Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan
(Redirected from Wikipedia:JAWNB)
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | WikiProject Japan was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 11 April 2011. |
 |
| Talk & archives for WP Japan |
|---|
|
Project talk
|
|
Task force talk/archives |
| Search the archives: |
| V·T·E |
Japanese Wikipedia research report
[edit]This report on the Japanese Wikipedia is alarming. I highly encourage you to read it through carefully. The toxicity and defamatory claims about WP:BLP on the Japanese Wikipedia run nearly unchecked. The Wikimedia Foundation has been investigating the issue and trying to recommend changes, but so far little has changed. See the article Japanese Wikipedia#Controversies for some more context.
Look at this edit (with machine translation if needed). It is largely based on WP:SELFPUBLISHED websites or blogs, and publishes defamatory claims about Kurds in Japan. A category for "refugees" was changed to "foreigner crimes". This user has been reported, but the only sanction they ever received was a week-long ban from posting on user talk pages. Otherwise, their edits have run mostly unchecked. They have been editing with impunity, with most of their edits remaining online, for months.
The Japanese Wikipedia is heavily influenced by 5ch; a relative of the English-language 4chan. The page Yasuke (in both Japanese and English) is currently heavily discussed on 5ch (to verify this, go to 5ch.net, and search "Wikipedia" in the search bar. Pages like [3] are discussions on the Japanese Wikipedia).
I recommend you exercise serious caution when dealing with controversial editors from the Japanese Wikipedia. seefooddiet (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not really anything we can do, the Japanese Wikipedia is unconnected to the English Wikipedia. All we can do is ensure English Wikipedia policies and guidelines are adhered to on all edits on this project. Ultimately what happens on the JA project is irrelevant to us. Canterbury Tail talk 16:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say entirely disconnected or irrelevant. For controversial topics, users of the jawiki have crossed over to the enwiki. In a similar way to how a user on enwiki's edits give that user reputation, it may be useful to check the user's edit history on the jawiki for context on their edits here. Thus, being aware of the culture of the jawiki matters.
- The entire reason I became aware of this issue is specifically because of these crossover users. seefooddiet (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore, plenty of pages are tagged with Template:Expand language. The Japanese Wikipedia is written with the aforementioned culture in my OP. Depending on the topic, additional skepticism may be warranted. seefooddiet (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I believe what Canterbury Tail means is that if jawiki users cross over to edit on English Wikipedia, they're going to be subject to the same English Wikipedia policies and guidelines as the rest of us; so, if they're making inappropriate edits there, they won't get very far arguing they should be allowed to do the same here because nobody warned/stopped them there. This is essentially what's being said (at least in my opinion) in things like WP:OTHERLANGS: each of the local Wikipedias are different and edits/content on each are assessed according to each local Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So, if you find content on jawiki that's not in accordance with its policies and guidelines, you can try to resolve things but you need to do so in accordance with its policies and guidelines over there; it can't be done afar from English Wikipedia. Behavioral issues are, however, treated a bit differently since inappropriate crosswiki behavior can lead to WP:GLOBALBLOCKs, but this usually only happens when there's some serious long-term disruption and tends to require quite a bit of discussion. A local block on one project doesn't automatically extend to all other projects; it might seem a little weird, but there are users locally blocked on one project who have no problems editing other projects either because they've kept their noses clean on those projects or otherwise have gone unnoticed/unreported as of yet. Since English Wikipedia is the largest of the Wikipedias in terms of articles and users, its policies and guidelines tend to be (rightly or wrongly) more rigorously applied and enforced, and administrator response tends to be quicker. Jawiki's policies and guidelines may have many of the same policies and guidelines as English Wikipedia, but applying them and enforcing them is the responsibility of the jawiki community and its administrators. For sure, you can monitor problematic edits on jawiki or any other wiki to make sure their not repeated here, but that's entirely up to you to do as a WP:VOLUNTEER. You can even monitor where
{{Expand Japanese}}and where it's being used if you're concerned that its use will lead to problems, but again that's another VOLUNTEER thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)- I agree with basically everything you just said; I shared those understandings when I made my OP. The only major thing: you can claim that they won't get very far if they try to go to the enwiki, but given what's happening on the jawiki I'd argue there should be extra caution taken to make sure they don't.
