This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Does anyone know about the tsunami-swept-away fishing trawler from Japan that's drifting into Canadian waters? [1] It might be useful to have an article on it. 70.24.250.156 (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It might indeed. But at this point it looks to me like merely a macabre footnote to the bigger 12½-month-old story. I suppose that coastguard personnel or others will board and more ghoulish details will be made public and there'll then be more to say; at that point you could either write your first article about it or say here that you propose to do this and see what the reaction is. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I brought this subject up both at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Nio_Zen and at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Nio_Zen, but I thought this forum might get a better response. An editor, User:BuddhistPHD has created a page Nio Zen that, from my recollections of learning Buddhism in college, is largely original research. It cites a lot of texts, but without precision (no page numbers) and mostly with regard to peripheral points of information, not with regard to Nio Zen. One text that is cited, Baroni's Illustrated Encyclopedia of Zen Buddhism, does have an entry on Nio Zen, but none of it cites all that information about Pure Land Buddhism, Bodhi Darma, Shaolin monks, etc. that consume most of the article. All that smells of original research. In fact, it is using assertions that have been reverted elsewhere on Wikipedia as "whitewash" (note the user name Buddhakahika). It should be noted that BuddhistPHD has been going through Buddhism pages on Wikipedia and making additions that cite the Zenji Museum as a repository of important artworks. There is no proof of that, so I have removed them, but the Zenji Museum page (the museum, by the way, does not seem to exist in reality, since the page does not reveal its location other than a vague statement about downtown Toronto) is half about Nio Zen and its leader Zen Acharya, and seems to repeat many of the stances of the Nio Zen article (see also related pages here and here). I suspect the Nio Zen article is basically PR for this person's religion, even if it doesn't mention him. Note that this editor and some likely related editors also worked on the page Karma: The New Revolution, which is all basically PR for the Zenji Museum and Zen Acharya. I have nominated it for deletion. (I have the suspicion, given the similarities in editing, that BuddhistPHD, Buddhakahika, Kleenix, Streetsignpole, Truth be known 888, and FolkTraditionalist are all the same person. A sockpuppet investigation may be in order.) Can anyone here help determine whether Nio Zen belongs on Wikipedia, or at least what parts need to be thrown out? Michitaro (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd say the encyclopaedia article you linked to indicates that it can stay on Wikipedia, but I think large parts of the article need throwing out. I might just go ahead and stub it, actually. — Mr. Stradivarius♫13:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion. It could be an article, but not what's written in this article. Very little of this seems factually correct or in context. From what I'm reading, Suzuki Shōsan (鈴木正三, February 5, 1579–July 28, 1655) did have a nembutsu practice (=禅風) called 仁王禅（におうぜん), but it was never a tradition as defined (?) in the article, only a practice, and a practice that didn't continue beyond Suzuki. Suzuki left a body of works -- some have been translated -- none are referenced in this article.
IMHO this is PR for the Zenji "Museum" -- and its website iterations. page.
Ref: Confucianism and Tokugawa Culture, p. 95. "Shosan is known as the founder (although he had no successors) of Nio Zen" -- p. 101 -- lineage certainly didn't continue.
Ref: Illustrated encyclopedia of Zen Buddhism, p. 328. "Style of Zen meditation that he [Suzuki] recommended is sometimes known as Nio Zen."
Ref: Samadhi: self development in Zen, swordsmanship, and psychotherapy, p. 41. "A style of Zen called Nio Zen emerged."
Good points, indeed. I wouldn't mind at all if the stubbed content I wrote was merged into the Suzuki Shōsan article. If Niō Zen was just a practice and not a tradition then this might be the best place for it. I also saw this source calling it 'so-called "Niō Zen"', which would seem to support this course of action. (Also, if I misrepresented anything in the stub text I wrote, feel free to fix it.) — Mr. Stradivarius♫15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Stub: thanks. Merge: I'd do that, if I knew how! I'll add what I found above later today to expand Suzuki Shōsan slightly. Also have two print encyclopedias at home to consult. Thanks tremendously.Prburley (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I was also thinking of reducing it just to the extent of what Baroni discusses, but I wanted some second opinions. Michitaro (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: Just to let people know, but an SPI has confirmed that the user who created this article, BuddhistPHD, is a sockpuppet of Buddhakahika, who has misused that and multiple other accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buddhakahika. Buddhakahika's efforts to use multiple accounts to influence an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karma:_The_New_Revolution) is one reason the user has been blocked indefinitely, but it should be stressed that the multiple accounts were first used to litter Wikipedia with statements presenting the particular views of a single religious organization, called Nio Zen and run by an individual, as historical fact (and to promote the products of that individual, including a film and the Zenji Museum). One of the sockpuppets I did not catch, BhikkuBodhi, actually added a significant section to the Nio article on Nio Zen Buddhism. I have tried to edit it down to reflect the consensus we seem to have achieved, but others are welcome to try it too. Michitaro (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Akechi Shogunate
I have tagged a new article Akechi Shogunate with a "disputed" tag and commented on the talk page. I am wondering whether it might not just be best to tag it for deletion. Any reactions? Michitaro (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete! I've never heard the word. Ja:WP has ja:織田政権 and ja:豊臣政権, but no 明智政権. See also ja:武家政権. I don't think Akechi was a 征夷大将軍 and he didn't do anything as Shogun. Bing results are these. [2] and [3]. I don't think Akechi Shogunate is an established term in Japanese history. Oda Mari (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that the Wikipedia entry on Akechi Mitsuhide stated that he was officially made shogun by the emperor. Apparently an IP added that in February 2011. I have removed that sentence. Michitaro (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't think he lived long enough to even get noticed by the Emperor. See the Akechi Mitsuhide article, where the term "shogun" is attributed to Akechi in a proverb (unsourced). This may have led to an editor's misunderstanding and subsequent "bold", though misguided, addition. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I think merging to Akechi Mitsuhide would be the correct course of action. Then if anyone types in "Akechi Shogunate" into the search bar, they will still get the information they were looking for, but they will also find out that scholars generally don't call his "reign" a "shogunate". — Mr. Stradivarius♫18:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete. My guess, unreferenced like everything else in these Akechi articles: the Akechi shogunate appears in the Nintendo "Pokémon + Nobunaga's Ambition" video game. I checked across the Shogakukan/Heibonsha encyclopedias and there's no Akechi shogunate. From the 国史大辞典, article:明智光秀."