Talk:Rising Sun Flag/Archive 1

Archive 1

Army variant

Could someone please make an SVG of the variant of the Rising Sun Flag used by the Imperial Japanese Army? Reference material can be found here and here. 86.8.141.80 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Those flags are definitely modern made and can not be considered as a reliable source. The naval rising sun flag ("off-set", the gunkanki) was used in every ship, in every naval base and is well documented. It was widely used, so it doesn't suppose any problem. The square regimental rising sun flags from the army regiments (every regimental flag had its own regimental markings) were also commonly used, the problem then is the rectangular rising sun flag with the sun in the middle and the 16 rays, the one this anonymous person requested to be made in SVG. It really was the imperial army flag? equivalent to the naval one? I don't know japanese, but if somebody could check those japanese websites maybe the answer could be found in them :
http://military-web.hp.infoseek.co.jp/shiryou/gunki_1.htm
http://www1.jca.apc.org/anti-hinokimi/archive/chronology/senzen/rikugun1870.htm
I guess the years of entering service of the flags are mentioned, and if correct proportions are also mentioned maybe the SVG will have to be subsequently modified. 343KKT Kintaro (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Present Day Perceptions

This section is a mess. I started to edit the grammar, but as I'm not overly familiar with the subjects involved I'm not sure what the original is trying to say.PurpleChez (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The Use of the Flag during Wars in Asia

The meaning of "haevily used" is vauge and it is impossible to verify it until a comprehensive study of the use of the rising sun flags is done, which I have never seen so far. As far as the Japanese army is concerned, one flag was given to a regiment (about 1700 persons) by the emperor and it is unlikely that the use of replicas was permitted. If a soldier wanted to use a flag, he certainly used a Hinomaru flag. There are a lot of such photos. If "heavily used" refers to some ceremonies or celebrations overseas, I have never seen a photo with the rising sun flags flying. Ia Japan, I found the rising sun flags were used in the photos of the celebrations of the victory of the Russo-Japanese War and of the fall of Singapore in the Pasific War. But in both cases Hinomaru flags were dominant. And did Asians other than Japanese have the occasion to see such photos before the end of the war? I think it is after the end of World War II that the rising sun flag came to be seen as a symbol of Japanese imperialism, especially Koreas and Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamapy (talk • contribs) 08:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in that "heavily used" is inappropriate. So I removed the word[1], However, another editor re-phrased the lead[2], as a result the description was removed. If you have other comment on this article, please comment at this talk page or edit accordingly. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected

As a result of the recent edit war over the definition (see above) I have locked the article for a period of three days. Please discuss the definition on this page until a consensus is formed. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Since no-one saw fit to discuss the issue, and the edit-war resumed the moment protection expired, the article has now been protected for two weeks. Please form a consensus on this page, using arguments based on policy and sources. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add the following line to the lead based on this source: http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/apr/19/soccer-teams-use-of-rising-sun-flag-causes-stir/ "The Rising Sun flag was used by the Japanese military until the end of World War II and is considered offensive to countries that were victims of Japanese aggression." Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Here is another reference: http://japandailypress.com/courting-controversy-olympic-uniform-resembled-rising-sun-flag-149097 Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Another reference: http://view.koreaherald.com/kh/view.php?ud=20120829001376&cpv=0 Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC) One more: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2012/09/164_119758.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can't add this information, please unlock the article. Thanks! Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Whilst your finding of sources is admirable, one editor doesn't make a consensus. We need to establish agreement on this page between the parties involved (or at least a solid, policy-based decision), otherwise the edit warring will restart when protection exprires. You have made a good start towards this with the above sources, but the issue isn't so much that the article doesn't discuss the flag's military associations and offensiveness to some other countries, more over whether or not the information should be in the lead paragraph of the article. Since the changes you are requesting would effectively continue the edit-war - the reason this article was locked in the first place - the change is not going to be made in the immediate future. I hope this clarifies things a bit; please drop me a line on my talkpage if you have any questions. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think an administrator has the right to block reliably sourced, NPOV contributions to articles indefinitely because of a lack of consensus. Not to mention I was not a party to the edit war you are referring to. Why not block the editors at fault instead of all Wikipedia editors? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've created a "Request for Comment" here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Yunshui Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

What a pleasant surprise to come back to after the weekend. You appear to be labouring under a couple of misapprehensions here, so let me address those for you. One, I have absolutely no intention of locking this article indefinitely. Because my first protection of the page appeared to have been too short to allow a discussion to develop, I re-locked it for a longer period in the (apparently vain) hope that the editors involved could come to terms. Since that does not appear to have worked either, when this protection expires I anticipate resolving the matter in a different manner. Indefinitely full-protecting a page is almost unheard of, and is certainly not an option I'd even considered for this article. Please don't misrepresent my intentions.

Two, for all but the most trigger-happy, blocking is a final resort, not a first strike option. Blocking the ten or twelve editors involved would achieve nothing more than a lot of frustration and bad feeling, as well as potential collateral damage caused by blocking the numerous IPs involved. If some of the parties involved insist on continuing the edit-war, blocking is an option - one I'm considering - but other methods to achieve consensus should always be attempted first. Whilst you are, as you say, not party to this particular edit-war, adding the text you requested above would make you party to it (since that text, or something very similar, is precisely the subject of the disagreement) - under your "block all edit warriors" rationale, that would require me to block your account as well, no?

The world won't end just because you can't edit one page for another week or so. When the protection ends, hopefully the parties involved will have either accepted that the sources support one position over the other or moved on to other things. If not, well, then we can talk about blocks and topic bans. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem quite willing to antagonize all of Wikipedia's innocent editors, while seeking to spare the feelings of the minority who violate Wikipedia policies. When you said my well-referenced, NPOV edit "is not going to be made in the immediate future" it implied that 1) I would not have the option of making the edit and 2) that therefore the page would remained locked and you were not going to do it either, and that 3) consensus outweighs accuracy. Do you want something like, "Some people like the Rising Sun flag, but others don't."? Don't you think it's important for readers to know WHY so many people find the flag offensive? As an American, I was frankly shocked to see this flag displayed in Japan and to see it on commercial products. And it's equally shocking that, no matter how many reliable sources support this, it won't be allowed into the article. Finally, it seems like you are overstepping your authority by 1) insisting that all edits to the page are done by consensus and 2) dictating which edits will or will not be allowed. Are you quite certain you are a neutral party in this situation? Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The current information about this in the article is misleading. "In the last few years, this flag is considered offensive in countries which were victims of Japanese aggression, specifically in China and the Koreas,[6][7] where it is considered to be associated with Japanese militarism and imperialism." First of all, the flag has been offensive ever since the acts of aggression in the 1930's and 1940's. Second, the countries where this is the case extend well beyond China and Korea: this flag would be considered offensive in Indonesia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, the U.S., and Russia. And third, the flag is not simply "associated" with Japanese imperialism (as if this sentiment developed in some secondary, unexpected, or artifical way), it is a symbol of that imperialism because it was carried by the troops who attacked and/or occupied those countries.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I assumed that "is not going to be made in the immediate future" implied nothing more than that the edit won't be made in the immediate future, i.e. it may be made at some point in the future, just not immediately. I'm sorry that you interpreted to mean something different from what I intended. For the record, were I not acting in an adminsitrative capacity here I would fully support the inclusion of your text; I find the whitewashing of the article unhelpful and would argue that the lead of an article should contain a synopsis of the article's coverage; in this case, that would include the offense that some people feel at the the flag. However, since I've taken administrative action to prevent ongoing disruption my opinion as an editor isn't relevant, so I'm not taking any position in this dispute beyond declaring that it needs to be resolved.

As regards consensus outweighing accuracy, in this arena, it actually does. "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making."Since there is evidently a disagreement over the content of this article, consensus-building is an appropriate editorial process to establish the appropriate wording. Insisting that changes be based in consensus is not "overstepping my authority", as you put it, it's simply trying to guide the article's development in line with how Wikipedia works.

Out of pure curiosity, why is it that your changes to the article absolutely have to be made right this minute? Is there some reason that you aren't willing to engage in a discussion over the issue? Yunshui 雲‍水 12:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I'm discussing the issue. If I were allowed to make the edit (with its reliable sources as references) and it were to be deleted, at that point I could engage in a discussion with the deleting party and ask them to justify their deletion. But at this point, my edit is just a comment on a talk page, so nothing is happening. Finally, if consensus outweighs reliably sourced edits, then Wikipedia is just a reflection of which opinions are popular at the moment, and factual information can be repressed by aggressive editors. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You know what? I'm actually wrong here. I've been persuaded by this discussion to look over the circumstances and edits leading up to this page protection again, and in re-evaluating the situation I've become convinced that protecting the page was actually a mistake. The editors pushing to have the section on the flag's military use and offence-causing nature removed have provided sources, but on more in-depth checking they appear to be forum posts on a Japanese language-learning website; furthermore, I've yet to see any of these editors make edits anywhere else, which suggests sockpuppetry or at least POV pushing SPAs to me. Ghostofnemo, you are right; blocking (or at least final-warning) these editors would have been a more appropriate way to resolve the situation.

I'm going to unlock the article and post the amendments above. It's possible that the protection has served a purpose and that the dissenting editor(s) will have moved on by now, but further attempts to change the lead to remove the military connotations of the flag should probably be treated as vandalism, especially if they refuse to discuss the edit. Ghostofnemo, I apologise unreservedly; thank you for making me reconsider, and I'm sorry for being such an arse. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

I restored the stable version. Because I found Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:UNDUE in the current version, especially in the lead. It is clear if you see the revision history of the article. Most of edits have been done by IPs and newbies since last month. I think the article should be semi-protected and if regular editors want to change the article, talk first and ask for consensus. Oda Mari (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oda Mari, I've reverted you. The majority of those changes were by GhostofNemo, who tried quite extensively above to discuss the matter with other editors, and no one responded to him. And even if that weren't true, you cannot simply revert an IP or new editors contributions simply because he or she is a new editor. If there is something specifically wrong with those contributions, they may be reverted, but you need to actually state what was wrong with those edits. While, on some topics, it's okay to essentially require conversation before alteration, that generally applies to only the most extremely warred over topics, which this is not. And then, of course, if you do revert the editors, and they start talking as Ghostofnemo has done, you need to engage with them.

