Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Urashimataro (talk | contribs) at 23:58, 21 September 2008 (Modified). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk & archives for WP Japan
Project talk
Task force talk/archives

↔ = joint task force
Old notice board
Related talk/archives
Search the archives:
V·T·E

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British (contains proposal for deletion of the Japanese British article). Badagnani (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crusade against articles on japanese local election

User:CalendarWatcher have added delete-tags on Minato mayoral election, 2008 and Fujimi mayoral election, 2008. He seems determined to do it on other similar articles too. For me I think it's extremely important that they are kept because there are no other english sources that give this information. Also it's a fun interest to add for me (and some others too) in the same way some other users finds it important to add info about trainstations in nowhere (that's meant as a joke, not an offense). I am planning to open up a vote on deletion, could you support me in that? Best regards --Jonte-- (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: There is now a vote open here (for Fujimi) and here (for Minato), please give your support. --Jonte-- (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help in getting a license for an image

I picked the image for the fifth generation computer Image:FGCS_computer-pim-m-1.jpg from this location at the ICOT a long time ago. A license on the site claims that the material is in the public domain, but I've since tried to mail them without getting any response. Can someone fluent in japanese contact them or locate the email address I should actually use in the more well-maintained Japanese version of the site here: http://www.icot.or.jp/ARCHIVE/ it would be appreciated. Nixdorf (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the ICOT link page, ICOT belonged to here and this is their inquiry form. Write your name in the first row with お名前, then your e-mail address in the second and the third row. And write your inquiry in the box. I hope this is the right place to ask. Oda Mari (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Nixdorf (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Tsukimi!

The article on Tsukimi itself could use some work, any takers? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, on this day of celebration someone took the opportunity to go on a rampage with a sickle. Is there an article on Wikipedia about this? If not, is it worth making one? --C S (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since only one was killed, maybe a section at Hakusan, Ishikawa is better. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Japan-related

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Japan-related featured sounds

Template:Multi-listen item

Template:Multi-listen item

Keep up the good work! =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1871 incident

In 1871, there was an incident in which an Okinawan fishing boat crashed upon Formosa (Taiwan). As I understand it, there was some sort of struggle between the Okinawan fishermen and a number of local natives, which ended in the deaths of nearly all of the Okinawan fishermen. As Peking and Tokyo became aware of the event, it developed into a major international incident, leading to sovereignty debates over both Taiwan and the Ryukyus, and playing a major role in the eventual decision by Tokyo in 1879 to abolish the Ryukyu Kingdom and fully annex the Ryukyus as "Okinawa Prefecture", over China's protests.

Here's my question - does an article for this incident already exist? If not, what should we call it? There is an article on the Japanese Taiwan Expedition of 1874 which resulted, but does the original incident not merit an article as well?

George H. Kerr, a British historian of both Okinawa and Taiwan, calls it the "Formosa Incident" in his book "Okinawa: the History of an Island People", though that is of course a term useful from the Okinawan/Japanese point of view. From the Taiwanese point of view, I'm sure it could just as easily be called the "Ryukyu Incident". Neither is sufficiently objective or explanatory for our purposes. Louis Frederic's "Japan Encyclopedia" calls it ryūkyū kizoku mondai (琉球帰属問題), the term also used in the Japanese Wikipedia's article for the Taiwan Expedition (there's no separate article for the incident on the Japanese Wikipedia), a term which translates roughly as "Ryukyu Belonging-to Problem".

I do not know whether or not I will write such an article any time soon, but in the meantime it would be good to have a standard title to link to, even if it is a red link.

I have begun a discussion as to whether or not this article needs be created, and what it should be titled, here. I invite anyone interested to contribute to the discussion in a calm, distanced, professional, objective, and mature manner. Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the 1871 incident led directly to the 1874 punative expedition, it can be considered as all part of the same series of events. As the article Taiwan Expedition of 1874 is in dire need of considerable expansion, it would be nice to have at least a paragraph on the 1871 incident. As you mention, this is the way it is treated in Japanese wikipedia. Certainly, if there is enough material to make a full article on the 1871 events, why not? But if it only going to be a 1-2 line stub, then it would not be so helpful, and it might be better to keep as part of "Taiwan Expedition of 1874" until more material is available? --MChew (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of historical events: Japanese, western calendars

I recall a discussion about which calendar to use for historical events, but don't recall the outcome. My question is about this edit, and the matching date in the article on the Battle of Sekigahara. They give September 15 as the date of the battle, but the Japanese Wikipedia identifies the fifteenth day of the ninth month as the date in the year Keichō 5, in other words, the date according to the Japanese calendar; by the Western calendar, the date is October 21, it says.