いわゆる本能寺の変である。[After that,] 同日午後ただちに坂本城に入り、五日安土城を接収し、秀吉の本拠長浜城を占領し、佐和山城を収めて近江・美濃二国をその支配下に置いた。八日坂本に帰り、九日に京に入り、禁中や寺社に金銀を献上し、京町民に地子を免除するなど人心の収攬に努めた。ついで秀吉が東上するとの報を得て鳥羽に出陣し、諸将の来属を誘ったが、親しい関係の細川藤孝・忠興父子や筒井順慶をはじめ組下の中川清秀・高山右近らの協力を得ることができず、秀吉に対しはるか劣勢の兵力で対することになった。十二日中川清秀に山崎の天王山を占拠され、十三日午後の戦闘で敗北し勝竜寺城に逃れ、再挙を図るべく同夜坂本へ戻る途中、小栗栖で土民に襲撃されて深傷を負い家老溝尾庄兵衛尉の介錯で自刃した。"Prburley (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Just another note, but User:Muneshige was the author of the above Akechi Shogunate and looking over this user's other edits, it seems the editor has been creating a number of other Japan-history articles with unreferenced content. Some are clearly mistaken: Taira no Michimori, for instance, says he did at Dan-no-ura, when he did not. I worry about some of these pages. Can others help check these? Michitaro (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you check out 来島道行 next time you're at the library with those biographical dictionaries? I just wonder, timing, content, user page, self-referencing articles, style of language wise - is this anything to do with the Battle of Imizu? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I also initially thought of Muneshige's work in line with the problems we experienced with the series of articles related to Imizu, but at least in this case most of the articles created are legitimate, notable figures. The problem continues that none are referenced and some--but not all--contain mistaken or misleading information. (The Imizu articles were all referenced--but no one could find what those books were.) Michitaro (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I found something wrong with Matsudaira Koretada. According to his userpage, he says Hello, I am Muneshige and I am a real fan of my country's history. Though he doesn't say what's his country, it is natural to think that he is a native ja speaker as his edits are mostly on Japan-related articles. But he provided やせこけた as Koretada's name in ja. Native ja speakers never make such a mistake as the meaning of the word is totally different and it's an adjective. See [6] and [7]. I don't understand it. Does he make fun of us? What do you think, guys? Oda Mari (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The article on Kani Saizo is at least partially incorrect, in that it states he defected to the Tokugawa side, when Tokugawa wasn't part of the battle. I can't say much for the Shimazu conflicts, as I'm not familiar with the history of Sengoku Kyushu. That said, the Battle of Neko'o Castle reads like something out of a manga. Since I haven't seen a single reference used, just a sudden avalanche of stub-articles, and because of the writing style, I have to admit, the thought that this editor might be mocking us crossed my mind once or twice. I'd say we have an editor who just writes faster than he thinks, plays loose with facts, and likes to crank out articles while leaving it for others to clean up. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I've looked through a few of them and, as with Muneshige's work, there are a lot of mistakes (especially with nihongo) and dubious statements. Some, like Yendo Masatada (it should be Endō Giemon Masatada), are of weak notability and perhaps do not pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Nested?
While assessing articles, I often find that a previous editor has inserted { |nested=yes }. I can't find any information on it, and can't figure out what it does, or is supposed to do. Anybody know anything about this term? Boneyard90 (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Have opined; DYK sounds a good idea to me - anything with a lede that can combine Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Azuchi Castle has something going for it; Mount Inaba Moon would make a great accompaniment too, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Objection to the use of a religious symbol as a symbol for Japan
I would like to raise an objection to the use of a "torii" as a symbol for Japan on the "Wikiproject Japan" box which is added to each talk page of a subject concerning Japan:
Regardless of whether it is a good photo, or a recognizable symbol, the "torii" has a religious significance, and it is inappropriate to label the talk page of every article about Japan with a religious symbol. I request that the picture of the "torii" be replaced with a neutral symbol, such as an outline map of Japan or a photograph of a neutral Japanese object such as an uchiwa. Please note that Mount Fuji has a religious significance in Nichiren buddhism and I would object to its use as an alternative for similar reasons. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment: You have not described why you think a religious symbol is "inappropriate". You also have not stated whether the image violates any specific Wikipedia policies or guidelines.Boneyard90 (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I have not objected to the image itself, but to its use on the talk page of any and every page related to Japan. For example, on the Buddhism in Japan page. It makes Wikiproject Japan look ignorant and culturally insensitive. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you haven't described why you think a religious symbol is "inappropriate" for use on a banner and every Talk page related to Japan. You have not stated whether the image, as it is used in a WikiProject and on a WikiProject banner, violates any specific Wikipedia policies or guidelines. You haven't said how the image makes WP:Japan look "ignorant and culturally insensitive". Boneyard90 (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The torii, the red construction in the image, is a religious symbol related to the Shinto religion. Wikiproject Japan is thus putting a religious symbol on the talk page of every page related to Japan, including on the talk page of articles of other religions, such as the Buddhism page I mentioned above, and the talk page of individuals who may even object to a Shinto symbol, for example articles about Japanese people who are Buddhists or Christians, and who might strongly prefer not to be associated with a Shinto symbol. That makes Wikiproject Japan look ignorant (of the fact that the torii is a religious symbol) and culturally insensitive (that Wikiproject Japan does not respect the religious beliefs of Japanese people). As for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, an obvious one would be that plastering a religious symbol onto every single article about Japan is a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I therefore register this objection to the image and suggest it be replaced with a neutral symbol with no religious significance. I apologize for any unclearness in what I have said and hope the nature of my objection is now sufficiently clear. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, your position is much clearer. I am inclined to sympathize somewhat if individuals feel they're being unfairly associated with a religion they do not adhere to. However, I would submit that the torii has moved beyond religious symbolism, and is an internationally recognized unique symbol of Japan. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Most non-Japanese people might see that, but many Japanese people won't. This is what I mean by "cultural insensitivity". JoshuSasori (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with John Smith and Boneyard90. Probably for many/most possible alternatives you could find wikipedia pages, where a particular image is inappropriate. Also I don't think it is a big deal as the image only appears on the talk page. bamse (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