Please note that I am not actually stating that Ghostofnemo's edits are correct--I haven't reviewed them personally (though I do place a fair amount of creedence in what appears to be a review by Yunshui). I am merely saying that since Ghostofnemo has done his part by specifically proposing changes, citing sources, and providing a reason for them, it's now up to you (or other "regular editors") think he's wrong, then you need to tell him why, provide your own sources, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Definition

As far as I checked, there is no Japanese dictionary defined the flag as military flag. Some design of rising sun flags were/are used as military flag (ex. 16 sun ray rising sun flag). But this article is not for 16 sun ray rising sun flag or naval rising sun flag. Historical definition is not appropriate, because the rising sun flags are still used commonly nowadays in Japan. The definition should be in accordance to the current definition.--Mishichan (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all this is an English wikipedia. The flag/design WAS a military flag USED/adopted by the Imperial Japanese Army and later Imperial Japanese Navy. The article states that the JMDSF still uses the Ensign while the JGSDF uses the same design but with a 8 Ray version. Later on it was adopted for civilian use. Even your Source in Japanese states:

http://kotobank.jp/word/旭日旗
Japanese flag with stylized rising sun. The surface of the white flag, Hinomaru that emits light radially are drawn in red. Is adopted as the banner up to defeat the Second World War from the Meiji era, as well as land and Maritime Self-Defense Force is using, in modern times has been used in support of such holidays and sports events in the private sector as well. On the other hand, and recognition is still strong, "a symbol of Japanese militarism-imperialism rising sun flag" in China and South Korea. About the use of the flag of the same tournament international sports such as World Cup soccer W and the Olympics, has been (FIFA) is not something contrary to the prohibition political expression FIFA and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and South Korea voice of backlash is rising again and again ever since. RedKnight 1 (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an English wikipedia regarding the Japanese flag (kyokujitsu-ki). As I said, some designs are used military flag (same as source you indicated), but not limited to military use only and not defined the all rising sun flags are military flag. --Mishichan (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

ITS the SAME design. The design evolved from the Hinomaru/Flag of Japan with 16 rays - it was used by the specifically by the Japanese Military - Army first adopting it in 1870, the Navy in 1889 but had similiar rank flag prior1. After WW2 it was re-adopted by the JMSDF, BUT the JGSDF adopted modified 8 version. Later on the flag design was used for civilian use - Asahi Shimbun([3] - First issue did not have rising sun design/logo) etc.

While I don't agree with many attempts by people to link the design to the Swastika - which ironically exists in many Asian Cultures (ie. Buddist temples etc.), I also don't agree with you attempting to downplay its origins. Japanese military flags

Naval Ensign & War flag

Same Designs - t_shirt,t_shirt, t_shirt, Cap, Dog, Sporting event.

RedKnight 1 (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"The Rising Sun Flag is the military flag of Japan" This term is simply incorrect. It is not. It is used in many cases unrelated to army nor navy. This article spreads INCORRECT INFORMATION. Are you intending to do that, RedKnight 1? If you have any objection please show the evidence that the flag was originaly created for Amy. Why don't you use more neutral expression like "The Rising Sun Flag is a traditional flag of Japan well-known as a military flag in Asia"?

Bluequark (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Present-day perception

Sorry, I should have brought this here earlier. After thinking on the matter more, I'm coming to believe that both of the wordings (the current one, and the one I reverted to) are wrong, as I think they both violate WP:NPOV. The previous one, I was definitely wrong to revert to, because calling the countries "victims of Japanese aggression" is clearly not neutral. The problem with the current version, though, in making the link anti-Japanese sentiment, is that it's WP:OR to presume that the root cause of the objection to the flag is the a-J sentiment. Unless we have a reliable source (here, I'm thinking we'd need an academic source looking at the picture from a wide perspective, not just the reporting of a single incident in a newspaper) that clearly explains the "cause" of the objection, maybe we should just end the sentence after "the Koreas". Qwyrxian (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem. If it's not anti-Japanese sentiment, what is it? According to the ref. #7, the protester was a graduate student and he said "I was deeply offended". He's too young to actually know the Imperial Japanese military and the World War II. I have no idea what made him feel deeply offended, but probably the education he had, the books he read, or through media. Isn't it anti-Japanese sentiment? See Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea#Education. Oda Mari (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:RedKnight 1

RedKnight 1, I think your recent edits were anti-Japanese POV, especially your removal of contents, and I have questions. On this edit, you removed "This flag was used as a flag that symbolizes good luck from the Edo period. " Please explain the removal, The design could be seen in Ukiyoe. See [4]and [5]. You wrote "some countries, especially South Korea and China, where it is considered to be associated with Japanese militarism and imperialism", but according to this, it seems to be only in South Korea. What are those "some countries"? Please provide source. What do you explain the fact that there were voluntary Korean officers in the imperial Japanese army and they fought under the flag? Hong Sa-ik and Park Chung-hee. See also [6]. Please do not victimize Korea. You removed three images and added one to the examples section. Please explain the removal/addition and the change of the section title. There are more questions, but please answer these first. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a credible source? [7]- actually says Meiji author
[8] - Translation doesn't say anything.

The design may have come out of the earlier design Flag of Japan#History - Japan/Land of the Rising; but the article is about the Rising Sun FLAG (旭日旗 Kyokujitsu-ki - [9]. The Hinomaru was the NATIONAL Flag, the rising sun flag was adopted by the military.

You wrote "some countries, especially South Korea and China, where it is considered to be associated with Japanese militarism and imperialism", but according to this, it seems to be only in South Korea. What are those "some countries"? Please provide source.
this joongang Korean? -

Muse Uses Japan's Rising Sun Imagery, Forgets It Pisses People Off
Forbes

Why are they burning the flag?
China halts ministerial-level contacts with Japan
Chinese hold anti-Japan protests over boat dispute

2008 Olympics
The flag is seen by many in Asia as a symbol of Tokyo's wartime militarism.
Japanese sporting fans have been warned not to fly Japan’s “rising sun” flag at the Olympics, because it might anger Chinese, who have been taught to identify the flag with Japan’s militaristic past

Chinese hold anti-Japan protests over boat dispute
Emulating Nazis, returning to militarism
'Abe Gov't Likely to Officially Back Rising Sun Flag' - Japan’s neighbors consider the flag a symbol of Japan’s militarism.
The flag is often deemed offensive in Asia as it symbolises Japanese militarism and imperialism.

What do you explain the fact that there were voluntary Korean officers in the imperial Japanese army and they fought under the flag? Hong Sa-ik and Park Chung-hee
SO WHAT? Russians & Ukrainians served under the Germans while they fought against the Soviets, Indians served under the Germans they were still racist. Chinese served under the Japanese (Wang Jing Wei) but millions of Chinese died fighting against Japan. There was also a wider Korean resistance movement AGAINST Japanese rule.

I am not Anti-Japanese, I like Japanese culture, but Japan has to come to terms with its Imperialist past. I don't think the flag can be compared to the hakenkreuz (it is an over reaction) but there is a reason why they object to the flag/what it symbolizes - you can't whitewash history as you are attempting to do.

RedKnight 1 (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

RedKnight1, it sounds like you're not here to build an encyclopedia. If you see your purpose here as being to undo the whitewashing of history or to make Japan "come to terms with its Imperialist past" then, sadly, you're not going to be allowed to edit, because that's not Wikipedia is for. You can't, for example, remove the sourced claim that the flag originated in the Meiji era. Now, you can continue this discussion, and we can even use dispute resolution if needed, but you have to stop reverting to your preferred version in the meantime. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

RedKnight1, you didn't answer my questions. Please answer them first.
Why did you remove "This flag was used as a flag that symbolizes good luck..."?
Why did you remove the images?
Why did you change the section title? Oda Mari (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In the Philippines

In the Philippines the term Rising Sun Flag is sometimes applied to the flag used by Gen. Pío del Pilar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.123.47 (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for that? If it's widely enough cited, and that other flag has an article, we could put a hatnote on this article. But if it doesn't have its own article, I'm not sure that there's much we can do here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

new suitable section

I'm from User_talk:Oda_Mari#Rising_Sun_Flag.Oda_mari write "unsuitable for the section" and "small size". So, I make a new suitable section(more large size). My pictures are useful to reinforce the text "sometimes seen at sporting events". --Seisato (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Seisato. The pictures are large enough. The problem with the first picture is that it has too many flags. It is confusing as an example, because it is hard to find the rising sun. The second one doesn't work because it is an animated slideshow. Slideshows are not used on Wikipedia very much. Animated images should only be used sometimes, this is not the right place. The 2nd and 3nd images in the slideshow are good. Please upload those without the animation. I think that one of those would be a good example of the flag at a sporting event. Grayfell (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me the reason why gif animation is banned. "not very much?" is no reason.Graphics_Interchange_Format is used in wikipedia.It does work fine in my browsers(IE,Fx).I think it's your problem. no reason.--Seisato (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a 3.3 megabyte 5-frame image which would be much, much easier to understand as a separate gallery, not a slideshow. It's going to be a slow and inconsistent on slower platforms and on mobile. It's not worth the hassle. By saying 'not very much' I was trying to be polite. Slideshow of images like the one you uploaded not used on English Wikipedia. Like I said, the 2nd or 3rd frames of the image would be better. Per MOS:IMAGES GIFs should be the size that they are intended to be displayed, but at that res, the rising sun flags are too hard to see. There are also MOS:ACCESS issues for those with disabilities. In general, we try to give readers more control over their viewing and reading patterns. Forcing readers to wait for the animation to cycle through to even have a hope of understanding what their looking at is not consistent with that goal. Two editors have reverted, so please discuss on this talk page rather than WP:EDITWARing. Grayfell (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

NOT 3.3 megabyte BUT 83.79 KB! You must watch the image.You should stop making false charge. You must show clear evidence of banning. --Seisato (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell. Because of the other bigger flags, the first one is like Where's Wally?. It's a very bad example. The second one is undue weight on the Asahi Shimbun. The Asahi flag is already used in the article. The new section is not needed. Besides, Seisato, you are the uploader of the images. I think it's inappropriate to push your own images as you cannot be objective. It also could be WP:COI. Leave them to other users to use them or not. Oda Mari (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

fix on misquote

My fix on the misquote here[10] was removed by User talk:Oda Mari because according to him, it "appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder." Anyone has a clue on what's talking about? --Winstonlighter (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It was not a 'misquote'. You directly copied content from the source [11] with very little modification. That is a violation of WP:COPYVIO. Oda Mari was right to revert you, because this is a policy Wikipedia takes very seriously. Write things using your own words, and don't do that again, please.

In addition, the comparison with the Nazi flag needs much better sourcing before being added. It's far from a straightforward comparison. Throwing it in the article like it's no big deal is not really productive. If there are sources making that comparison (not just in passing, like the Independent one) than let's discuss that on this talk page. Grayfell (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The original source [12] didn't mention "strong ant-japanese" which is, however, added to the wiki page. I think there's a very obvious difference between the meaning of "victims of Japanese aggression" (original source) and "strong anti-japan sentiment" (a made-up quote from the source". Rephrasing is needed to avoid copyright issue, but if you really quote this, don't go too far by putting the words into the author's mouth and added something he didn't say. The case that a Japanese supermarket owner who burned the flag faced death threat is not included in this edition because I'm quite curious what you really refer to when you talked about the copyright issue. You talked about the supermarket case, or the article of columbiatribune.com? --Winstonlighter (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The copyright issue is just what I said: you directly copied content from the source. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

I'm not opposed to including the supermarket incident, but it needs to be given due weight. The flag has a long history, and if this one incident is going to be presented as an example, it needs to be sourced as such. If it's just given as one incident, that's more complicated. I think it should be summarized and given a bit more context. Ideally, more sources would be included to establish that the event is useful in understanding the flag's history as a whole. Explain why he burned it and such. The Independent article is from 1992, presumably the trial is over and an actual verdict can be mentioned too, right? Even then, it needs to be written in a WP:NPOV way.