- Each version of Wikipedia does not exist in separate vacuums; they impact each other in a number of ways. I know this first hand; I've personally added tens of thousands of {{interlanguage link}}s and hundreds of {{Expand language}} tags myself. On an almost daily basis, I participate in and read discussions where the various language versions of articles are compared and contrasted. These are all helpful and frequent activities for the English Wikipedia.
- I still maintain that it is useful for enwiki editors to understand the problems with the jawiki for Japan-related topics on the English Wikipedia, for my earlier given reasons. I'm also not mandating that anyone do anything; of course everything is voluntary. I'm just sharing something I found deeply concerning and that I think impacts us in some ways that I've already explained. seefooddiet (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- They don't exist in separate vacuums for sure, but they're rather like members of the same family: interconnected and overlapping in many ways but still leading separate lives. Your concerns about jawiki probably also apply not only other non-English Wikipedia but also even to other types of English Wikipedias. Similarly, some members of the other various Wikipedia communities might have similar concerns about English Wikipedia. Responses to such matters (regardless of which Wikipedia) tends to be much more reactive than proactive, but that's mainly due to the way Wikipedia works. Absent certain types of WP:PP (e.g. WP:PENDING) and some basic WP:FILTERS, most edits go live as soon as the "Publish changes" is clicked because Wikipedia wants users to be WP:BOLD. So, I'm not claiming that such things won't get very far on English Wikipedia per se since inappropriate content can certainly go unnoticed for quite a long time before some one does notice it, but the best that can be done given the current set up is to deal with such content when it's found. If you've got particular articles that you're concerned about, you can monitor them yourself or ask others to also keep a watch on them; however, you can't really stop inappropriate content from being added unless you're able to get technical restrictions put in place. It's a never ending game of whack the mole and knowing another mole is going to appear somewhere at some point isn't going to stop it from appearing unless you somehow set the game so that it doesn't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I agree with almost everything you wrote, and don't think your points impact the validity of my points.
- The context I'm providing is I think helpful for people playing the game of whack the mole. Knowing what the jawiki is like can contextualize things. I think most people would agree that that statement is reasonable. I never suggested we'll somehow systemically stop everything, and I never suggested anyone should be forced to do so.
- Respectfully, may not pursue this thread much further as it's resembling repetition. My point has been made: they have serious issues that may impact us. seefooddiet (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to be repetitive, and my apologies if that's how it came across. In the same vein, though, you're sort of repeating "Japanese Wikipedia has problem editors that we need to be aware of" who should be treated with "serious caution", but there's not a lot that can be done about them here on English Wikipedia until they start causing serious problems here. Just for reference, many of the things mentioned in that jawiki report you linked to above also happen on English Wikipedia regarding topics completely unrelated to Japan. Many such subjects have been designated WP:AC/CT because of such things and have extra editing restrictions placed on them, but even in those cases the kind of edits described in the jawiki report still sometimes get through. Such edits usually end up reverted and perhaps the user who made them is warned. If such editors continue on as before, administrators will eventually be asked to intervene, but rarely do administrators pre-emptively block accounts based on what someone thinks they might do.Finally, the jawiki edit about the Kurds that you also linked to above was reverted by another jawiki user, and a discussion about it is taking place on the the jawiki user talk page of the editor who made it. Whether that discussion leads to the jawiki version of an administrator's noticeboard remains to be seen, but that's not too different from how the same thing would be treated here on English Wikipedia. Similarly, the problems with the same jawiki user's edits to Kurds in Japan seem to have been addressed (at least for the moment) and are being discussed at Talk:Kurds in Japan, which again is what's encouraged by WP:DR. If despite these things you still think that jawiki user poses a serious risk to English Wikipedia, you should start a discussion about them at WP:ANI. Moreover, if think that "The Japanese Wikipedia has a serious nearly incurable sickness" that must be prevented from spreading to English Wikipedia, you probably should propose something specific at WP:VPP because any such community-wide action is going to fall outside the scope of this or any other WikiProject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- If it's ok, I'll post on your talk page to work things out. I think we're continually miscommunicating and resolving it would be lengthy, and I want to save space on this public thread for main takeaways. Once we resolve things, either one of us can come back here and post a summary. seefooddiet (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's been days and Marchjuly hasn't responded. I assume the issue is resolved. I do not regret saying that Japanese Wikipedia is seriously ill and its illnesses should be quarantined. I'd be more sympathetic if the symptoms of their diseases didn't harm living people. I'll withdraw my sentiments the day they bother to step up and fix their problems. seefooddiet (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to be repetitive, and my apologies if that's how it came across. In the same vein, though, you're sort of repeating "Japanese