There are many other images which could be equally charged, for example a picture of Mount Fuji or a Japanese national flag both have meanings which might be inappropriate. Choosing an appropriate image is not easy. I would suggest an outline map of Japan, or a traditional Japanese object such as a paper fan. You are right that the torii image only appears on the talk page, and most people who are not editors will not notice it. Someone would have objected very much sooner if it a picture of a torii appeared on the Wikipedia page about Daisaku Ikeda. Even if most readers don't see the picture, is it OK to offend editors, or to use images contrary to their beliefs, any more than readers? JoshuSasori (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how the use of the image could be considered evangelizing for the religion, but I think a religious image is an inappropriate symbol for all articles about Japan. The image itself might be good for a Japan portal or a general article about Japan, but not to put onto each article carelessly. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. Seriously? This can't possibly be a legitimate argument. There's no advocacy of 'pagan religions', and even if there is religious significance to the torii, there's nothing here to take offense at. This is all a bunch of FUD or something, and part of me thinks we're just being trolled. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)04:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This kind of response is exactly what I mean by "culturally insensitive". If you are a member of Wikiproject Japan, doesn't that imply you have some specialized knowledge about Japan? If so you should already know that the image of a torii as a symbol of Japan is unacceptable to many Japanese people. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It's an iconic image, and something which people frequently associate with Japan. Should we also remove the crescent and star image that WikiProject Turkey uses, because that's a religious symbol of sorts? I'm a strong agnostic, and I have no problem at all with that image because it's immediately recognizable as distinctly Japanese. Nothing you do will prevent a certain number of people from being offended, and frankly people who would interpret this as proselytizing are the kinds of people Wikipedia doesn't need. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
My objection to this image is not based on the reaction of non-Japanese people to it. My objection to the image is based on the reaction of Japanese people to it. The construction in the image has a religious meaning which possibly is not clear to non-Japanese, who see it as merely a quaint or exotic oddity, possibly related to a superstition or something. What worries me about Wikiproject Japan is that several people in this discussion keep defending it on the grounds that non-Japanese people will not know about the religious significance. This makes me quail about the good judgement and the knowledge of the members of Wikiproject Japan, people who surely are claiming to have more than average knowledge about Japanese culture. I was very shocked to see this image on a talk page when it was first added to a page I had created. It is extremely surprising to me that nobody here on Wikiproject Japan seems to know better than to use this image. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It may surprise you to know that my specialty within Japanese history is studying the Ainu people, which has left me with no love for either Shinto or Japanese Buddhism. But you'll be hard-pressed to find something that isn't somehow tied into either religion that's also recognizable to people with even a passing knowledge of it (i.e. we could use a picture of inau, but that won't register with the vast majority of people). Do you have any idea what Koreans reactions are to a Japanese flag? This is what I mean; we're not going to find anything that doesn't offend someone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion for a neutral image is an outline map of Japan or a picture of a traditional handicraft (excluding weapons such as swords). JoshuSasori (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Inau are a traditional handicraft with a far longer history in Japan than anything else, but again they're hardly recognizable to most; I'd bet the vast majority of the people here hadn't heard of them. Almost every other symbol in Japanese culture is either Chinese-derived, Shinto, or Buddhist related, or some combination thereof. A map seems a little... drab, for reasons elucidated by others. My feeling is not broke, don't fix. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Neither cherry blossoms nor Mount Fuji are Chinese- or religion-derived---they derive from the geography. While different religions may have bestowed their own symbolism on them, neither could be said to "belong" to any religion or any other group of Japanese society. They are also widely recognized, and hardly "drab". CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs04:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware that Mount Fuji is a volcano and cherry blossoms are a feat of plant biology; Mount Sinai is a small hill in Egypt too, but most people would associate it with Abrahamic religions. I don't have any personal issue with it, but if objections to a torii are that it's proselytizing then I'd think you'd want something without any religious connotations. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The only reason Sinai is notable is because of its religious associations. The fact that certain religious sects show Fuji a certain amount of respect is not even remotely a similar thing. Its primary associations are overwhelmingly non-religious. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs21:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Insist on what?!? Did you even bother to read what I wrote? Mount Fuji's primary associations are overwhelmingly non-religious. Are you suggesting the Japanese conquered Fuji from the Ainu or something? Please, try keeping on topic. Please try to find some totally non-hairsplitting, non-imaginary way to show that Mount Fuji is not appropriate as a symbol of Japan. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs02:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I read what you wrote, and I'm not saying Mount Fuji isn't viewed as non-religious. I'm saying that it, like Ayers Rock, is primarily known as a geographical feature but also has a certain religious significance. And as an aside, at some point the Japanese obviously did conquer it from the Ainu, because the Ainu were there first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