You also added that the flag's use on fishing boats is controversial. No doubt it is, but a statement like that needs a source, and some indication of why it's controversial. Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright should be respected but not an excuse to infiltrate your own made-up words into the article. I don't know how to make it any clearer how misleading it is in the previous version, when an editor [[User:Oda Mari] reverted the fix and saw the phrase "strong anti-japan sentiments specially China and Korea" as the synonym as "victims of aggression, including China and Korean". The latter one is the exact phrase used in the cited source, but it should be kept, instead of putting your own opinion under the name of other sources. --Winstonlighter (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember that neither I nor Oda Mari were the ones who originally added that phrase. You made several significant changes to the article which introduced WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO problems. Don't get too surprised when that edit is reverted, rather than carefully modified to accommodate a point that wasn't all that clear (at least to me). This is why I suggested taking it to the talk page. By explaining it here, now I understand what you're talking about.

The source's exact wording was a simplification of a complex issue as part of a news story about specific events. Anti-Japanese sentiment and Japanese war crimes are both fairly extreme ends of a spectrum. Of the two options, I agree with your use of the war crimes one, as it seems more specifically tied to why the flag is considered offensive. I'm open to the possibility that might be a better way to explain it, though. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "Asahi"

I think it's a good idea to mention the usage of the design by Asahi Shimbun and Asahi Breweries, but I think it might need more context. Otherwise, it might suggest the possibility that there is a political reason for their use of the flags. Maybe I'm missing something, but Asahi (wikt:あさひ) means "morning sun" which is a simple explanation for what might otherwise be a confusing issue. I'm not going to add it, because I'm not confident that it isn't more complicated then that, but I thought I'd mention it. Grayfell (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the beer cans shown in the photo, I do not see any connection to the flag topic whatsoever. As stated, the name of the beer or beer company is "Morning Sun," plus the name of Japan itself in Japanese means "Sun Origin" or "Sun Source" or "place where the sun rises." Use of the basic rising sun motif on Japanese products -- without any rectangular flag shape present -- should not be interpreted as necessarily alluding to the militaristic "rising sun" flag. They may refer directly to the Japanese nation, or in this case to a brand of beer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.20.170 (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Point of the drawing of Koreans holding the Rising sun flag?

Illustration being discussed

What's the point of the drawing? No sources are mentioned and for all we can know, this can be propaganda. Putting this picture is illogical and unreasonable as posting just pictures of Japanese troops commiting atoricities while holding the Rising Sun Flag. It gets this article no where but only shows clear intentions of anti-Japanese and anti-Korean sentiment.

Woo1693 (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. The image is described at Commons: Commons:File:Chinese anti-Japanese poster published after the revenge by Koreans.jpg (Description: 鮮人報復事件によつて支那の發行せる排日ポスター。倭奴嗾使鮮人惨殺我同胞之血痕). It's from 1931 or 1932, and is an interesting historical illustration, but the flag is not that prominent, and much more context, with reliable sources, would be needed in order to explain the illustration. Otherwise it's just too confusing, and has other problems, also. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I didn't want to remove it without letting people here know just because this issue was a controversial subject. My main point was whether if this was true or not, this throws the entire discussion into confusion and it isn't just worth bringing it up. Not to mention that this picture will likely stir the pot. I am interested in the story behind this drawing but obviously this drawing offers little to the discussion other than creating problems. Woo1693 (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: I found the source, well according the wikipedia. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wanpaoshan_Incident if this is true; there is not point of using this drawing as the article clearly lists that there were heavy propaganda uses on both sides. Also, this incident was prior to WW2 and the Second Sino-Japanese War, where most of the criticism fo the Rising Sun Flag came from. Woo1693 (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the "although Koreans fought under the Japanese flag..." edit

I am not sure if this explanation is needed, if it is, I believe it needs to have some context in it as well. Many Koreans were conscripted; Koreans who volunteered are actually shunned in Korean society as "collaborators". Hong Sa-Ik, Park Chung-Hee are all listed under the list of "collaborators" during the Japanese rule. Although obviously not all Koreans are behemently against the utilization of the Rising Sun Flag, I believe that in this section, the Korean view is represented the by the Korean public's view. The Korean public do not look kindly on people who voluntarily fought in the Japanese military. There should be some explanation on this as the article right now just seems as the Koreans being hypocritical. There is a lot more context behind this. Woo1693 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Woo1693: It does not even make sense and is further unsourced. The sentence sounds like there was a contradiction. But that's not the case. --Christian140 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I added the sentence because the description "Due to the flag being used by the Imperial Japanese military and Japan's actions during World War II, many Koreans and Chinese people find the flag to be offensive" shows as if Koreans fought against the Imperial Japanese military during the WWII as Chinese did. The reason does not make sense for Koreans.

The sentence says nothing extraordinary. I linked to relevant articles.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Leaving the sentence does not make it sound like this. Korea was a Japanese colony and therefore, they had to fight under Japan. Still, there was the Korean independence movement. There is not contradiction since Korea was oppresed by Japan. --Christian140 (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It is better written in the lede, although the list of countries is quite random since the flag can be seen generally as a symbol of imperialism. Moreover, the most affected country, Japan, is even missing in the list. However, Yamaguchi (2013), Mangan et al. (2013), and Oe & Sontag (1999) seem to suggest that it is a symbol of imperialism in Japan and highly controversial. --Christian140 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits by ‎49.172.16.101

The description Korean reactions to the rising sun flag stem from the complicating emotion of excessive nationalism and nationalistic complex toward Japan is apparently an analysis of Korean behaviors. Also challenging only a word analysis does not permit to remove the whole text sourced by a reliable source. As for war crime, The definition of war crime is “War crimes” refers to criminal actions taken against the soldiers or civilians of another country rather than against the defendant’s fellow citizens.[13] Koreans were Japanese citizens during the WWII. So war crime does not apply to any crimes toward Korean people.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Rising sun flag#Similar flags

I see that you restored the "Similar flags" section that I removed some months ago, but you did not give any reason. In my opinion, the section is just a subjective list that is not based on any sources and therefore constitutes original research. Please see also the discussion at Talk:Flag#RfC about section "Similar flags" and the conclusion there: "the section shall be kept if it is possible to restrict them to rigorously sourced groupings that have some sort of strong logical explanation as to the similarities". Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The RFC is surprisingly scarce so it is not appropriate to extend the RFC to other article than Flag. If you wish to remove the section of other article, more extensive discussions are required. Flag of the United States#Similar flags has many flags but there are sources for only three flags. If you successfully removed the unsourced flags of the article, I am willing to consent to removing the section of Rising sun flag. Until then, the section should be stayed there.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Here. It has actually been on my to do-list for a while. Thanks for giving me a push! --T*U (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Phoenix7777 I am glad that you have removed some of the more dubious "similarities". The new title is also a clear improvement. It now seems quite probable that all these flags actually are based on the idea of sun rays, although I still think that it ought to be sourced. Anyway, good work! Regards! --T*U (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced contents

Recently User:Xeina Lynn and User:62.24.16.22 removed sourced contents. Although I don't think current translation is incorrect, if you think the translation is incorrect, please discuss here to improve the translation instead of removing the whole sentence.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

User:211.219.32.194 removed the description with an edit summary "the description added above lacks reason to be added in the context in the paragraph / description shows logically faulty generalizing attempts"). There is a reason to be added because the source describes it in the context of the Korean reactions to the Rising Sun Flag. If you think the "description shows logically faulty generalizing attempts", please discuss how it is faulty with a reliable source not your personal opinion.―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

Remove/replace a misleading/offensive sentence in "Issues regarding the flag in China and South Korea"

Please remove the last sentence of the "Issues regarding the flag in China and South Korea":

An analysis indicates that Korean reactions to the rising sun flag stem from the complicating emotion of excessive nationalism and nationalistic complex toward Japan.

and add the following analysis:

Koreans often compare the rising sun flag with the Nazi flag and perceive the continued use of it as a signal to not admitting the past war crimes of a previous imperial government.

The original sentence misinterprets its reference (http://news.hankyung.com/society/2017/06/06/2017060654991). The referred article talks about the reactions to a logo that happened to resemble the rising sun flag, not the reactions to the rising sun flag itself. And, even that view (especially the cited wording) is not accepted by the most of the people. It is very inappropriate to put this misleading, opinionated, and offensive sentence ("nationalistic complex towards Japan") in the main article.

Instead, we need a better analysis on why Korean and Chinese people have emotional reactions to the flag. I understand that equating the rising sun flag with the Nazi flag can be arguable because the rising sun flag has a longer history before WWII, and it is (unfortunately) a current official navy flag of Japan. However, it is important to note the fact that many Koreans equate them and feel that the two flags are not fairly treated. Another reason behind the emotional reaction is because Koreans and Chinese perceive it as a signal for the Japanese right wing movement that does not admit their past war crimes.

I believe that it is important to explain where they are coming from to provide a balanced view to the reader. That is why I suggest the new paragraph. Zuwhan (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

References

 Done ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 19:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Problems with "Controversy" section

Certain editors appear to be using this section as a vehicle to digress into details about war crimes. Unfortunately none of the numerous sources provided actually discusses the rising flag or its "controversy".
Secondly, there seems to be some confusion between the "Rising Sun" flag, which this article is about, and the "Hinomaru" flag, which is what the 1999 Guardian newspaper articles are discussing. If reliable sourcing cannot be added, problematic statements will be removed. --DAJF (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ki Sung-Yueng used this flag for the excuse of the criticism to racial discrimination for Japanese with 'monkey' celebration for South Korea in 2011 AFC Asian Cup semi-final with Japan even though there is no Rising Sun Flag in the stadium. After that South Korea is claiming it with advertising as if this flag is associated with Japanese militarism and [[Ja panese imperialism|imperialism]], for their patriotism.

Recently, the Korean group(일본전범기퇴출시민모임＝Society for the Abolition of Japanese War Climinal Flag in English) have started campaign for the abolition of the rising sun flag in N.Y.