Wikipedia has problem editors that we need to be aware of" who should be treated with "serious caution", but there's not a lot that can be done about them here on English Wikipedia until they start causing serious problems here. Just for reference, many of the things mentioned in that jawiki report you linked to above also happen on English Wikipedia regarding topics completely unrelated to Japan. Many such subjects have been designated WP:AC/CT because of such things and have extra editing restrictions placed on them, but even in those cases the kind of edits described in the jawiki report still sometimes get through. Such edits usually end up reverted and perhaps the user who made them is warned. If such editors continue on as before, administrators will eventually be asked to intervene, but rarely do administrators pre-emptively block accounts based on what someone thinks they might do.Finally, the jawiki edit about the Kurds that you also linked to above was reverted by another jawiki user, and a discussion about it is taking place on the the jawiki user talk page of the editor who made it. Whether that discussion leads to the jawiki version of an administrator's noticeboard remains to be seen, but that's not too different from how the same thing would be treated here on English Wikipedia. Similarly, the problems with the same jawiki user's edits to Kurds in Japan seem to have been addressed (at least for the moment) and are being discussed at Talk:Kurds in Japan, which again is what's encouraged by WP:DR. If despite these things you still think that jawiki user poses a serious risk to English Wikipedia, you should start a discussion about them at WP:ANI. Moreover, if think that "The Japanese Wikipedia has a serious nearly incurable sickness" that must be prevented from spreading to English Wikipedia, you probably should propose something specific at WP:VPP because any such community-wide action is going to fall outside the scope of this or any other WikiProject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- They don't exist in separate vacuums for sure, but they're rather like members of the same family: interconnected and overlapping in many ways but still leading separate lives. Your concerns about jawiki probably also apply not only other non-English Wikipedia but also even to other types of English Wikipedias. Similarly, some members of the other various Wikipedia communities might have similar concerns about English Wikipedia. Responses to such matters (regardless of which Wikipedia) tends to be much more reactive than proactive, but that's mainly due to the way Wikipedia works. Absent certain types of WP:PP (e.g. WP:PENDING) and some basic WP:FILTERS, most edits go live as soon as the "Publish changes" is clicked because Wikipedia wants users to be WP:BOLD. So, I'm not claiming that such things won't get very far on English Wikipedia per se since inappropriate content can certainly go unnoticed for quite a long time before some one does notice it, but the best that can be done given the current set up is to deal with such content when it's found. If you've got particular articles that you're concerned about, you can monitor them yourself or ask others to also keep a watch on them; however, you can't really stop inappropriate content from being added unless you're able to get technical restrictions put in place. It's a never ending game of whack the mole and knowing another mole is going to appear somewhere at some point isn't going to stop it from appearing unless you somehow set the game so that it doesn't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I believe what Canterbury Tail means is that if jawiki users cross over to edit on English Wikipedia, they're going to be subject to the same English Wikipedia policies and guidelines as the rest of us; so, if they're making inappropriate edits there, they won't get very far arguing they should be allowed to do the same here because nobody warned/stopped them there. This is essentially what's being said (at least in my opinion) in things like WP:OTHERLANGS: each of the local Wikipedias are different and edits/content on each are assessed according to each local Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So, if you find content on jawiki that's not in accordance with its policies and guidelines, you can try to resolve things but you need to do so in accordance with its policies and guidelines over there; it can't be done afar from English Wikipedia. Behavioral issues are, however, treated a bit differently since inappropriate crosswiki behavior can lead to WP:GLOBALBLOCKs, but this usually only happens when there's some serious long-term disruption and tends to require quite a bit of discussion. A local block on one project doesn't automatically extend to all other projects; it might seem a little weird, but there are users locally blocked on one project who have no problems editing other projects either because they've kept their noses clean on those projects or otherwise have gone unnoticed/unreported as of yet. Since English Wikipedia is the largest of the Wikipedias in terms of articles and users, its policies and guidelines tend to be (rightly or wrongly) more rigorously applied and enforced, and administrator response tends to be quicker. Jawiki's policies and guidelines may have many of the same policies and guidelines as English Wikipedia, but applying them and enforcing them is the responsibility of the jawiki community and its administrators. For sure, you can monitor problematic edits on jawiki or any other wiki to make sure their not repeated here, but that's entirely up to you to do as a WP:VOLUNTEER. You can even monitor where
- I wonder if there's a way to get Wikimedia further involved. Just my input, but Japanese Wikipedia features large scale bigotry, racial supremacy, unsourced fringe alternative history, and genocide/war crime denial in violation of Wikipedia policies (mostly due to editors intentionally ignoring reputable sourcing). Not only that but there are serious, serious WP:BLP violations rampant on Japanese Wikipedia (mostly against those deemed as adverserial by nettouyo) that are left up despite being reported.