More disagreeing. Buddhism has problem had more friendly relations and intermixing with other religions as any on Earth, and Shintoism is no exception. Furthermore this particular torii is a World Heritage Site, one of the most popular Japanese tourist destinations, and one of the Three Views of Japan. Religion is an important part of Japanese culture and any well known cultural landmark or symbol of Japan will carry with it religious significance(as you have stated for example Mount Fugi), but I would argue that it would be culturally insensitive to see it as your job to separate the linkages between Buddhism and Shintoism that have existed for centuries.AerobicFox (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I hardly doubt Buddhists in Japan who have intermixed with Shintoism heavily for the past centuries would take offense to this. I quail at your lack of knowledge. There are many Japanese buddhists who would very strongly object to this image as a national symbol for Japan. JoshuSasori (talk)
No, you are imposing a Western perspective on this. Only a few(very conservative) Buddhists would take offense to this, that would be the equivalent of an American taking offense to a Christmas Tree being set up in a downtown city plaza.AerobicFox (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree. This is something that has always bugged me since I first discovered WikiProject Japan many years back. I would agree with JoshuSasori's comments that it shows cultural and religious insensitivity. I personally would have liked to see an iconic image of Mount Fuji with cherry blossom in the foreground, but if Mt Fuji also has religious overtones, a simple flag icon - possibly combined with an outline map of Japan would seem to be a better solution. --DAJF (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Some Nichiren Buddhists turn to Mount Fuji to pray, so they carry little compasses with them on trips so they can work out which direction to point in. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The fact that some Nichiren Buddhists turn to Mt Fuji to pray does not make it their own religious property. The Torii is a man-made structure built for religious purposes. Does the fact that Fuji has religious significance to a particular sect mean that Shizuoka Prefecture is extolling the virtues of Nichiren when they incorporate it into their flag? Do you think the average Japanese person would take kindly to the Nichiren sect claiming Fuji for their own? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs10:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
If the torii image is deemed unsuitable for the talk box, I hope that we can find something more interesting (less neutral) than a map or a flag. After all the image should advertise/raise interest in the wikiproject so something typical Japanese would be good. Any country has a map and a flag... bamse (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I have no problems with changing the icon, if that's the way consensus goes, but the posting editor would have gained my support if the reasons were more solid. User:JS has several times made comments that the "torii as a symbol of Japan is unacceptable to many Japanese people", and disparages project members for not perceiving this. On this basis, I also have to wonder if we're being trolled. But on the assumption of good faith, I will say that I've known a few Japanese people, and I can't ever remember a single one saying anything negative about a torii, even among those who, for one reason or another, were somehow dissatisfied with the country &/or its history. I think other editors express a similar perception. So, contrary to the his lament over project members' "insensitivity", to think that any sizable portion of the Japanese population finds the torii as an "unacceptable" negative symbol betrays a very mild familiarity with the actual culture, or perhaps with undue weight placed on the opinions of a very restricted number of cultural informants. Boneyard90 (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The objection I have to the torii symbol is not its use on a content page, but that it is currently being attached to every article about Japan on Wikipedia, including about Japanese people who do not believe in Shinto or are actively against Shinto. It's an astonishing choice of symbol to use to put on every single article about Japan, and an equally astonishing claim that pointing out this is "trolling". JoshuSasori (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose change; "troll" is my guess too; culturally distinctive; aesthetic; raises interest per Bamse; and as for the alternatives proposed - flag see Nationalism, archipelago - see Senkaku or Sakhalin, other work of art - see Walter Benjamin "there is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism" (Wikiquote:Walter Benjamin), and presumably we can't be having none of those. Hailing from Blighty myself, I find Wikiproject:England's use of the flag used to drum up xenophobia most distressing... Sources for unacceptability would be good too, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem isn't the torii image, it is that the torii image is being used on every single page about Japan, including on the talk pages of articles about people who very definitely do not believe in the Shinto religion. I am astonished that so many people here do not realise how inappropriate this is. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This is cultural insensitivity. Putting a picture of a torii on the talk page of an article about someone like Daisaku Ikeda is like putting a picture of the pope on the talk page of the Wikipedia article about Ian Paisley. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Rituals and Power argues that your "belief" may be a Judaeo-Christian concept not always as central to ritual practice as social integration/collusion etc; do you think the millions of visitors to Meiji Jingū for hatsumōde are about to become martyrs? Is your point that this guy has little to do with Japan and its Jingū-ji and should be released from the fold? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
You were the first to bring up "trolling", but disingenuously worded it in such a way that you could easily disown your own statements. Worse, it has given Maculosae tegmine lyncis the idea that it's fine to troll this discussion.
Your objection to cherry blossoms is ridiculous. "Obviously an insensitive symbol of a martial past"---except it's obviously not. A torii is, was and will always be a symbol of Shintoism. Whether Japanese people find it objectionable as a symbol of Japan is a separate issue. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs21:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it was User:HelloAnnyong that first brought up "trolling" (sorry to finger you, H.A.Y.). And I don't think I'm trolling anyway, because (if my understanding of "trolling" is correct), I said nothing insulting, I am not trying to provoke a negative response from J.S., and my position, at each stage of the discussion, has been clear. No hiding. At worst, a little sarcasm. The place needed some levity. But, if you think what I did was trolling, and other editors concur, then I'll try to watch myself in the future.
As for Maculosa: No. You can't blame me for what another editor writes. I take no responsibility for that. If you have a problem with Mac's posts, take it up with Mac.Boneyard90 (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
On the cherry blossoms. I think I was trying to satirize Joshu's objection, along with the growing number of restrictions on what is considered acceptable in his book.Boneyard90 (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say you were trolling. I said Maculosa was, and I think he was encouraged when the word "trolling" came up (sorry that I was wrong about you being the one to bring it up). There are editors out there who think it's okay to troll an editor who has been accused of trolling, and I think that's exactly what Maculosa was doing.