In Japan, Rising Sun is the major design from old days. It is appears on commercial product labels, such as on the cans of one variety of Asahi Breweries lager beer. The design is also incorporated into the flag of the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun as well as banners called Tairy?-ki (大漁旗, Good Catch Flag) flown by fishermen. The flag is sometimes seen with the football club's supporters in the stadium wore red, the team color such as Urawa Red Diamonds, and at an official ceremony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Natsuv3 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure whether I am supposed to point out the problem of the controversy section here, but please excuse my mistake if I am making one. The last part of 'controversy' section includes the contents of the Korean newspaper called "Maeil Business Newspaper" saying that "A Korean newspaper Maeil Business Newspaper raised a question..." But this is completely misleading as the page linked is simply an opinion of a single man. If you can read Korean, you'll easily find out that the content of the linked page is simply a piece of the opinion from a single researcher at Asan policy research center, not what the whole newspaper. But the sentence completely misleads giving the impression that whole newspaper is making a statement. Correction needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.39.177.67 (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• １０Ｄ：車両部隊による観閲行進 R イベント・行事・広報活動等 37.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NPOV Arguing

I've tried to clean up the problematic dumped text in the Controversy section. Seems like text and material were just dumped on here in response to the recent Japan pullout from the international fleet review at Jeju, South Korea. Besides the obvious NPOV issue, the section uses references that do not support the claimed text, and contains heavy editor syntheis. I'm not sure who added this but wikipedia section is not a place to write your research paper to include editor opinion in the article. I tried to remove the problematic section which was reverted. I tried to clean it up in piece meal by moving the useful bits such as historical info to beginning portions of the article; bits about contemporary use to section that lists that info; etc. I also included updated info regarding the recent news regarding the fleet review incident.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, good of you to make an effort to clean that up - it's what brought me here to the talk page as well. I'm afraid there's still work to do (not looked into the articles history yet though, so no idea if /how much of your changes might have been undone. I'll have a look by here again later. Regards 5.56.244.141 (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Same here, NPOV in this whole article seems to still be a big issue. Maybe start a rewrite of the controversy paragraph and give a chronological overview of controversies? RegardsSeovin (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"Excessive nationalism" and "Nationalistic complex towards Japan" statement

I removed what I perceived to be a clearly biased passage in the article that read as follows: "An analysis indicates that Korean reactions to the rising sun flag stem from the complicating emotion of excessive nationalism and nationalistic complex toward Japan." Not only is this sentence grammatically incorrect, but it paints a one-sided narrative that over-simplifies the issue without providing context. BlackRanger88 (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, while I cannot read Korean (the language of the source material), the article appears to be talking about a hamburger (?), not the overall Rising Sun Flag controversy. If so, using this source as a supposed "analysis" of the controversy surrounding the Rising Sun flag is intellectually dishonest and misleading. BlackRanger88 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

"while I cannot read Korean" - then don't try to comment on the accuracy of the source. WP:NONENG. "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with the content. The translation of the title itself indicates that the source's primary topic is a hamburger wrapping. That was not my own interpretation, but rather part of the translation provided by the individual who added the passage in the first place. Either present the source at face value, something along the lines of, "A controversy in South Korea surrounding a hamburger wrapping resembling the Rising Sun Flag led to an opinion that....", rather than claiming that the source represents "an analysis" of the Rising Sun Flag controversy as a whole - which is blatantly false. BlackRanger88 (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

And without reading Korean you have no idea what else was said, so you are not qualified to comment on the source. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The source deals with the comments of Professor Emeritus Professor Lee Young-hun of Seoul National University and Professor Park Yoo-ha, so it seems very relevant. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

One or two comments does not equal "an analysis", i.e. a detailed examination of the elements or structure of the topic. You don't seem to comprehend that point, sadly. I've obtained a translation and will adjust the article material accordingly. BlackRanger88 (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

User:-revi failed to translate "복잡한 정서가..." (complicating emotion of ...). So current translation is the best. It is a psychological analysis of Korean reactions by the Korea Economic Daily compiled from analyses by a cultural critic and Professor Lee Young-hoon.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't falsely accuse me of deceiving anyone. I used the translation given in the link above.

Translation given in the link: "Rising Sun Flag controversy, which occurs once in a while, starts from excessive nationalism and nationalistic complex. … As always, rising sun flag issue is some sort of ‘complex’ against Japan".

Passage I included: "One opinion cites that the controversies surrounding the Rising Sun Flag, which occur once in a while, begin from excessive nationalism and some sort of ‘complex’ against Japan".

Please explain how that is "deceptive". If you cannot, don't resort to baseless accusations. BlackRanger88 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

While we're on that topic, please go ahead and show me where the article mentions a "psychological analysis" as you claim. This would be a constructive way to address the dispute. BlackRanger88 (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted that you posted a wrong translation despite you already got a message that current translation is correct. I retracted the claim.

As for the psychological analysis, I don't know whether you are familiar with psychology, it analyzes human behavior and mind. Nationalism[14][15] and complex are major topic of psychology. "A person's behavior stems from the complicated emotion of nationalism and complex" is nothing other than a psychological analysis. The article says "Professor Lee Young-hoon diagnosed (진단했다) ...".

The word "Rising Sun Flag controversy" (욱일기 논란) is used in a context after explaining various examples (a total of 11 examples including the hamburger wrapping) of "Korean reactions to the Rising Sun Flag", it is inappropriate to use abruptly in this article.

Although -revi dropped some words "complicated emotion of ..." (복잡한 정서가...), -revi confirmed his translation is "similar" to current translation. So there is no reason to change current sentence. Anyway I will not discuss the translation of Korean text with a person who cannot read Korean anymore.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Unless Blackranger has any new information, then I consider this matter closed. Enough time has been wasted on him disputing something that he can't read. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll admit I did some mistake (I over-simplified that part, yes.), but I have to agree with rest of people that current translation is not problematic. — regards, Revi 13:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This is my first time to participate in talk page. So please excuse my mistakes editing this. Regarding the 'excessive nationalism' and 'nationalistic complex towards Japan", the source cites the opinion of Prof. Lee Yong-hoon. In fact, his whole point of view on Korean modern history is extremely controversial in South Korea. I am not trying to say his opinion is therefore wrong, but what is written in the text simply says "an analysis indicates..." and this can give false impression that such analysis is done by an objective scholar or is a mainstream opinion of the academia. There should be a change into "Some scholars argue..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.39.177.67 (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know where to start here, but regardless of what the source article says, the information has not been put into the article in the right manner. See especially the point in the section below NPOV rewrite, that putting together different pieces of information in a new manner (ie syntesis) is not something that should be done. In general I also agree with the comment above mine, that the information has been presented in a misleading manner. 5.56.244.141 (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The sentence cited, "툭하면 터지는 욱일기 논란은 과도한 민족주의와 민족주의적 콤플렉스라는 복잡한 정서가 출발점이다," would be translated to "The starting point for analysing the often eruption of controversy surrounding the Japanese rising flag is the complex emotions based on an overt amount of ethnicism and nationalistic complex." Placing this sentence out of the context of the article and presenting it as an analysis is very misleading indeed. Suggest removing this sentence. Seovin (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"Excessive nationalism" and "Nationalistic complex towards Japan" seems biased against Koreans. A rather more acceptable explanation for their feelings toward the flag may be that they were subject to numerous war crimes committed by the IJA and other occupying forces. Since many KLA soldiers also died in the Second Japanese War, and since many Koreans believe that Japan has not done enough to admit mistakes, it is obvious why they have strong feelings towards the rising sun flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1C0C:C3F6:F9AD:7D4D:91BD:E470 (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit War

I am new to wikipedia, so forgive my mistakes. It seems as though much of this page is biased, either in favor of the former Allied powers, or the Japanese Empire. Calling South Korea "excessively nationalist," seems to be an odd statement with no proof, as many war crimes were committed in Korea during WWII. Little has been done to address Chinese views towards the flag, which has been caused by the massacres in Nanjing. It would likely be best if we added separate Japanese and Chinese/Korean view sections, so we get an adequate argument on both sides. The "criticism," section is clearly very one-sided, yet also doesn't solidly explain the history and honor the rising sun flag represents to Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1C0C:C3F6:F9AD:7D4D:91BD:E470 (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Flag name change

Please update the name to North Macedonia in the other flags with sun rays section. Thank you.

 Done {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Other flags with sun rays

It appears the issue has been discussed before, but I don't see how the "Other flags with sun rays" section improves this article. There's no indication that any of those flags were influenced by the Japanese version (or vice versa). This is not a "Sun rays in vexillology" article but an article specifically about the Japanese "Rising Sun Flag". The section is unsourced and has been tagged as OR for more than a year, but even if there were sources stating that each of those flags indeed shows sun rays, it would still be off-topic for this article. I'm going to remove it, and if someone intends to re-add it, I'd ask them to explain how it is relevant to the topic of this article and improves our readers' understanding of the article's topic. Huon (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2019

Section: Contentiousness, 3rd paragraph:

An analysis indicates that South Korean reactions to the Rising Sun Flag stem from a complicated mixture of emotional, excessive nationalism, and a nationalistic complex towards Japan.[33]

Link to reference 33 (https://www.hankyung.com/society/article/2017060654991) does not support the paraphrase mentioned above. This is a mis citation and the the following should be deleted from this article.

DELETE An analysis indicates that South Korean reactions to the Rising Sun Flag stem from a complicated mixture of emotional, excessive nationalism, and a nationalistic complex towards Japan Matthewjae (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I don't speak a word of Korean, so I shall try to find someone who can, so they answer your request. Willbb234 (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It does appear to be supported by the source. Specifically the section 툭하면 터지는 욱일기 논란은 과도한 민족주의와 민족주의적 콤플렉스라는 복잡한 정서가 출발점이다. 한 문화비평가는 “대게 문양에서 욱일기를 연상하는 건 난센스”라며 “민족주의에 경도된 빗나간 혐일”이라고 말했다. 이영훈 서울대 명예교수는 “늘 그렇듯 욱일기 논란도 일본에 대해 갖고 있는 일종의 콤플렉스 기제의 작동”이라고 진단했다. Now if that has enough weight for this article or that kind of thing I cannot say. PackMecEng (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The article said that South Koreans' negative reactions to 'similar patterns with Rising Sun Flag' stem from excessive nationalism. They didn't mention the reactions to Rising Sun Flag itself. So it is a miscitation. Those part should be deleted. Similartothe (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

First of all, even the direct translation of the phrase on the article wouldn't be the phrase on Wikipedia, so that is wrong. In addition, the article is written by someone who is obviously biased. The article itself is not valid to be cited because it can be manipulative for people who don't have much information about this topic. Also, the article is not about nationalism in Korea and mentioned the word in one sentence throughout the whole article. It is almost stupid to say something about nationalism and cite this article as a reference. The person who wrote the article is not even an analyst but the person who wrote this phrase on Wikipedia is being deceptive. It seems clear to me that the person who wrote this phrase just wanted to add certain phrases, making the information biased and googled the keywords without considering the content of article he/she is going to cite.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

24.46.149.178 (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please include the fact that 8 million ~ 12 million innocent people have died under that flag from Japanese soldiers for them to gain more territory and money. Over in Asian countries, it is treated like the Nazi flag and it is a symbol of Japan-rule-the-whole-Asia and 8 ~ 12 million killings Japanese people caused.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Awesome Aasim 05:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Near Repetition of a Paragraph

Under the section "History and Design," paragraph 2

The Rising Sun Flag (旭日旗 Kyokujitsu-ki) has been used as a traditional national symbol of Japan since the Edo period (1603 CE).[1] It is featured in antique artwork such as ukiyo-e prints through history. Such as the "Lucky Gods' visit to Enoshima", ukiyo-e print by Utagawa Yoshiiku in 1869 and "One Hundred Views of Osaka, Three Great Bridges", ukiyo-e print by Utagawa Kunikazu in 1854. The Fujiyama Tea Co. used it as a wooden box label of Japanese tea (green tea) for export in the Meiji period / Taisho period (1880s).[6]

is almost identical to paragraph 5

The Rising Sun Flag has been used as a traditional national symbol of Japan since at least the Edo period (1603 CE).[1] It has been used in many ukiyo-e prints through history. For example the "Lucky Gods' visit to Enoshima", ukiyo-e print by Utagawa Yoshiiku in 1869 and "One Hundred Views of Osaka, Three Great Bridges", ukiyo-e print by Utagawa Kunikazu in 1854. The Fujiyama Tea Co. used it as a wooden box label of Japanese tea (green tea) for export in the Meiji period / Taisho period (1880s).[6]

I am requesting that paragraph 5 be deleted.