- It is not a stretch to say that Japanese Wikipedia is largely controlled by far-right, ultra-nationalist racial supremacy groups. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- As a heads up, we're risking moving too far off topic, so let's try to keep this short and tightly linked to the main purpose of my post. I'll share this opinion for now because I think it provides some more context to others of why I don't think their issues will resolve any time soon.
- I think you're thinking of the Wikimedia Foundation. They're already aware of these issues, hence the research they've been funding into the root causes of this. The following is my analysis of the situation, so treat it skeptically:
- jawiki's issues are fundamentally hard to solve. These are documented in the research report I linked. Its issues are intertwined with Japanese internet culture and regular Japanese culture; trying to resist both of those is hard and possibly fundamentally undesirable.
- Even if the WMF intervened somehow they may not even solve the issue, and a botched intervention would damage the credibility of both the WMF and the institution of Wikipedias as a whole.
- A botched intervention could damage the Japanese Wikipedia; not all of it is harmful or right-wing. Its good articles are honestly quite good and useful; I look at it pretty often (which is how I found out about these issues). But the bad articles, my god...
- seefooddiet (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am largely referring to the areas impacted by the Japanese version of the gamergate harassment/hate group.
- 5ch, which is a main part of your post, is essentially the base of operations for said group, and they've targeted more than just the Kurds in Japan and Yasuke articles, so this is not off-topic.
- You are right though in that it is not a trivial issue to solve, but I disagree that the culture of the site can't be changed. This is just my opinion, but culture is a product of the rules and how they strictly they are enforced. If you have a wiki where the policy is not strictly enforced, then you will get a wiki with rampant BLP violations, a consistent heavily nationalist bias in violation of NPOV, poorly sourced xenophobia and racism left up for years, and so on.
- To the extent that you can contain it (this seems to be your concern), the underlying issues probably shouldn't be ignored or ultimately it will keep reoccuring. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- In my time looking through articles translated from Japanese to English, most of the pages that have these issues in English are relatively niche (with a few notable exceptions. I've identified three categories of articles that tend to have these issues:
- 1. Imperial Japan related military articles (figures having poorly sourced hagiography, clear bias for or against certain military commanders, warcrime and attrocity denial, etc. Akiyama Yoshifuru and Yamaji Motoharu are two examples whose issues from the Japanese text were present on the pages for years before I found them. Diffs for those [here] and [here]. Some of the most notable instances such as Nanjing Massacre are heavily monitored pages, but often less frequented pages which are fine like Port Arthur massacre (China) link to problematic stubs for the generals involved.
- 2. Current political events (the kurd page you mention is an example), which are likely to be corrected faster than the above.
- 3. BLP's for Japanese celebrities and politicians which source to sketchy outlets or to unreliable news sources such as Sankei Shimbun and peddle salacious rumors and conspiracy theories that amount to BLP violations. The current state of the Thomas Lockley page in Japanese is a flagrant example of this.