I'm also aware that what you were doing with cherry blossoms was a reductio ad absurdum. Sometimes such an argument is useful, but in this case I think it was far too far off the mark. A torii is a religious symbol, period. It was, is and always will be a symbol of Shinto first and foremost. Cherry blossoms obviously are not, though they have ben appopriated as symbols for a wide variety of things, religious and non-religious, partisan and non-partisan, in war and in peace, etc etc etc. What binds all these symbols, associations and meanings together is that they are all, in their diversity, Japanese. Which makes cherry blossoms an excellent symbol of Japan. A better one than the torii, even if the consensus finds the torii non-objectionable. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs01:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I think we understand each other. But just to get this out in the open, I probably won't support a cherry blossom; but not because it's a symbol of the kamikaze. Maybe a chrysanthemum. I still don't see the problem with any Shinto symbol, as I have never heard of any Japanese strenuously objecting to Shinto. And I've befriended Buddhist priests. Now let's see which way this discussion goes.Boneyard90 (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Why would you object to the cherry blossom, then? And what would make the chrysanthemum a better symbol? There's nothing specifically Japanese about the chrysanthemum. It's used symbolically in China and Korea, and is symbolic of death in parts of Europe.
Personally, I'd root for Fuji, though. I can't imagine a serious objection to that. It's certainly better recognized than any torii or species of flower. Also, I get to see it on my way to work every day. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs03:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm no fan of the image, which looks like something printed on the tourist tat sold at Narita airport. I'd happily see it changed (though not, please, to anything more kawaii). However, you're going to have to convince others here, not just me. You say: you should already know that the image of a torii as a symbol of Japan is unacceptable to many Japanese people. Perhaps I should, but I didn't. My resident (non-Shintō) Japanese informant is unfazed by it. My objection to the image is based on the reaction of Japanese people to it. The construction in the image has a religious meaning [...]. Well yes it does, but again, which Japanese people are they, and do they amount to a significant percentage of the population? Got any sources for, or at least suggesting, the impalatability of torii? -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
If you know that a torii is a religious symbol, and you know that many people in Japan believe in a different religion, then you should already know that the image of a torii as a symbol of Japan is unacceptable to many Japanese people.JoshuSasori (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I should, but I don't. So indulge me -- particularly if you hope to persuade others. However ignorantly/wrongly, I don't think of a torii as being more obviously religious than, say, London's St. Paul's Cathedral, the outline of which is often used to symbolize London. I hadn't heard that this use of the cathedral offended a significant percentage of Londoners, a very large percentage of whom are of course not Christian, let alone members of that particular variety of Christianity. Are Japanese views of torii so different? If so, let's have evidence. ¶ Alternatively, think of an alternative to torii that would be more attractive, so people would be likely to want to change. (Sushi? Sushi-shaped USB memory doodad?) -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It should be borne in mind this is English Wikipedia. As such we must address English perceptions and attitudes. This religious symbol does not represent the common English perception of Japan. Also, by evangelising for one religious sect in a rather under-handed manner, it is offensive to the English attitude of Fair Play, or Neutral Point of View as Wikipedia would have it. Viva Frank Zappata (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This is in many ways just a problem inherent in trying to represent that conflicted entity called the "nation". Most nations are not organically unified, so national symbols often less represent a nation than impose a unity, usually from the perspective of only one sector of the nation. Recall that the Japanese flag is still a hotly contested symbol in Japan, and is still subject to court cases. While I don't think JoshuSasori can ever come up with evidence that most Japanese would object to the torii symbol (in my 20 years on and off in Japan, I find most Japanese rather detached about both religion and such national symbols), I can sympathize with the desire to avoid the sometimes nasty politics of national symbols. You can look at any of the Japanese government's official websites for tourism or information and find many religious symbols and events being used to represent Japan (matsuri, Fuji-san, torii, otera, etc.), but while I would hesitate to see that as supporting a religion, it is definitely a cultural politics, one that is enforcing a vision of Japan both for foreign consumption (self-orientalization) and for domestic definition (creating a "unity" that often elides the histories of those who don't fit that vision, from Ainu to Okinawans to resident Koreans). I would like to see a symbol used here that avoids all that, but am at loss to think of one that would work. I am open to suggestions. Michitaro (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think JoshuSasori can ever come up with evidence that most Japanese would object to the torii symbol - I don't remember claiming that a majority of Japanese object to the torii symbol. But finding examples is fairly easy. I don't want to seem like I am picking on one individual but I have mentioned Daisaku Ikeda more than once above, a religious leader of a Nichiren Buddhist group who has a talk page with a symbol of a torii on it. Soka Gakkai claims 8.25 million households are in their organization, and I am sure that they would object to a torii being used on articles about their organization or members. I find most Japanese rather detached about both religion and such national symbols - Japanese people often don't express their emotions even when they are offended or even extremely angry. My guess is that the average Japanese person who sees the torii symbol being used inappropriately merely dismisses Wikiproject Japan as being composed of ignorant foreigners. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"Japanese people often don't express their emotions even when they are offended or even extremely angry."---Kee-rist!!! Could you please inform my wife and children? I could use a little peace and quiet! Relatively, Japanese are more emotionally reserved than North Americans. Relatively is the key word. The idea that Japanese don't often express their emotions is 100% pure horse manure.