68.35.226.170 (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! NiciVampireHeart 21:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2019

The entire Criticism of Usage is extremely biased. It promotes a very narrow and one sided view, and I believe it should be modified to be more neutral. The tone can certainly be worked on, or alternatively, the section should be removed entirely if a non-political stance cannot be properly written. However, I suggest the former. Edward hahm (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific, precise edits, not general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2019

The entire Criticism of Usage is extremely biased. It promotes a very narrow and one sided view, and I believe it should be modified to be more neutral. I believe the article should go as written:

Due to the flag being used by the Imperial Japanese military and Japan's actions during World War II, it is offensive in East Asia, particularly in South Korea,[16][17][18] which was formerly ruled under Japan, and China.[19][20] Some World War II veteran groups in the United States have also campaigned against its use.[21] The symbol is associated with Japanese imperialism in the early 20th century[16][17][18][19][22][23][24] because of its use by Japan's military forces during that period.

South Korea hosted a navy fleet review at Jeju Island on October 10 to 14, 2018. South Korea requested all participating countries to display only their national flags and the South Korean flag on their vessels. Japan balked at the demand, with the then-Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera, since replaced, claiming the display of the Rising Sun Flag should be mandatory under Japanese law. South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha urged Japan to be more considerate about Japan's former rule of the Korean Peninsula and stated that her ministry will review "possible and appropriate options" before deciding to take stronger international actions when asked whether South Korea could raise the issue with the United Nations.[25] Japan announced on October 5, 2018, that it will be withdrawing from the fleet review because it could not accept Seoul's request to remove the Rising Sun Flag. Defense Minister notified the South Korean government of its decision. Both nations reiterated the need for continued defense cooperation.[26] When the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) was established in 1954, it adopted the Rising Sun Flag (Kyokujitsu-ki) as its ensign to show the nationality of its ships. It was approved by GHQ/SCAP. On 28 September 2018 an official of Japan's Ministry of Defense said that the South Korean navy's request lacks common sense and that they would not partake in a fleet review, since no country would follow such a request.[27] On October 6, 2018, JSDF Chief of Staff Katsutoshi Kawano said the Rising Sun Flag is the Maritime Self-Defense Force sailors' "pride" and that the JMSDF would absolutely not go if they had to remove the flag.[14][28]

The South Korean parliamentary committee for sports asked the organizers of 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo to ban the Rising Sun flag. According to Korean lawmaker An Min-suk, it could not be a peace Olymics with the flag in the stadium. The organizers refused to ban the flag from venues.[40][41] In September 2019, the Chinese Civil Association for Claiming Compensation from Japan sent a letter to the International Olympic Committee in order to ban the flag.[42]

Edward hahm (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward hahm (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

can you erase the china in "Korea was ruled by Japan and china"? I am requesting this because Korea was never ruled by China. please be careful of what you write in here, as people get the wrong information and think differently. can you erase the china in "Korea was ruled by Japan and china"? I am requesting this because Korea was never ruled by China. please be careful of what you write in here, as people get the wrong information and think differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qutyone (talk • contribs) 13:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

​Since the sentence included a comma, its meaning was "it is offensive in South Korea (which was ruled by Japan) and also offensive in China". I have switched the commas out to add clarity. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

Please remove the last sentence of paragraph 3 under "Criticism of Usage": "An analysis indicates that South Korean reactions to the Rising Sun Flag stem from a complicated mixture of emotional, excessive nationalism, and a nationalistic complex towards Japan.[33]" A Korean article criticizing a small number of people who claimed an image of a red crab as being similar to the Rising Sun Flag should not be considered "an analysis" of the broader South Korean reactions to the Rising Sun Flag itself. Yes, those people who "see" the Rising Sun Flag in things that aren't the actual flag is over-reactionary, just as "seeing" the Nazi symbol at a Buddhist temple could be similarly dismissed as such; however, people's negative reaction to the Rising Sun Flag itself should not be dismissed as caused by "excessive nationalism" or "nationalistic complex towards Japan". It's a justifiably righteous reaction towards an artifact from a terrible time in history. [33] = https://www.hankyung.com/society/article/2017060654991 Yeujin.kong (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done The sentence objected to here failed verification. I freely admit to using a machine translation for verifying the source given but even making the widest possible accommodation for that, it is clear that the article cited cannot be described as "an analysis" in any way, shape, or form. It is a popular news piece about reaction to a burger wrap, nothing more. To call it a "an analysis" gives it a veneer of academia and suggests a detailed look at the causes that are in actuality merely guessed at. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Further Neutrality

The article for the most part is well informed, but a few paragraphs under "Controversy" is skewed to one side of said controversy. If there's going to be additional explanations on behalf of the flag's use, there needs to be at least one additional explanation on the opposing side to balance it all.

This favored treatment only becomes blatantly obvious in this paragraph:

"Furthermore, if South Korea insists that national symbols that Japan used to invade neighboring countries (in the past) should not be used at all, then South Korea should also send objections to the use of for example the British flag and the tricolor French flag (Drapeau français), because these were traditionally used by the European countries during European colonialism, the first wave of European colonization (1415 to 1830 CE) and New Imperialism (late 19th and early 20th centuries).[49][50][neutrality is disputed]"

The little "(in the past)" included is almost comical. Also, commas should be used in "to the use of for example the" to become "to the use of, for example, the"

This paragraph isn't explicitly sited as an explanation made BY somebody of influence. It's just an extra explanation, period. This doesn't strike me as being neutral. This paragraph should either be omitted, OR have a counter right after. It's not enough to have a [neutrality is disputed] at the end of that spiel.

I was surprised to see that the common counter of "The British and French flags have not had any meaningful changes made since after WW2, whereas Japan did." was not included right after. To explain; since they haven't really changed, they are also associated globally with their nation and culture, not just for their war crimes and imperialism. However, Japan's rising sun flag was replaced after WW2, which is why several countries mostly associate it with their war crimes, which they have been first introduced to in not so great circumstances. Of course, the rising sun flag was still used BEFORE any world wars. It has its own historical culture attached to it that's NOT any empire propaganda. But it's natural for some to connect it to Japan's more militaristic past, since it has been altered since the end of that. The nation changed ideologically from being imperialistic, to being very peaceful, and the flag changed amidst that.

I own no personal bias on the flag growing up, as I both understand why some people think its use is perfectly harmless, and why others find it hurtful. But an addition to that paragraph should be made, or it should be deleted entirely. Such an addition would go something like this:

"Though, it is also noted that the British and French flags did not change after the end of WW2, whereas Japan's flag did. This could be part of the reason why some countries find the flag's use offensive. Due to the change, the design is more likely to be associated with the nation's war crimes."

It doesn't matter to me if Japan keeps using the rising sun flag all they want, but it does matter if a wikipedia article has needless bias in something that can be considered controversial to this day. It'll only cause more squabbling.

WW7Cookbook (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Why it x say the rising sun flag is represent war and violence?

Actually, the rising sun flag represent killing Koreans(same as Nachi flag)and war. Lizzycozy (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request

The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance and discussion through edit summaries will not suffice. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

January 2021

Information regarding the controversy should be included in the introduction paragraphs of this article. My attempts to do so has been completely reverted with little and illogical reasoning by XiAdonis [16] [17] If you have issue with the addition clearly state all your grievances here instead of coming up with an excuse for every revert you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayleks (talk • contribs)

