Talk:Sanpaku

Japan Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 02:40, September 16, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 03-02-2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Untitled

I too came here wondering about the subject and just added some extra detail on this topic. It's far easier for people to destroy rather than create content. Hope you feel proud of your contributions to this knowledge resource assholes. Genjix (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why does this have to be deleted? why can't it be a wictionary entry? it is accurate to the best of my knowledge, and referenced. why is everyone so militant about deleting topics that aren't instantly 5 pages in length?Lesotho 15:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. You may add it to Wiktionary if you wish. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. What is the threshold for article status or stub status? Why cannot a self-contained, referenced, reasonable entry exist independently? I still don't understand the motivation for deletionLesotho

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I know you're trying to be witty, but you just undermined your own argument. The main criterion for status on wikipedia (aside from the other 5 pillars, to which this article conforms), appears to be notability.

Quoting Wikipedia:Notability:

"One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself."

this article already references one external source, and without too much difficulty, one can transparently and decisively establish the notability of this topic.

there is already one book referenced in the original article. http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Sanpaku-George-Oshawa/dp/0821601644

here is another book not listed in the original article: http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-All-Sanpaku-Kensington/dp/0806507284

and a notable international film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0260160/

for heaven's sake, it has even been cited in a medical journal: http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/22/6/372.pdf

honestly, i don't care about this topic, but i think you are being a militant expurgator...there are no specific quantitative guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability, so how many books, films, and journals would it take to satisfy your personal notability criterion?

That was a very perfunctory search which turned up all of the references I have cited above. If you want, I can go into Medline tomorrow and really download a lot of references in medical journals.

I turned to wikipedia for information because I came across the term in a medical context. I am Very Glad that this article existed. I hope that it continues to exist.

What is the issue here? I'm honestly confused...Lesotho 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, really. WP:N states that a topic should be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, third party, published sources. The medical journal doesn't speak of "sanpaku" - it speaks of the book "You are all Sanpaku". Which, by the way, IS included in the article. The two books you refer to are the very same books. And, finally, even if you could consider a film a reliable source, the film you refer to is NOT notable: 38 imdb votes tells me I don't even have to google for it. I strongly doubt there are any actually credible references for this - but if you can put some up, then sure. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Unfortunately, the strictures of my job prevent me from being an eminent doyen of wikipedia as you clearly are. Therefore, I will not enter into a "debate of the deaf" with you. I would like to point out that, according to Wikipedia, notability is not subjective.

Here is a list of 9 published books outside of the original source that cite this term. If this does not meet your criteria, then I would point you toward the Wikipedia:Ownership of Articles page.

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=sanpaku&btnG=Search+Books

Please note that one of the cited sources are Congressional transcripts. These are clearly independent and non-trivial sources.

I await your enthusiastic response.

I'm still not entirely convinced, although you make a good case. I still believe it would do better as a wiktionary entry... but I will not push the case any further. (Not even to AfD.) I'll just leave it here and hope someone else will come and deal with it. ;)

Even if this is real, and is notable (though I doubt it), the article appears to be original research at best. I propose an AfD. DWaterson 22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I'm not certain what you mean by "real" in this context. Moreover, your personal "doubts" are not material reasons for suggesting AfD. Please provide some suitable objection outside of your own, subjective viewpoints. I have certainly provided objective references. Please backup your viewpoint adequately, or remove the AfD. If you do not, I will.Lesotho 01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wandering passer-by here, but I wanted to mention that while the term "sanpaku" may not appear in any scientific or medical source, terms such as "scleral show" and "upper/lower lid retraction" describing a similar appearance definitely make an appearance in the literature. Of course, that is an entirely separate matter from any cultural or pseudo-scientific connotations the term "sanpaku" may have. --Pxc131 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?

This article is extremely biased against any validity of the Sanpaku condition. I thought Wikipedia entries are always supposed to uphold complete neutrality.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF97:34E0:2C76:8E1F:1C86:BE4D (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pattinson

Errr... wiki noob here... This page says Robert Pattinson has these sorts of eyes. Well... he only does in photos when his head is tilted downwards and he's looking up, just like anyone else. So... delete him from the list? 14.201.208.202 (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)noob.[reply]

There is a source to back the claim. Then again, it is a TV show apparently, so it might not be instantly verifiable. Is there any evidence you have to support your claim, from "reliable sources"? I'm not against removing him from the list necessarily, but it all depends on what other sources say. Thanks --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I see. I searched images of him and it's plain as day that there's no sanpaku. However, I can only find forums where people support this conclusion: no reputable articles. Many articles just list him as having sanpuaku... they may have even sourced this from Wikipedia. Maybe we could put some kind of annotation that there's a cycle of misinformation and that it is difficult to prove this... or whatever?