The idea that Japanese don't often express their emotions is 100% pure horse manure. - an interesting example of how changing the order of two English words, "often don't" into "don't often" makes it have a different meaning. In any country in the world, people sometimes don't express their emotions. This tendency to stoicism seems to me to be stronger in Japan than in European and North American countries. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, relatively being the key word. The Japanese are far from being a nation of "stoic", unemotional robots. If you talk to enough Japanese people directly, you'll find they are generally not being "stoic" by not talking about religion. Far more often than not, they honestly just don't care. When asked about my own religion, a number of Japanese have been relieved when I told them I was agnostic---one response was, "Oh! Just like Japanese people! Ha ha ha!", obviously relieved that I wasn't going to evangelize to them. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs07:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with Curly Turkey here. The idea that Japanese people don't express themselves or they have some mystical amount of stoic discipline is a pretty worn out stereotype.Boneyard90 (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Sōka Gakkai are a fringe element, and not all of the 8 million members are in Japan (I personally know members from British Columbia, California and Taiwan). They are hardly representative of Japan. If we are going to take every fringe group into account, then seriously there will be no end to the hairsplitting. Mount Fuji would be out, because it's not representative of the geography of Kumamoto. A map or silhouette of Japan would be out because of boundary disputes. a graphic of 日本 would be out, becaue it wouldn't represent the Ainu or Rykyuan languages.
I've lived in Japan for 14 years, and I can't imagine very many Japanese actually objecting to the use of the torii as a symbol of Japan on Wikipedia. Personally, I think the cherry blossom or Mount Fuji would be better (being neutral and known worldwide), but not for the imaginary reasons you've come up with. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs04:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
There is always a problem in trying to argue what a "people" would think. I only speak from my experience, given my work, with mostly intellectuals in Japan. Most would echo my arguments about the conflicted nature of national symbols -- and would also probably not like to be grouped into stereotypical claims about "Japanese" not wanting to show their emotions. (The long history of violent political protest in Japan shows that stereotype is not quite accurate.) The fact that Japanese government agencies and other official bureaus regularly use religious symbols such as torii, temples, and matsuri to represent Japan also means that the use of it here would probably seem to my Japanese friends less like ignorance by foreigners than simply falling into the same patterns of discourse that both Japan and foreigners have used to typify Japan. In general, I am sympathetic to JoshuSasori's argument about the torii, but I again want to know what could be proposed as an unproblematic alternative. Others have noted problems with other likely alternatives. Michitaro (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I am slightly disappointed to find myself repeating what I have said above, but the problem with this image is not that it typifies Japan or that it is a typical Japanese image. The specific problem with the image is that it is being universally applied to each and every page about Japan, including to the talk page of people who would dislike it as a symbol. As for neutral suggestions, I have already made three: an outline map of Japan, a paper fan, or another traditional handicraft item, such as a temari, a kimono, a bamboo tea whisk, etc. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Point taken, but you have been making the other argument as well, so the discussion is getting convoluted on all sides. But when the issue comes to what image can be used on all pages, you run into the same problem of universal representability. Use a map on the Okinawan or Ainu page and some could take offense given the problematic history there. Kimono on an Ainu or Okinawan page could also be seen as insensitive given their different ethnic clothing. Other figures like a temari or tea whisk may fail the other aspect of representability: the ability to communicate to many viewers (some may find them too obscure). A paper fan might be better, but I would have to see a sample. Michitaro (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The specific problem with the image is that it is being universally applied to each and every page about Japan
Oh boy, I'm anticipating a reemergence of the rotating images idea, or different banners with different images for different pages.AerobicFox (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
We shouldn't have to worry about that. I mean, that's why each of the task forces has its own little icon, right? It may belong to the overall entity that is Nihon, but it falls more specifically within the Sport Task Force (kendo), Military History (samurai armor), Religion , etc.... Boneyard90 (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
End to the silliness
"They[torii] are found not only at shrines but at Buddhist temples as well, for example in the famous stone torii of the temple Shitennōji (in Osaka); as signified by their use as a map symbol, however, they are generally considered to signify the presence of a Shinto shrine."[14]
I can find more reliable sources if I must, but there are many Buddhist temples which have toriis at their entrances as well as many Buddhist temples which house a shrine to local Shinto spirits. Unless any evidence is provided that supports so-called Japanese Buddhist offense at the use of a torii to represent Japan then we should just end this debate.AerobicFox (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. If someone came up with some kind of published opinion poll about Japanese attitudes toward torii, I'd be a little more inclined to support a change. But, some of the first replies to the original objection asked for a reliable source, and none has been forthcoming.Boneyard90 (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I doubt whether you can find an opinion poll which will tell you that Japanese people would find a picture of an atom bomb explosion over Hiroshima or Nagasaki offensive as a symbol of Japan. So why don't we replace the current Wikiproject Japan torii picture with an atom bomb picture? Then, if anyone points out it's offensive, and asks us to replace it, we'll be able to flummox them by simply insisting that the person who makes the claim that Japanese people find it objectionable must provide sources to an opinion poll. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, I'm sure you can find all manner of polls regarding attitudes toward every aspect of the atomic bombings, though probably mostly published in Japanese. Even without polls, I'm sure there are other reliable sources that reflect the general feeling of people on a significant subject such as the a-bombing. Do you have any source that refers to the general opinion of a significant portion of the population in regard to the torii?Boneyard90 (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that the existence of torii at Buddhist temples (and Buddhist shrines in Shinto shrines) is a leftover of pre-Meiji religiosity, which made less clear distinctions between the religions. The separation was a specific Meiji state policy called Shinbutsu bunri, which was a central aspect in the construction of State Shinto, and is one piece of evidence for how contemporary Shinto is a product of such modern state intervention. The existence of torii at Buddhist temples can perhaps serve as evidence against claims that Buddhist believers would object to Shinto symbols, but it also can be proof of how torii have a convoluted history involving quite disturbing modern events. Michitaro (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me though that if Buddhists in Japan aren't offended by torii's at their temples, then they probably won't be offended by torii's on a Wikipedia talkpage.AerobicFox (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the point is really whether an explicitly religious symbol is an appropriate symbol for a subject that is not explicitly religious, and the taking of "offense" is a red herring. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs06:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Puffer prod