I think it's quite reasonable to mention the controversy in a short summary within the lead section. STSC (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A controversy section exists in great detail already can you explain the worth in adding one to the lead? The issue of brevity that arises from this is only one part of the issue, the information you added was poorly sourced, you used a blog to support one sentence, and in one edit summary you used the global times, a deprecated source to support another claim which i questioned. If the content you are trying to add is incorrect or poorly sourced or if the content is redundant as it already exists on the page, then i don't think that is illogical.XiAdonis (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there is another problem with the use of reference. From a neutral point of view, it should be avoided to write Dudden's claim as a single truth. Contrary to Dudden's assertion, many Japanese believe that there is no problem with the use of the flag, so it has hardly become a social issue in Japan, and the flag is used in various situations. It should be written so that readers can clearly understand who is speaking out.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, XiAdonis. Pretty much every other language Wikipedia article includes this important context in the lede. RisingStar (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I should also add that I tried to be neutral in stating the objective fact that the flag is viewed very negatively in certain countries, and I only used reliable sources as evidence of this. RisingStar (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What other language wikis include in their articles is irrelevant. But a quick look showed there were a few that dont include that information in the lead. XiAdonis (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is that irrelevant? And which other languages don't include that? As far as I can tell, the Spanish, German, and French language Wikis all include it. RisingStar (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Because this is the English wikipedia not the Spanish or German one. How other wikis format their pages or decide what warrants inclusion has no bearing on the engligsh wiki, what standards they use for their pages and what guidelines they follow is unknown to me and likely to be different to the English one. The pages I found that didn't include a controversy section in the lead were the japanese, arabic, and indonesian ones I only looked at a few so there are likely more. XiAdonis (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, they may have slightly different policies, but they are still wikis with similar policies. Their decisions are not binding on the English article, but they are persuasive authorities and certainly not "irrelevant". The Arabic and Indonesian articles are very short and do not seem to deal with the controversy at all, so it would make sense that there is nothing in the lead related to it. I think we can agree that, due to the nature of the article and the controversy, the Japanese article is not a good persuasive authority in this case. RisingStar (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Other wikis are not persuasive authorities, regardless of where they stand on this. I was not attempting to make the argument that since some wikis don't include the content in the lead then we shouldn't either, i was only responding to your claim that "pretty much every" other page does. I dont think this line of argument should be pursued further, ironically though the korean wiki makes no mention of the controversy in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XiAdonis (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to an English wiki policy that says that the decisions of other wikis are irrelevant? If not, I don't see why they are not persuasive. RisingStar (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Because anyone can edit any page they want, as you said before quite alot of the nonenglish pages are quite small, how much scrutiny is being paid to them? Its literally anyones guess, if a discussion has been had and a consensus has been reached towards a certain position then sure that could be taken into account, but all youve presented is the pages themselves. XiAdonis (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This is why I looked at the three largest non-English wikis. If there have been no discussions there regarding this matter, the fact that there was no significant opposition that led to a discussion is a useful data point in and of itself. RisingStar (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The largest non english wiki is the japanese one. Compared to the Japanese one all pages including the english one are fairly small. This isn't a credible argument but you seem to think it is so i've looked and the German wiki page has only had 3 edits in 2020 and 2.444 page views in the last 30 days, that is not an active page im sure i can remove that section from the lead and it likely wont be changed back. The spanish one also does not seem to be frequently edited and only has 3539 page views in the last 30 days compared to 38,964 for the english one. French has 1 622 page views in 30 days. XiAdonis (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the size of the entire wiki, not the article. RisingStar (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I will note that MOS:LEAD says "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" (emphasis mine). If the controversy is important enough to take up one-third of the text of the article, it seems fair to characterize it as "prominent". RisingStar (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Imo the "controversy" section is quite bloated and should be reduced by a few paragraphs but thats a different discussion. As this is a Japanese topic the information available in English is limited, the Japanese page is much much larger. This flag has no history or cultural significance in any english speaking country as such its reasonable that the "controversy" which has been promoted oversees heavily by south korea would constitute a disproportionate amount of the article compared to its importance. Further the claims against this flag are fringe and incorrect, attention should not disproportionately be paid to a single position simply because one side is making a lot of noise. XiAdonis (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In any case, the fact that this flag is considered offensive in the countries that are geographically closest to Japan is an important point that deserves to be included in the lead. RisingStar (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversial in 1 country, south korea(which is the result not of a genuine development but an artifical movement), an argument can be made for china but attitudes there are much more relaxed and it is not a government position to oppose the flag. It is not a widely held position in Asia including many other geographically close countries. XiAdonis (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean it's an "artificial movement"? The flag is genuinely considered offensive in South Korea (and presumably North Korea given their anti-Japan rhetoric, although for obvious reasons we don't have too much information about North Korea). The flag is considered notable enough due to its usage in one country (Japan), so it does not take all of the continent of Asia for the controversy to become notable enough. RisingStar (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean that before 2012 no one in south korea was "offended" by the flag its a social movement driven by the conflicts between the two countries. If it wasn't, there would be evidence that these feelings existed in south korea prior to this decade. Apart from opinion pieces and news stories covering south koreas complaints this is a non issue (or controversy), nothing major has happened as a result, it still is an internationally recognized flag by every country Japan has diplomatic relations with including south korea. I dont see how this warrants inclusion in the lead at all. XiAdonis (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, countries don't recognize flags; they recognize other countries. The fact that a country recognizes another does not mean that it approves of everything the other country does. Second of all, according to the main body of this article, this controversy was big enough to create multiple diplomatic incidents between Japan and South Korea. It doesn't matter how long this feeling has existed or whether you think it's legitimate—now that it exists and has resulted in multiple diplomatic incidents, it is important enough to be included in the lead. RisingStar (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

They do, the rising sun flag is recognized as the official flag of the maritime self defense forces of Japan. The "diplomatic incidents" can hardly be considered incidents, they are very minor and when you put them in the context of the range of disputes and tensions between the countries its just business as usual. Nothing has resulted as a result of the incidents. XiAdonis (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Recognized by whom? I agree that it is the official flag of the maritime self defense forces of Japan, but as far as I'm aware, countries do not officially recognize the flags of other countries. The diplomatic incidents are minor in the grand picture of Japan–South Korea relations, but in the context of this flag, it is a major one. This is why I'm advocating for including the controversy in the lead of this article, not Japan–South Korea relations. RisingStar (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Recognized by every single country who has diplomatic relations with Japan. The incidents aren't major in regards to the flag at all they deserve a section in the article but to include them in the lead, there would have to be some significant effect or result but absolutely nothing has happened other than some complaints by korean people on social media and some opinion pieces written by korean authors over the flag. The diplomatic "incidents" are just the korean government requesting the JMSDF to not fly the flag on their vessels during a fleet review in the country and then Japan deciding not to participate in the fleet review, thats about as boring as a diplomatic incident can get. If offense to the flag were deep seated and had an actual history in the country then i could somewhat understand but this whole thing literally started this decade, historically there has been no problem with the flag anywhere in the world, 15 years from now there possibly could be no issue with the flag in korea. This is not a significant enough "controversy" to include in the lead. XiAdonis (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

By all means, you're welcome to translate the Japanese version into the English version. STSC (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thats not whats being talked about here. XiAdonis (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You said "the information available in English is limited, the Japanese page is much much larger". STSC (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This section of the talk page is about adding a section to the lead about the controversy surrounding the flag. I interpreted your comment as snarky sorry if it wasn't

Not at all. We all want to improve the article. STSC (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - The consensus has been reached by 3 to 1 to add a summary of the controversy to the lead. STSC (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

huh? you cant just unilaterally assert a consensus has been reached when none has been. Your 3 to 1 claim isn't even accurate. XiAdonis (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

For: Ayleks, RisingStar, STSC.

Against: XiAdonis

STSC (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You're missing a user. This isn't how things work anyways. XiAdonis (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User SLIMHANNYA is neutral, neither "for" nor "against". STSC (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

SLIMHANNYA was against the inclusion of a particular source and did not claim that the paragraph in question should not exist at all. Your childish attacks are not helping your cause here. RisingStar (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not neutral. I'm against writing misleading sentences at the top of the page. My opinion is that this issue is a political movement that began in South Korea in the 2010s and should not be misinterpreted as widely seen in Asia. And don't ignore my "Dudden's claims should not be described as objective facts." comment. Don't give too much weight to the opinions of some countries or people to mislead the reality. Also note that Wikipedia is not a majority decision.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed the citation to Dudden and clarified that the controversy mostly has to do with South Korea. As I mentioned above, the flag is notable for its usage in one country, so I believe a controversy involving mostly one other country is still notable. RisingStar (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. However, there is one more problem with Dudden. It is the last paragraph of the "Controversy" section. That paragraph is Dudden's assertion, and it should not be written in such a way that it is misunderstood as only one objective fact indicating the situation of Japanese society. Specifying the name of the person making the claim improves the objectivity of the description. The flag is used on a daily basis in Japan because the majority of Japanese people approve of its use.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. RisingStar (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. SLIMHANNYA (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Images

The images File:Naval ensign of the Empire of Japan.svg and File:Naval Ensign of Japan.svg are both included in the article. They very much appear to be the same except for a slight color difference. Are these actually different flags for different uses? Do we need to have both in the article or can the use be explained in text/caption? Mo Billings (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Information regarding the controversy should be included in the introduction paragraphs of this article. My attempts to do so has been completely reverted with little and illogical reasoning by XiAdonis [18] [19] If you have issue with the addition clearly state all your grievances here instead of coming up with an excuse for every revert you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayleks (talk • contribs)

I think it's quite reasonable to mention the controversy in a short summary within the lead section. STSC (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A controversy section exists in great detail already can you explain the worth in adding one to the lead? The issue of brevity that arises from this is only one part of the issue, the information you added was poorly sourced, you used a blog to support one sentence, and in one edit summary you used the global times, a deprecated source to support another claim which i questioned. If the content you are trying to add is incorrect or poorly sourced or if the content is redundant as it already exists on the page, then i don't think that is illogical.XiAdonis (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there is another problem with the use of reference. From a neutral point of view, it should be avoided to write Dudden's claim as a single truth. Contrary to Dudden's assertion, many Japanese believe that there is no problem with the use of the flag, so it has hardly become a social issue in Japan, and the flag is used in various situations. It should be written so that readers can clearly understand who is speaking out.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, XiAdonis. Pretty much every other language Wikipedia article includes this important context in the lede. RisingStar (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I should also add that I tried to be neutral in stating the objective fact that the flag is viewed very negatively in certain countries, and I only used reliable sources as evidence of this. RisingStar (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What other language wikis include in their articles is irrelevant. But a quick look showed there were a few that dont include that information in the lead. XiAdonis (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is that irrelevant? And which other languages don't include that? As far as I can tell, the Spanish, German, and French language Wikis all include it. RisingStar (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Because this is the English wikipedia not the Spanish or German one. How other wikis format their pages or decide what warrants inclusion has no bearing on the engligsh wiki, what standards they use for their pages and what guidelines they follow is unknown to me and likely to be different to the English one. The pages I found that didn't include a controversy section in the lead were the japanese, arabic, and indonesian ones I only looked at a few so there are likely more. XiAdonis (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, they may have slightly different policies, but they are still wikis with similar policies. Their decisions are not binding on the English article, but they are persuasive authorities and certainly not "irrelevant". The Arabic and Indonesian articles are very short and do not seem to deal with the controversy at all, so it would make sense that there is nothing in the lead related to it. I think we can agree that, due to the nature of the article and the controversy, the Japanese article is not a good persuasive authority in this case. RisingStar (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Other wikis are not persuasive authorities, regardless of where they stand on this. I was not attempting to make the argument that since some wikis don't include the content in the lead then we shouldn't either, i was only responding to your claim that "pretty much every" other page does. I dont think this line of argument should be pursued further, ironically though the korean wiki makes no mention of the controversy in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XiAdonis (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to an English wiki policy that says that the decisions of other wikis are irrelevant? If not, I don't see why they are not persuasive. RisingStar (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Because anyone can edit any page they want, as you said before quite alot of the nonenglish pages are quite small, how much scrutiny is being paid to them? Its literally anyones guess, if a discussion has been had and a consensus has been reached towards a certain position then sure that could be taken into account, but all youve presented is the pages themselves. XiAdonis (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This is why I looked at the three largest non-English wikis. If there have been no discussions there regarding this matter, the fact that there was no significant opposition that led to a discussion is a useful data point in and of itself. RisingStar (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The largest non english wiki is the japanese one. Compared to the Japanese one all pages including the english one are fairly small. This isn't a credible argument but you seem to think it is so i've looked and the German wiki page has only had 3 edits in 2020 and 2.444 page views in the last 30 days, that is not an active page im sure i can remove that section from the lead and it likely wont be changed back. The spanish one also does not seem to be frequently edited and only has 3539 page views in the last 30 days compared to 38,964 for the english one. French has 1 622 page views in 30 days. XiAdonis (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the size of the entire wiki, not the article. RisingStar (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I will note that MOS:LEAD says "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" (emphasis mine). If the controversy is important enough to take up one-third of the text of the article, it seems fair to characterize it as "prominent". RisingStar (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Imo the "controversy" section is quite bloated and should be reduced by a few paragraphs but thats a different discussion. As this is a Japanese topic the information available in English is limited, the Japanese page is much much larger. This flag has no history or cultural significance in any english speaking country as such its reasonable that the "controversy" which has been promoted oversees heavily by south korea would constitute a disproportionate amount of the article compared to its importance. Further the claims against this flag are fringe and incorrect, attention should not disproportionately be paid to a single position simply because one side is making a lot of noise. XiAdonis (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In any case, the fact that this flag is considered offensive in the countries that are geographically closest to Japan is an important point that deserves to be included in the lead. RisingStar (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversial in 1 country, south korea(which is the result not of a genuine development but an artifical movement), an argument can be made for china but attitudes there are much more relaxed and it is not a government position to oppose the flag. It is not a widely held position in Asia including many other geographically close countries. XiAdonis (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean it's an "artificial movement"? The flag is genuinely considered offensive in South Korea (and presumably North Korea given their anti-Japan rhetoric, although for obvious reasons we don't have too much information about North Korea). The flag is considered notable enough due to its usage in one country (Japan), so it does not take all of the continent of Asia for the controversy to become notable enough. RisingStar (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean that before 2012 no one in south korea was "offended" by the flag its a social movement driven by the conflicts between the two countries. If it wasn't, there would be evidence that these feelings existed in south korea prior to this decade. Apart from opinion pieces and news stories covering south koreas complaints this is a non issue (or controversy), nothing major has happened as a result, it still is an internationally recognized flag by every country Japan has diplomatic relations with including south korea. I dont see how this warrants inclusion in the lead at all. XiAdonis (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, countries don't recognize flags; they recognize other countries. The fact that a country recognizes another does not mean that it approves of everything the other country does. Second of all, according to the main body of this article, this controversy was big enough to create multiple diplomatic incidents between Japan and South Korea. It doesn't matter how long this feeling has existed or whether you think it's legitimate—now that it exists and has resulted in multiple diplomatic incidents, it is important enough to be included in the lead. RisingStar (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