So are we correct in giving "September 15" as the date of the battle, or should we elaborate on it by calling it "the fifteenth day of the ninth month according to the Japanese calendar (October 21, 1600 according to the Western calendar)"? Fg2 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think for dates such as that, both should be given. I don't have a preference for the order in which they are given, but it should appear something like this: date format 1 (date format 2) (bold just for emphasis here). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia, so the Western calendar should be used by default. However, Japanese dates may be worth a parenthetical note. Jpatokal (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That just looks like a mistake and should be fixed to be October 21. As for why the Japanese calendar date should be given first, with the "Western" date in parentheses, I don't see much of an argument for it. We certainly don't do this for articles on history in general, e.g. we don't date Battle_of_Thermopylae based on the Greek calendar.
Obviously in the case of citing historial documents or making direct quotes, we can't change the date to Western calendar, but even then an editorial note of the Western calendar date would be appropriate. --C S (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the discussion thus far misses the point. The Battle of Sekigahara happened when it happened. The event itself remains the same regardless of whether the Gregorian calendar is referenced or alternate dates using Japanese era names are used.
In the English Wikipedia, I know of no instance in which Gregorian dates are disfavored. We may disagree with the Shōwa period scholars who declared conclusively that Emperor Jimmu was born in 660 B.C. (or 2600 years before February 11, 1940) ... but that is a different issue entirely. I would have thought that the two dating systems are entirely interchangeable. For example, there is no question that the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji took place in 1707, but there may be some difference between our current notions of when an eruption is said to begin and what was commonly understood in 18th century Japan? Am I correct in believing that there is no question about when the Ansei Great Quakes caused destruction and loss of life?
According to Britannica On-line, the important Sekigahara battle date is October 20, 1600 ....
  • If A = Saturday, October 21, 1600 = the 15th day of the 9th month of the 5th year of Keichō (慶長十五年九月十五日)
  • If B = Friday, September 15, 1600 = the 8th day of the 8th month of the 5th year of Keichō (慶長五年八月八日).
  • Then A ≠ B ?
I'm guessing that the relatively trivial difference between the Japanese Wikipedia and the Britannica is this: Wikipedia focuses on what happened when the fog lifted and the two massed armies could actually see each other; and the Britannica focuses on that time when the two massed armies took their final positions awaiting the opportunity to clash.
The problem with the difference between the Japanese Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia is that the September 15th date is inadequately explained. As the article page shows, the sole source for this article is just one slim book:
Bryant, Anthony J. (1995). Sekigahara 1600: The Final Struggle For Power. Oxford: [[Osprey Publishing. 10-ISBN 1-855-32395-8; 13-ISBN 978-1-855-32395-7
In fact, this source identifies the battle as decisively concluded on October 22, 1600[1] -- which is not inconsistent with the Japanese Wikipedia. This book takes the position that the struggle for power is better appreciated and understood in the context of a long campaign which included a fateful day when something important happened.[2] According to Sekigahara 1600: The Final Struggle for Power, "Mitsunari entered Ogaki on September 15, 1600, and he had no idea that Ieyasu was already planning his return to Osaka;"[3] and in the 5th paragraph of "The Battle" section of Wikipedia's Sekigahara article explains that "on September 15, the two sides started to deploy their forces."
The question becomes something like when does a battle become a battle? Am I the one who is missing the point somehow? --Tenmei (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all know that a point of time can have more than one representation. Nonetheless, events, as you point out, can be defined differently according to different people, and some may chose to say a battle may start on a certain day and others may say it happened later. So your comment that "The Battle of Sekigahara happened when it happened" is somewhat puzzling, in light of your later comments. That's a tautology of course; assuming you intended more than a tautology, presumably you meant an event's time of occurrence is indisputable, but actually as you pointed out, it isn't. Different people may say it happened at different times. That's why it is important to rely on reliable sources that state such and such happened on a certain date. In the case the two references references mentioned (the book and Britannica), they all agree on either October 20 or 21 dates as the start of the battle. So we don't need to address such questions as "when does a battle become a battle", as interesting as it may be to ponder. We can just list that some references give the 20th while others give the 21st. --C S (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to [4], Keichō 15-9-15 is Sunday, October 21, 1600 in Julian calendar. --Sushiya (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Japanese, but I believe this is a mistake. If you use NengoCalc, it will convert the 慶長五年九月十五日 into October 21, 1600 in Gregorian. (Some of the instructions for NengoCalc are in German, but this webpage gives some instructions, particularly "For dates Tenshô 10/9/18 (Oct. 4, 1582) and before, dates are in the Julian calendar, but from the next day, Tenshô 10/9/19 (Oct. 15, 1582) the dates are the Gregorian calendar.")
By the way, I believe you meant to type Keichō 5-9-15, since otherwise there is no way you can get 1600 (regardless of Julian or Gregorian). Tenmei made the same typo (but in Japanese) above.
This is all a bit confusing, so let me point out the two ways "September 15" has arose in this discussion. One way is that "September 15" could just be a bad way of saying the 15th day of the ninth month in the Japanese calendar. The other way is that you could define the battle to be earlier when troop movements began (around September 15). But both sources (including the book) that we have so far agree more or less that it was October 20 or 21. This is in close agreement with the Gregorian date corresponding to Keichō 5-9-15. --C S (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's my mistake. I inputted Keichō 15 instead of Keichō 5. Sorry for confusion. --Sushiya (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing the development of this thread, Fg2 asks several questions at once with this one well-chosen illustrative context:
  • 1. In using the phrase "which calendar to use for historical events," I construe an implied either/or response. This word choice plausibly mis-frames the potential discussion. It is a well-settled convention that all dates in the English Wikipedia are presented in standard Gregorian calendar terms, but there are times -- and perhaps this important battle is one of those times -- when a date presented in the Japanese era name format will be helpful or even essential, e.g., see Imperial Order of Meiji. Whether both dating systems should be presented is something which can only be determined on a case-by-case basis with relevant factors varying according to context. In any event, my view is that ·日本穣 and Jpatokal are precisely on-point, crisp and correct. Yes or no?
  • 2. An implied second question has to do with date equivalents. In my view, I would have thought it obvious and well-settled that the Gregorian date and the Japanese nengo dating must be expressed as precise equivalents. Yes or no?
  • 3. The more interesting and difficult question has to do with that discrepancy between the September 15th and October 21st. As it happens, for different reasons, consensus amongst interested editors recently changed Battle of Gallipoli to Gallipoli Campaign. I have the impression that the author of the sole source used in this article would prefer a similar conceptual change in the way the epic Sekigahara battle is contextualized. In my view, the September 15th date was probably a mere error -- but Fg2 recognized the provocative and potentially open-ended aspects of that mistake. In the end, this cannot be answered with a simple "yes" or "no" .... which ultimately explains why Fg2 began a thread here; and I'm persuaded that CS succinctly restates the heart-of-the-matter. --Tenmei (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key question here, which is not being addressed, is simply this: Is it appropriate to represent the Japanese lunar calendar date of "the fifteenth day of the ninth month of Keichô" as September 15 1600, i.e. the fifteenth day of the ninth month? And I should think the answer should be a definitive no. The reason we have these difficulties in trying to pin down the dates of historical events is precisely because our sources cannot be relied upon to be fully clear about which dating system is being used, and therefore not clear whether something happened on September 15 (i.e. the 8th day of the 8th month of the 5th year of Keichō) or whether it happened on the 15th day of the 9th month of Keichô (i.e. October 21, 1600). We should make efforts to not repeat these errors. LordAmeth (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LordAmeth posits Occum's Razor reasoning, which I had mistakenly ignored.
  • A review of the Sekigahara edit history reveals that the date in the introductory paragraph was changed from October 21 to September 15 by an anonymous user from Oregon in early June 2008.
  • The date in the infobox was changed from October 21 to September 15 by another anonymous user from a Copenhagen secondary school in late November 2007.
The nature of the other edits made by these anonymous contributors lend weight to LordAmeth's point-of-view. --Tenmei (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I propose that, in articles which need it for one reason or another, we include the date like this: Western date (Japanese era date). This will allow both to be there, and leave no ambiguousness. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example to illustrate what the proposal means? As it stands, a reader who misses the word "era" could take it to support a statement like "The Battle of Sekigahara took place on October 21, 1600 (September 15, 1600)." I presume that's not what you mean. Maybe "The battle of Sekigahara took place on October 21, 1600 (the 15th day of the ninth month of the fifth year of Keichō)."? A proposal would also do well to refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Calendars, either to confirm or to override the main manual of style's guidance on Julian and Gregorian calendars. Fg2 (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something like "October 21, 1600 (or Keichō era, September 15, 1600)". I think it's important to let people know the era. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unambiguous dates as proposed by 日本穣, of course. --Tenmei :(talk) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am having difficulties following the conversation because I know next to nothing about old Japanese calendrical systems, but I do know that we have a serious problem in out hands: having to deal with more than one date for one event is normal, and so is being unable to solve the problem. And its root is surely errors and/or ambiguities during conversion by our sources. When known, I would definitely quote the date in the original system, as LordAmeth suggests. In any case, when I have different dates to deal with, I highlight the discrepancy. Support Nihonjoe's common sense proposal.

urashimataro (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide in Japan

Probably one of the most interesting things about crime in Japan to non-Japanese is the lack of it. On the other hand, Japan is well-known for having a suicide problem. So I was surprised to see there was no corresponding article suicide in Japan; instead, it redirected to seppuku, which is clearly inappropriate, although related.

Thus I have created a new article "suicide in Japan", with hopefully no objection to removing the redirect (but I include a note at the top to seppuku). I encourage people to come by and make some edits to hopefully give a better coverage. Right now, it is just the beginning so I make no claim of quality (also I have not yet formatted references properly, so it seems there are more references than actually being used).

I have also been editing crime in Japan, which has many defects, and hopefully I eliminated some of the essay-like issues (here, again, I have not yet formatted refs properly, sorry!). One thing I put in the lede, but have not yet included material on is the controversy of doctoring of crime statistics. I know this is a very controversial topic, so if you know about it, I encourage you to contribute. I think some of the best sources for that is only in Japanese, but I don't read Japanese. --C S (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job so far. I played with it a little bit, then created Harakiri (disambiguation) after noticing a need for it. Not exactly related, but there you go. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan&oldid=240116568"