanding.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the term "edit war" is an inappropriate label here. Please recall that I started this thread. This tends to undercut the rationale for using the derisive term "edit war." More importantly, our movement towards WP:Consensus is not helped by this label.

The "consensus" of published and cited sources is acknowledged, is it not? This tends to undercut the rationale for using the derisive term "content fork".

Let's try to agree that this discussion thread is not about my opinion or your opinion. Can we start by agreeing that WP:V is fundamental in the on-going work of our project? --Ansei (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You started this thread but you have also been the one person causing this problem since March.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this the wrong venue? Perhaps we will be better able to establish common ground in the context of a wider discussion at WP:AfD? --Ansei (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't need AFD to discuss a merge.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A broader range of participants may be needed? With this in mind, we could restore the text which has been removed; and we could add an AfD headnote. As a general rule, the process for starting an AfD discussion begins with creating a venue like this:

{{subst:afd2 | pg=Ryūkyū Province | cat=I | text=<br/> ....

See WP talk:WikiProject Japan#Ryūkyū province and domain in which some argue that the article about the province should not exist. In other words, some argue in effect that Ryūkyū Province should not be in Category:Provinces of Japan despite cited sources in the article here Maybe this venue can generate a wider discussion which leads to consensus?

In a conventional AfD discussion, it would not be off-topic to cite US Department of State. (1906). A digest of international law as embodied in diplomatic discussions, treaties and other international agreements (John Bassett Moore, ed.), Vol. 5, p. 759.

It would be better to focus on the consensus among cited sources rather than other issues. Ansei (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If the Japanese Wikipedia has found no sources that mention the subject, then why should we keep its associated page? We do not have to go through all the hoops to just deal with this one issue, being your refusal to let the page go away.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Ryulong -- Talking past each other is like a chicken talking to a duck (鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講).

Please try again to make your point of view understood at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryūkyū Province‎. --Ansei (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't have restored the page again just to send it to AFD. Stop disrupting the project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For those of you who haven't noticed, it looks like the TedderBot, which was long out of business, is back and the listing of new articles on Japan has resumed. Finally! Glad to see it back in business. Michitaro (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI, there's a notice at Talk:Manchukuo and WT:CHINA concerning this article -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Benlisquare didn't bother alerting all of the projects listed on that talk page. Here's the message:

It's currently being disputed whether Manchukuo was a puppet state or not. At the moment, I'm trying to compile a list of books and academic papers that refer to Manchukuo as a "puppet state". If anyone would like to help with expanding the list, please add a few more sources to the list at Talk:Manchukuo#NPOV "puppet state". Thanks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please participate if interested. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about amending Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section to discourage listing non-English names of subjects in the lede sentence of articles, and to encourage moving them to an infobox or footnote. As I understand it, the current practice of WP:JAPAN is to use {{nihongo}} to include the Japanese name in the lede sentence, so this change may affect a large number of articles under your project. Your comments are welcome on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Proposal: move most translations and transliterations from lead sentence to footnote. Thanks, quant18 (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)