They do, the rising sun flag is recognized as the official flag of the maritime self defense forces of Japan. The "diplomatic incidents" can hardly be considered incidents, they are very minor and when you put them in the context of the range of disputes and tensions between the countries its just business as usual. Nothing has resulted as a result of the incidents. XiAdonis (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Recognized by whom? I agree that it is the official flag of the maritime self defense forces of Japan, but as far as I'm aware, countries do not officially recognize the flags of other countries. The diplomatic incidents are minor in the grand picture of Japan–South Korea relations, but in the context of this flag, it is a major one. This is why I'm advocating for including the controversy in the lead of this article, not Japan–South Korea relations. RisingStar (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Recognized by every single country who has diplomatic relations with Japan. The incidents aren't major in regards to the flag at all they deserve a section in the article but to include them in the lead, there would have to be some significant effect or result but absolutely nothing has happened other than some complaints by korean people on social media and some opinion pieces written by korean authors over the flag. The diplomatic "incidents" are just the korean government requesting the JMSDF to not fly the flag on their vessels during a fleet review in the country and then Japan deciding not to participate in the fleet review, thats about as boring as a diplomatic incident can get. If offense to the flag were deep seated and had an actual history in the country then i could somewhat understand but this whole thing literally started this decade, historically there has been no problem with the flag anywhere in the world, 15 years from now there possibly could be no issue with the flag in korea. This is not a significant enough "controversy" to include in the lead. XiAdonis (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

By all means, you're welcome to translate the Japanese version into the English version. STSC (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thats not whats being talked about here. XiAdonis (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You said "the information available in English is limited, the Japanese page is much much larger". STSC (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This section of the talk page is about adding a section to the lead about the controversy surrounding the flag. I interpreted your comment as snarky sorry if it wasn't

Not at all. We all want to improve the article. STSC (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - The consensus has been reached by 3 to 1 to add a summary of the controversy to the lead. STSC (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

huh? you cant just unilaterally assert a consensus has been reached when none has been. Your 3 to 1 claim isn't even accurate. XiAdonis (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

For: Ayleks, RisingStar, STSC.

Against: XiAdonis

STSC (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You're missing a user. This isn't how things work anyways. XiAdonis (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User SLIMHANNYA is neutral, neither "for" nor "against". STSC (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

SLIMHANNYA was against the inclusion of a particular source and did not claim that the paragraph in question should not exist at all. Your childish attacks are not helping your cause here. RisingStar (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not neutral. I'm against writing misleading sentences at the top of the page. My opinion is that this issue is a political movement that began in South Korea in the 2010s and should not be misinterpreted as widely seen in Asia. And don't ignore my "Dudden's claims should not be described as objective facts." comment. Don't give too much weight to the opinions of some countries or people to mislead the reality. Also note that Wikipedia is not a majority decision.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed the citation to Dudden and clarified that the controversy mostly has to do with South Korea. As I mentioned above, the flag is notable for its usage in one country, so I believe a controversy involving mostly one other country is still notable. RisingStar (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. However, there is one more problem with Dudden. It is the last paragraph of the "Controversy" section. That paragraph is Dudden's assertion, and it should not be written in such a way that it is misunderstood as only one objective fact indicating the situation of Japanese society. Specifying the name of the person making the claim improves the objectivity of the description. The flag is used on a daily basis in Japan because the majority of Japanese people approve of its use.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. RisingStar (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. SLIMHANNYA (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - A summary of controversy of the flag has been in the lead from day one when the article was created. Please do not remove that longterm stable content without consensus. STSC (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Images

The images File:Naval ensign of the Empire of Japan.svg and File:Naval Ensign of Japan.svg are both included in the article. They very much appear to be the same except for a slight color difference. Are these actually different flags for different uses? Do we need to have both in the article or can the use be explained in text/caption? Mo Billings (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Information regarding the controversy should be included in the introduction paragraphs of this article. My attempts to do so has been completely reverted with little and illogical reasoning by XiAdonis [20] [21] If you have issue with the addition clearly state all your grievances here instead of coming up with an excuse for every revert you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayleks (talk • contribs)

I think it's quite reasonable to mention the controversy in a short summary within the lead section. STSC (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A controversy section exists in great detail already can you explain the worth in adding one to the lead? The issue of brevity that arises from this is only one part of the issue, the information you added was poorly sourced, you used a blog to support one sentence, and in one edit summary you used the global times, a deprecated source to support another claim which i questioned. If the content you are trying to add is incorrect or poorly sourced or if the content is redundant as it already exists on the page, then i don't think that is illogical.XiAdonis (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there is another problem with the use of reference. From a neutral point of view, it should be avoided to write Dudden's claim as a single truth. Contrary to Dudden's assertion, many Japanese believe that there is no problem with the use of the flag, so it has hardly become a social issue in Japan, and the flag is used in various situations. It should be written so that readers can clearly understand who is speaking out.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, XiAdonis. Pretty much every other language Wikipedia article includes this important context in the lede. RisingStar (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I should also add that I tried to be neutral in stating the objective fact that the flag is viewed very negatively in certain countries, and I only used reliable sources as evidence of this. RisingStar (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What other language wikis include in their articles is irrelevant. But a quick look showed there were a few that dont include that information in the lead. XiAdonis (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is that irrelevant? And which other languages don't include that? As far as I can tell, the Spanish, German, and French language Wikis all include it. RisingStar (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Because this is the English wikipedia not the Spanish or German one. How other wikis format their pages or decide what warrants inclusion has no bearing on the engligsh wiki, what standards they use for their pages and what guidelines they follow is unknown to me and likely to be different to the English one. The pages I found that didn't include a controversy section in the lead were the japanese, arabic, and indonesian ones I only looked at a few so there are likely more. XiAdonis (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, they may have slightly different policies, but they are still wikis with similar policies. Their decisions are not binding on the English article, but they are persuasive authorities and certainly not "irrelevant". The Arabic and Indonesian articles are very short and do not seem to deal with the controversy at all, so it would make sense that there is nothing in the lead related to it. I think we can agree that, due to the nature of the article and the controversy, the Japanese article is not a good persuasive authority in this case. RisingStar (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Other wikis are not persuasive authorities, regardless of where they stand on this. I was not attempting to make the argument that since some wikis don't include the content in the lead then we shouldn't either, i was only responding to your claim that "pretty much every" other page does. I dont think this line of argument should be pursued further, ironically though the korean wiki makes no mention of the controversy in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XiAdonis (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to an English wiki policy that says that the decisions of other wikis are irrelevant? If not, I don't see why they are not persuasive. RisingStar (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Because anyone can edit any page they want, as you said before quite alot of the nonenglish pages are quite small, how much scrutiny is being paid to them? Its literally anyones guess, if a discussion has been had and a consensus has been reached towards a certain position then sure that could be taken into account, but all youve presented is the pages themselves. XiAdonis (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This is why I looked at the three largest non-English wikis. If there have been no discussions there regarding this matter, the fact that there was no significant opposition that led to a discussion is a useful data point in and of itself. RisingStar (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The largest non english wiki is the japanese one. Compared to the Japanese one all pages including the english one are fairly small. This isn't a credible argument but you seem to think it is so i've looked and the German wiki page has only had 3 edits in 2020 and 2.444 page views in the last 30 days, that is not an active page im sure i can remove that section from the lead and it likely wont be changed back. The spanish one also does not seem to be frequently edited and only has 3539 page views in the last 30 days compared to 38,964 for the english one. French has 1 622 page views in 30 days. XiAdonis (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the size of the entire wiki, not the article. RisingStar (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I will note that MOS:LEAD says "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" (emphasis mine). If the controversy is important enough to take up one-third of the text of the article, it seems fair to characterize it as "prominent". RisingStar (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Imo the "controversy" section is quite bloated and should be reduced by a few paragraphs but thats a different discussion. As this is a Japanese topic the information available in English is limited, the Japanese page is much much larger. This flag has no history or cultural significance in any english speaking country as such its reasonable that the "controversy" which has been promoted oversees heavily by south korea would constitute a disproportionate amount of the article compared to its importance. Further the claims against this flag are fringe and incorrect, attention should not disproportionately be paid to a single position simply because one side is making a lot of noise. XiAdonis (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In any case, the fact that this flag is considered offensive in the countries that are geographically closest to Japan is an important point that deserves to be included in the lead. RisingStar (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversial in 1 country, south korea(which is the result not of a genuine development but an artifical movement), an argument can be made for china but attitudes there are much more relaxed and it is not a government position to oppose the flag. It is not a widely held position in Asia including many other geographically close countries. XiAdonis (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean it's an "artificial movement"? The flag is genuinely considered offensive in South Korea (and presumably North Korea given their anti-Japan rhetoric, although for obvious reasons we don't have too much information about North Korea). The flag is considered notable enough due to its usage in one country (Japan), so it does not take all of the continent of Asia for the controversy to become notable enough. RisingStar (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean that before 2012 no one in south korea was "offended" by the flag its a social movement driven by the conflicts between the two countries. If it wasn't, there would be evidence that these feelings existed in south korea prior to this decade. Apart from opinion pieces and news stories covering south koreas complaints this is a non issue (or controversy), nothing major has happened as a result, it still is an internationally recognized flag by every country Japan has diplomatic relations with including south korea. I dont see how this warrants inclusion in the lead at all. XiAdonis (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, countries don't recognize flags; they recognize other countries. The fact that a country recognizes another does not mean that it approves of everything the other country does. Second of all, according to the main body of this article, this controversy was big enough to create multiple diplomatic incidents between Japan and South Korea. It doesn't matter how long this feeling has existed or whether you think it's legitimate—now that it exists and has resulted in multiple diplomatic incidents, it is important enough to be included in the lead. RisingStar (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