- I think the easiest way to deal with these when they go unchecked in English is to add Japanese sources to WP:RSPS and assess the more notably unreliable ones on RSN so that editors have quicker reference. Relm (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear that Sankei has been discussed at RSPS before. Is someone willing to start that conversation? I have moderate experience with both Sankei and Japan Forward but am not an expert seefooddiet (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have not caught up with all of this discussion, but while Sankei is widely considered right-leaning, I think it is generally a reliable news source (its application in particular instances such as in relation to World War II history notwithstanding). If we were going to start excluding Japanese sources, there would be a variety of weekly magazines, sports dailies, monthlies like Hanada, etc. that I would expect to be further up the list of things to deal with. Dekimasuよ! 04:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Then we should get it on the RS list with those caveats in mind. I'm thinking of articles like these [4][5][6][7]. If we want to get other weekly magazines, sports dailies, and monthlies on the list then we should do so too. We have time. seefooddiet (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have no problem at all with excluding Japan Forward, which is publishing articles like the ones you selected at the same time that its "about" page says its purpose is "to reveal the true face of Japan to non-Japanese speakers" here, which apparently means its intention is to act as a propagandist counterpoint. Certainly it's affiliated with Sankei Shimbun, but it has a different editorial focus and different organizational aims, so it can be dealt with separately. Dekimasuよ! 05:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds fair to me, at least for now. I'm less familiar with Sankei. Unless someone else wishes to do so, I can make a post on the RS board soon. I need to read into how the RS board works first; have hardly used it before. seefooddiet (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have no problem at all with excluding Japan Forward, which is publishing articles like the ones you selected at the same time that its "about" page says its purpose is "to reveal the true face of Japan to non-Japanese speakers" here, which apparently means its intention is to act as a propagandist counterpoint. Certainly it's affiliated with Sankei Shimbun, but it has a different editorial focus and different organizational aims, so it can be dealt with separately. Dekimasuよ! 05:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Then we should get it on the RS list with those caveats in mind. I'm thinking of articles like these [4][5][6][7]. If we want to get other weekly magazines, sports dailies, and monthlies on the list then we should do so too. We have time. seefooddiet (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have not caught up with all of this discussion, but while Sankei is widely considered right-leaning, I think it is generally a reliable news source (its application in particular instances such as in relation to World War II history notwithstanding). If we were going to start excluding Japanese sources, there would be a variety of weekly magazines, sports dailies, monthlies like Hanada, etc. that I would expect to be further up the list of things to deal with. Dekimasuよ! 04:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear that Sankei has been discussed at RSPS before. Is someone willing to start that conversation? I have moderate experience with both Sankei and Japan Forward but am not an expert seefooddiet (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is not limited to articles directly related to the Imperial Japanese Army or contemporary Japanese politics. Take, for example, the Japanese Wikipedia article on the Nuremberg trials (ja:ニュルンベルク裁判); it spends around half of its 100,000+ byte entry promoting fringe pseudohistorical theories that have little support in mainstream scholarship. While it may contain some facts when viewed in isolation, it includes too many simplifications, editorializing, and misleading claims, resulting in an overall narrative that is extremely biased, as it cherry-picks details that serve a particular point of view. It even states quite boldly, "There was no blueprint for the extermination of the Jews, no national budget allocated for extermination, and no organization that conducted centralized management." [8]
- This article has even been discussed on an external web forum, yet no major action seems to have been taken so far. If articles like this are translated into English Wikipedia in large volumes (especially niche articles), they can cause tremendous damage to the overall reputation of enwiki before the community has a chance to discover and address them. Kaze757 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah man that's horrific... I feel distressing and serious topics are disproportionately affected by the Japanese Wikipedia's issues. Normal people just avoid them and conflict altogether, which leads to the them being taken over by neurotic people with obvious biases. Thankfully enwiki's articles on non-Japan topics like these tend to be more robust and see fewer jawiki editors crossing over. seefooddiet (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Stop. Do you want to say unequivocally that the mentioned article on Japanese Wikipedia does not simply disseminate marginal theories, but in fact directly tries to deny the Holocaust and the participation of the Nazi leadership in it? I don't know if Japanese law prohibits Nazi justification or Holocaust denial, but I think it raises even more red flags. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- A link to a timestamped version of the page was provided. The current version of the page still has the text. It's the first two sentences in that section. I'm not sure why the command "stop" was necessary in your comment; are you saying it like "no way"? seefooddiet (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you meant "no way" to mean surprise, then yes. At least 30 of my relatives died in the Holocaust, so it is shocking to me that a wiki section in such a common language could contain such statements. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is a frequent issue on the Japanese Wikipedia these kinds of 20th century controversies. They're even harder on Korean people. seefooddiet (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm even afraid to imagine. Historical or political disputes are one thing, but such things are beyond the bounds in my opinion. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is a frequent issue on the Japanese Wikipedia these kinds of 20th century controversies. They're even harder on Korean people. seefooddiet (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you meant "no way" to mean surprise, then yes. At least 30 of my relatives died in the Holocaust, so it is shocking to me that a wiki section in such a common language could contain such statements. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- A link to a timestamped version of the page was provided. The current version of the page still has the text. It's the first two sentences in that section. I'm not sure why the command "stop" was necessary in your comment; are you saying it like "no way"? seefooddiet (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I made a post on the RS board about Japan Forward. Please comment there if you have any thoughts. seefooddiet (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Racism in Japan. Look at the recent edits to this article. Clearly a user from jawiki who made a new account (no edits on the Japanese Wikipedia with this account) to post on enwiki. You can tell by the incorrect ref format; on the jawiki refs go before punctuation.