Meanwhile, here's a blowfish (or similar). Being round and colorful, perhaps it's kawaii, which will appeal to youngsters. It doesn't look like something on tourist tat sold at Narita airport. Admittedly, it's not specifically Japanese, but I think it's intriguing all the same. Perhaps it will prod JoshuSasori to come up with something better -- a jollier idea than an outline map of Japan.Come on, there's been no debate, just a discussion (sometimes irritating, yes). Aside from a single brand new (or not) contributor, nobody has been silly. Fish have been slapped around rather too quickly. It's imaginable that Japanese atheists are offended by symbolic use of torii (though I doubt this). It's more easily imaginable that this or that stripe of Japanese Christian is offended (though I'd wonder whether such people amount to a non-negligible percentage of the population). So let's hear what evidence JoshuSasori can bring, or his or others' suggestions for a more appealing alternative. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm still trying to figure out what all the fish business is about. In the meantime, I move we start adding sub-section headings every so often, for ease of page navigation. I've inserted the first one.Boneyard90 (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The fish is used to slap someone into "getting the point". All it means is that Maculosae is so sure of his/her "argument" that he/she can't imagine why people would bother to debate. Normally, it's used to wake up someone who is being absurd. Maculosae, however, is using it only to be arrogant and disruptive. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs03:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
And other ideas
Tengu-chan, loved by all
JoshuSasori suggests "an outline map of Japan, a paper fan, or another traditional handicraft item, such as a temari, a kimono, a bamboo tea whisk, etc". Among these, I like the outline map of Japan, for its educational value. (When young, I always mixed up the outlines of Japan and New Zealand.) But any map of Japan is likely to bring tantrums over Iturup etc. The other suggestions, though surely well intended, have subdued colours, are too complex to lend themselves to miniaturization, or (I fear) aren't of instant appeal. So allow me instead to recommend some representation of tengu. Specifically Japanese, Shintō (I suppose) but (surely) not tainted by nationalism, admired or even loved by so many, and sure to fascinate those who haven't yet made his acquaintance. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
An indefinite block for a handful of comments (that showed some relevant knowledge and were presumably a spoof of the basic premise) on a talk page seems heavy handed to me. Perhaps a warning or other temporary measures first? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I was also surprised by how swiftly that decision was made. As VFZappa wasn't being obnoxiously insulting, but mildly disruptive though not much more than the AnonIP who keeps bringing up "evangelization", I thought it was standard practice to issue a warning or two, to give the contributor a chance to repent and play nice. But I guess the hand of justice is swift here in WP:Japan. Now where did I put my Ps and Qs? I need to watch them... Boneyard90 (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so you kind of gave him a way out? Or at least some way to appeal, do I understand that right? That's cool. Now, more importantly, you can give a beer to another editor?? Boneyard90 (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Given the discussion above, I am creating a poll to see what people think about several possible images to use in the project banner. Please voice your support for as many individual images as you wish, but please refrain from voicing opposition to any specific image; rather, simply refrain from expressing your support for it. The images are at the size they would be used in the banner. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
If you would like to see this image used in the project banner, please voice your support here.
Meta-comments
Thank you for all your work, Nihonjoe. But please refrain from voicing opposition to any specific image? What a spoilsport you are here. -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how voicing opposition to a specific image will help matters. What we're looking for is which image(s) people support using, so simply refraining for supporting it voices your opposition to it (even if it's only a "meh, not really seeing this as a good image to use" neutral kind of opposition). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I gotta say, I like this kind of voting, without the verbal wrangling and rhetoric. Much cleaner and easier to count. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I also don't think we need a specific number of participants. Those who are active on the project should be watching this page and should at least stop by and notice this. If they don't there's not much we can do about that. We could always have another poll like this a while down the road if we wish. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Boneyard90, Nihonjoe's way of voting is the right one, not having the comments but just votes is better since people just never seem to stop quibbling about things.JoshuSasori (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Two questions: 1. The image in the project banner on top of this page appears bigger than the images in this list, or is it just me? 2. Just to clarify, the vote is for the particular images shown, not for an image of this type, right? I am asking since IMO some of the images don't show well on this small size, but perhaps another image of the same type might. bamse (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
1. You're right, and I've fixed that now. 2. It's for the particular images shown. I reviewed all of that type of image I could find and selected the ones I thought looked best at a smaller size. We might do some cropping, though, to get an image which is more square on some of them which aren't. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with the torii, although it does seem odd to me when editing non-culture articles. As for alternatives, mine would be the paulownia or a more stylized variant of the national flag. If fictional characters like Hello Kitty, Mario and even Henohenomoheji are considered here, I guess this question is a poll on favorite characters. I also suggest the image of Osaka Castle and Osaka Business Park. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Other image suggestions
Here are some more image suggestions (all cc licensed suitably for Wikipedia):
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Should Hafu list be removed
On the article Hafu should the list of Hafu's be removed. Many of them are listed on article without sources to assert their notability can anyone give me any ideas or thoughts? Dwanyewest (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Isn't a more general term, like biracial or mixed, easier to understand? I don't think this really needs an article. We could move the content to a related article or Wiktionary.--Shinkansen Fan (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Colonies of Japan/Japanese colonialism