They do, the rising sun flag is recognized as the official flag of the maritime self defense forces of Japan. The "diplomatic incidents" can hardly be considered incidents, they are very minor and when you put them in the context of the range of disputes and tensions between the countries its just business as usual. Nothing has resulted as a result of the incidents. XiAdonis (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Recognized by whom? I agree that it is the official flag of the maritime self defense forces of Japan, but as far as I'm aware, countries do not officially recognize the flags of other countries. The diplomatic incidents are minor in the grand picture of Japan–South Korea relations, but in the context of this flag, it is a major one. This is why I'm advocating for including the controversy in the lead of this article, not Japan–South Korea relations. RisingStar (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Recognized by every single country who has diplomatic relations with Japan. The incidents aren't major in regards to the flag at all they deserve a section in the article but to include them in the lead, there would have to be some significant effect or result but absolutely nothing has happened other than some complaints by korean people on social media and some opinion pieces written by korean authors over the flag. The diplomatic "incidents" are just the korean government requesting the JMSDF to not fly the flag on their vessels during a fleet review in the country and then Japan deciding not to participate in the fleet review, thats about as boring as a diplomatic incident can get. If offense to the flag were deep seated and had an actual history in the country then i could somewhat understand but this whole thing literally started this decade, historically there has been no problem with the flag anywhere in the world, 15 years from now there possibly could be no issue with the flag in korea. This is not a significant enough "controversy" to include in the lead. XiAdonis (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

By all means, you're welcome to translate the Japanese version into the English version. STSC (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thats not whats being talked about here. XiAdonis (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You said "the information available in English is limited, the Japanese page is much much larger". STSC (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This section of the talk page is about adding a section to the lead about the controversy surrounding the flag. I interpreted your comment as snarky sorry if it wasn't

Not at all. We all want to improve the article. STSC (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - The consensus has been reached by 3 to 1 to add a summary of the controversy to the lead. STSC (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

huh? you cant just unilaterally assert a consensus has been reached when none has been. Your 3 to 1 claim isn't even accurate. XiAdonis (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

For: Ayleks, RisingStar, STSC.

Against: XiAdonis

STSC (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You're missing a user. This isn't how things work anyways. XiAdonis (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User SLIMHANNYA is neutral, neither "for" nor "against". STSC (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

SLIMHANNYA was against the inclusion of a particular source and did not claim that the paragraph in question should not exist at all. Your childish attacks are not helping your cause here. RisingStar (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not neutral. I'm against writing misleading sentences at the top of the page. My opinion is that this issue is a political movement that began in South Korea in the 2010s and should not be misinterpreted as widely seen in Asia. And don't ignore my "Dudden's claims should not be described as objective facts." comment. Don't give too much weight to the opinions of some countries or people to mislead the reality. Also note that Wikipedia is not a majority decision.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed the citation to Dudden and clarified that the controversy mostly has to do with South Korea. As I mentioned above, the flag is notable for its usage in one country, so I believe a controversy involving mostly one other country is still notable. RisingStar (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. However, there is one more problem with Dudden. It is the last paragraph of the "Controversy" section. That paragraph is Dudden's assertion, and it should not be written in such a way that it is misunderstood as only one objective fact indicating the situation of Japanese society. Specifying the name of the person making the claim improves the objectivity of the description. The flag is used on a daily basis in Japan because the majority of Japanese people approve of its use.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. RisingStar (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. SLIMHANNYA (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - A summary of controversy of the flag has been in the lead from day one when the article was created. Please do not remove that longterm stable content without consensus. STSC (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the 'Similar designs' section necessary?

This article isn't about the vexillologist concept of a rising sun motif in a flag - it's about the Rising Sun Flag. For that reason, I genuinely don't think we need a similar designs section - it feels like trivia unsuited for this article. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. RisingStar (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it now. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Statement of controversy in introduction

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus to mention the controversy in the lead of the article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the introduction of this article include the statement that the flag is controversial in parts of East Asia, especially South Korea? 18:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

For previous discussion on this issue, please see #January 2021. RisingStar (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Support: I kinda think the lead needs a re-write anyway. It mentions history before it actually describes the flag itself, which seems backwards. A brief overview of its use - came into existence and use before WWII, gained controversy as a symbol of colonial rule, but still used in Japan for some things - would work well, and functionally, as part of the lead. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Support: Based on the information at hand, I oppose. The argument is that it would give the issue of controversy too much weight if it is included in the lead while, and if I understand correctly - please correct me if I'm wrong - the controversy is rather limited. P.S. I'm quite the history enthusiast, and WW2 period is one of my favorite subjects. Personally, I'm not at all surprised there is controversy around the flag given the events in China and Korea at the time. So, although initially I came here with my mind set on "of course this should be in the lead", after reading the section - I changed my mind. However, I agree with Ineffablebookkeeper on the structure of lead. Cealicuca (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Changed vote, see below my comment on NettingFish15029 's proposal.Cealicuca (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Support I don't think the controversy is limited, considering its impact on Japanese foreign relations with other nations (China and Korea in particular) and the length/substance of the current controversy section. It's also gained mainstream attention, in particular due to questions of whether it should be used in the upcoming Olympics and other related incidents. Ineffablebookkeeper seems like a reasonable lede, which would succinctly address the controversy in a way that wouldn't make it seem as if it's given "too much weight". In any case, it addresses other recognized viewpoints regarding the controversy. NettingFish15029 (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I was personally surprised that Korea / China do not take a "harder" stance on this - if this is indeed the extent of the impact on Japan/S. Korea or Japan/China relations (which in diplomatic terms it amounts to chicanery, imo, rather than a strong official disavowal of the flag by China/S. Korea). I am fully aware of the historical context. Therefore, I would agree with a brief mention of the controversy - with maybe more detailed context added in a separate section. Changing from Oppose to Support as per your proposal.Cealicuca (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The controversy is not notable enough to include in the lead, it only arose this decade in South Korea, despite wide usage of the flag starting in the beginning of the second half of the twentieth century. There is no noted opposition to the flag during Japans rule of Korea either. This indicates opposition to the flag is not born out of a naturally developed offense but a trendy social movement. The impact on Japan's foreign relations is nonexistent. The flags controversy in China is also comparatively almost nonexistent. The Chinese government has never spoken out about it and Japanese ships have attended fleet reviews in the country (flying the flag) with no issue, which the SK government has also done in 1998 and 2008. I don't think this flags "controversy" has ever gained mainstream attention. Outside of reporting on South Korean complaints it has pretty much no coverage. XiAdonis (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead has to summarize the article and this article has a lengthy section on the controversy surrounding the flag supported by multiple independent, mainstream, reliable sources from around the world. So the lead should adequately and concisely summarize that section if we're following our guidelines. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Due weight is relative to the topic as a whole; and a quick look at Google News suggests that this is a major aspect of the topic's coverage (note how WP:SUSTAINED the coverage is as well - there's stories about this from two days ago, and stories from over a year ago.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much all the coverage is about south korean group's complaints or attempts to ban the flag, the flag is not a popular one nor is it newsworthy, one loud group (side) can easily overflow search results. XiAdonis (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support The controversy section makes up a decent chucnk of this article and it should be given weight in the lede. That being said, this flag's controversy is given perhaps undue weight wihtin this article. It should either be cut down or the other sections should be expanded. ~ HAL333 01:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - It is definitely not undue weight to put this in the lede, seeing how large and well documented the Controversy section is. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment It appears that there is a strong consensus in favor of including the statement in the lead. I will wait for an uninvolved editor to decide whether to close this RfC, but in the meantime, I rewrote the introduction to be in the format suggested by Ineffablebookkeeper. RisingStar (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

When you rewrote the lead you included the very same content that is currently still being discussed under this Rfc, shouldn't you wait until it is closed? XiAdonis (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:SNOW seems to apply here. Besides, the point is to demonstrate how the lead would look if sentence in question is added. RisingStar (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support The controversy section is documented well enough, it is surely not undue weight in the article.Sea Ane (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Include. Per MOS:LEAD, and the edit is OK. With the current body having that much (and it being somewhat prominent in Google), a matching line in lead seems appropriate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:LEAD - Idealigic (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, significant aspect that should be in the lead.VikingDrummer (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addition to Rising Sun Flag: 4.3 Sports

On Thursday, 5 August 2021, at the Men's Final during the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, route-setters depict the Japanese Rising Sun on Boulder Problem #3 with a circular center hold and surrounding triangular pyramid volumes. The official Olympics commentator notes the intention of the route-setters in creating this problem in the image of the Imperialist flag. Korean World Cup Climbing Gold-Medalist Jain Kim publicly criticizes the presentation of this imagery and invokes the International Olympic Committee's charter which prohibits "political, religious, and racial propaganda", and calls for and issuance of apology from the person responsible for this political and racial propaganda. The Japanese Rising Sun-inspired and propagandistic boulder problem shown in Olympics makes its way to local climbing gyms just three days after the original problem was aired on NBC Olympics. Shlee4121 (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Instagram and reddit are not reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

Change "Om the other hand, many in Japan insist that the Rising Sun Flag was not in the stadium." to "On the other hand, many in Japan insist that the Rising Sun Flag was not in the stadium." 92.5.118.21 (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 05:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of the term "Rising Sun Flag"

I notice this article inconsistently uses the terms "rising sun flag" and "asahi." I think because this article is redirects from references specifically about the military flag, and because "rising sun flag" generally refers to the military flag and not other designs, and the majority of the article, with the exception of the history section only refers to the military flag and naval jack; the article should to reflect that. However, at some points in the article "Rising Sun Flag" and, interchangeably, "Asahi" refers to any flag from Japan that has disk with expanding rays even when the design is very different from the military flag. It is not always clear, and sometimes misleading when this is the case. For example, as far as I can tell, the military flag originates in 1870, so it is misleading to state that the rising sun flag has origins from the 7th century when referring to samurai clan emblems that are of a different design.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4781:73a0:edf3:5c31:f234:ee3f (talk • contribs) 05:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)