- The edits don't reflect the international consensus; they portray Koreans as deserving to have been killed during the Kantō Massacre. I knew this would happen. Get ready for more of this. seefooddiet (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Er only thing we can do is locking the historical revisionist edits out of enwiki. Protecting frequently disrupted topics like this might work since Empire of Japan related ww2 topics in jawiki are found to be mostly protected. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Request for comment on whether Ninomaru Palace should be in List of National Treasures of Japan (castles)
[edit]I am looking for other opinions in this lengthy discussion. The main question is on whether the National Treasures structures at Ninomaru Palace should be in that list or not. In my view they should not, because according to the [https://kunishitei.bunka.go.jp/bsys/searchlist official database] they are not listed in the castle category but in the residence category and should therefore be in List of National Treasures of Japan (residences) where they are. I don't really see any need to change anything. If Ninomaru is considered particularly noteworthy, perhaps a sentence in the introduction with a link to the residences list would do. bamse (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think that at least a mention would be good.
- There is absolutely no question that Ninomaru Goten is particularly noteworthy. It's considered to be only one of four complete castle palaces remaining in Japan, it contains National Treasure Structures, and it's probably the main reason why the castle is a World Heritage Site, and it's the castle's main attraction. It is the most important part of one of Japan's most important castles.
- At any rate, my logic is: 1. Nijo Castle is a castle. 2. Ninomaru Goten is a castle building (keep in mind that the word 'goten' is reserved for castle palaces, as opposed to other types of Japanese palaces) 3. Several buildings of the Ninomaru Goten fall under the National Treasure designation. Therefore it merits at least mention in the article.
- I can see the logic of not including it under the main list due to the 'residence' category, but obviously it's quite possible for something to be both a castle building and a residence (the very definition of 'castle' is a place that includes both defensive and residential features--if not, we would be talking about forts).
- It would also be good to clarify the article name to (castle towers) or 'castle defensive structures' to make it clear why Ninomaru Palace is excluded from the main list. Mabewa (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- In the two posts here, as opposed to the linked discussion, I don't really see a conflict. It is clear that for some sources and some readers, being a part of the Nijo Castle complex is a good reason for the palace to be included in the article. If the criterion for being part of the main list is that it match the Japanese government definitions, then it seems fair to discuss the palace in text outside of the main list, or in the list with some kind of note explaining that it is not part of the government's list. To make the situation clear, it would be fair to ask for reliable sources that discuss the role of the palace as an element of the castle. Dekimasuよ! 03:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, that makes sense. I'm leaning towards mentioning it outside the main list as a compromise. Mabewa (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonably to me. Thank you Dekimasu. With a similar reasoning we might want to add a note (outside the main list) in List of National Treasures of Japan (temples) mentioning that there are temple structures that are listed in List of National Treasures of Japan (residences). bamse (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, that makes sense. I'm leaning towards mentioning it outside the main list as a compromise. Mabewa (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Suga#Requested move 21 October 2024
[edit]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Suga#Requested move 21 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --Joy (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Discussion on the reliability of Japanese sources
[edit]There is a discussion about some Japanese musical theatre sources on RSN, any editor who can help please see WP:RSN#Japanese-language sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Statism in Shōwa Japan#Requested move 20 October 2024
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Statism in Shōwa Japan#Requested move 20 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Kaoli Isshiki
[edit]A discussion is going on for Kaoli Isshiki, a soprano from Japan based in France. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Nippon Ishin no Kai#Requested move 13 November 2024
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nippon Ishin no Kai#Requested move 13 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)