Re: Japanese colonialism article. The title implies that this would be a subset of Colonialism, the history and philosophy of colonialism, but it's not. Other than the first three sentences under "History" everything in the article is covered in List of territories occupied by Imperial Japan. Also, the Colonialism article specifically excludes non-European colonialism. Not sure how to rate this as I don't think it actually approaches the topic of "Japanese colonialism" at all. Prburley (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why Colonialism should exclude non-European colonialism. As it does, then the colonialism article has a very big POV problem, and should be renamed to European colonialism. Clearly, Ezo (Hokkaido) was a colonial possession that was incorporated into Japan proper, the way Rome colonized regions that then turned into provinces. (or the way China expanded) 70.24.248.211 (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The Japanese colonialism article is a mess, and Colonialism suffers from severe POV issues. However, I don't think Japanese colonialism should be merged with List of territories occupied by Imperial Japan or made into a separate list for two reasons: 1) Colonies are not the same as occupied territories (for instance, residents of the former could be citizens of the Japanese empire, while the latter could not), and 2) the issue is complex enough to warrant an elaboration of the issues and not just a list (for instance, how Taiwan was treated differently from Korea). The question of course is who can do that, but the current lack of such a person should not be reason to merge or delete articles. Michitaro (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Great points. Would you suggest an overall list of territories/occupations/etc. over the entire historical period of Japan? It goes back farther than what's outlined in the article. Actually, I have access to a huge research collection here at work with a strong emphasis on colonialism, in English. I have the resources, I'll see what I can do. Prburley (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a tricky issue. If you go back far enough, you could argue that northern Honshu is a conquered territory of the Yamato court. But by most definitions, colonialism is a more modern phenomenon, so most would have in mind post-1500 history. It can also get difficult distinguishing between what was a colony, what was properly Japan, and what was just occupied territory. Note that List of territories occupied by Imperial Japan not only limits itself to the post-1868 empire, but links to the Japanese Wikipedia article ja:外地 which is only about annexed or internationally recognized territories, not lands occupied during WWII (unlike the English version). There Okinawa is not 外地 and Kurafuto apparently had a change in designation. The Japanese article on colonialism ja:植民地主義 doesn't even mention Japan (it's pretty short), and the one on colonies ja:植民地 basically repeats the 外地 article. It's delicate issue, so care needs to be taken, but there is enough scholarship in the English literature (e.g., Tessa Morris-Suzuki, et al.) to talk about Japanese colonialism starting from the acquisitions of Okinawa, Hokkaido, and the Bonin Islands. Michitaro (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
We should mention the definition of 外地 and 内地 and legislation and administration. Also, we need more detail on 南洋群島, or the "South Pacific" as it was called, such as the popular image and culture.Shinkansen Fan (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
"Current time in Japan" nonsense
Hello. I personally think that this nonsensical "Current time in Japan" stuff should be removed. "Current time" usually means the time in Japan TODAY, at this minute and second. Same with the date. But what do I see? [15]Current time in Japan: 22:28, March 24, 2012 (JST, Heisei 24). ?!? Japan is one month behind from Europe? Yeah right. On this project page, the date is newer, but still roughly 10 days behind. I dunno what is technically behind this (probably a poorly written or even outdated script?) but at the moment, this "information" makes no sense at all. Opinions please. -andy 217.50.50.244 (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like the bot, or the program, or whatever has a glitch. According to my watch, the time is also an hour off. Maybe Daylight Savings Time screwed it up somehow. It's incorrect, but "nonsense" (and your attitude) are a bit overboard. Otherwise, thanks for the heads-up. I'm sure one of our admins will be able to correct the error, or alert someone who can.Boneyard90 (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
From Londinium, the time at the top of this page shows as 22:00 when it's 19:00 locally, which I guess isn't quite right; as for the link provided above, yes that's what I see too, and that's certainly not right; guess leave it a day or two to right itself before escalating, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It was "22:28, March 24, 2012" yesterday and it's still "22:28, March 24, 2012" today. It doesn't work for me at all. Oda Mari (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
On my screen, month, day and year are now correct, but it's still an hour off. My "Japan-clock" says it's 20:20 hours over there, and the WP:Japan banner gives it as 19:20. WOnder if all this has to do with internet connections.Boneyard90 (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The top of this page currently shows, from where I'm sitting, "Current time in Japan: 21:30, April 21, 2012", which corresponds to the latest edit time of 12:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC) by User:Catflap08 below +9hrs for GMT+9 - so I think this must have something to do with ?refreshing/updating/purging? - that said the "22:28, March 24, 2012" link above still shows that, which does not correspond to the latest page save, so there must be something else going on too, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. having clicked 'show preview' the time at the top of this page has leapt forward to 19:36 (GMT+8)
For me, it's "16:54, April 23, 2012" on the non-secure (http) version of this page, and "11:31, April 22, 2012" for Talk:Japan. It varies page to page. For the secure (https) version of this page and others, it's up-to-date. --Kusunose02:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It is because the time function displays the current time as of when the page was last parsed. So the displayed time is not the current time but the time the page was cached in your computer. See the note of template:Time. Reloading the page (F5) may not correct this problem unless a new page is actually reloaded. (i.e. "If-Modified-Since" was not responded by "Not Modiefied".) Please click this link to reload this page. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I admit that in the case of Nichiren-Buddhism it can be a bit confusing. A compromise would be to let the term Nichiren-Buddhism remain in the template, but in the article itself one should be able to be more specific. I do a have a fair amount of knowledge on Nichiren Buddhism and anyone who does so too would agree that Nichiren Buddhism is not one single school for this the dogmatic differences between Nichiren-Shu, Nichiren-Shoshu, Soka Gakkai and so forth are to big and the respective schools stay clear of each others places of worship. There are two temples which I still would have to clarify with Nichiren-Shu myself to which Nichiren School they belong as so far the english Site of Nichiren Shu does not mention all their temples yet. I shall think some sort of compromise can be found. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Gokayama/Shirakawago
The articles Gokayama and Shirakawa, Gifu (village) and perhaps other related articles seem a bit inconsistent in what they call village or region. In any case it should be made clear what entities are administrative villages, what are names for regions and that things like Ogimachi, Ainokura or Suganuma are "clusters of houses" (no idea whether they are administrative villages or not). Don't know the answer to these questions, but maybe somebody here does. bamse (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Plip! See Omphaloskepsis. Articles beckon, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Whack, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
With Mt Fuji
Detail
? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
