Jump to content

Talk:Japanese Wikipedia

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

Lack of pictures

[edit]

I notice that the Japanese wikipeida tends to lack pictures. Is there a reason for this, and if so, could it be addressed>?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.253.43 (talk • contribs)

From the article: "The fair use provisions of US law are not considered to apply. Articles and media files which do not have a GFDL-compatible license are prohibited, even if they would be legal under the "fair use" doctrine in the US." Springbreak04 07:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Most articles' point on Japan only"

[edit]

What exactly does this mean - "Most articles' point on Japan only"?

The English is a bit broken. Does it mean that most articles are about Japan-related topics? --Amir E. Aharoni 07:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Kanji policy?

[edit]

Do they limit contributions to using the 1945 Jōyō kanji? Or do they allow editors to use whatever kanji they wish? --Gronky (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can type in and display any Kanji supported by input method editors, such as Microsoft IME and JustSystems' ATOK. In many cases, using Jōyō Kanji and Jinmeiyō Kanji would suffice. They are the most common characters in writing.
Some artcles include personal names with uncommon characters or rarely used variants of standard characters. For example, Japanese author Ryōtarō Shiba's name is often written this way: ja:司馬遼太郎. However, "Ryō" of Ryōtarō is actually 遼 with two "dots", rather than one, in the following radical (called shinnyō or shinnyū):
辶

Shinkansen Fan (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

Many points in the Characteristics section sound a lot like original research. For example, "In keeping with the strong aversion to edit wars, the administrators react negatively to cases where many minor edits are made to a single article in a short period of time" may have been written by an editor in the Japanese Wikipedia who had a couple of arguments with an admin. At the very least this article should point to a policy in the ja.wiki that advises against frequent edits to the same article and to a few cases in which that happened, and even that would be a primary source. Currently there are no directly quoted sources at all.

I am marking it as original research. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culture section added

[edit]

Hi, I've added a "Culture section" on the article. I assume this may be somewhat controversial, so please feel free to discuss and advise any comments in mind. Thank you --Makesdark (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards section

[edit]

I've found the corresponding history on the Japanese Wikipedia:Announcements page ja:Wikipedia:発表#2004.E5.B9.B4, andja:Wikipedia:発表/第2回Webクリエーション・アウォード. Though the title of the Award[1] was something like "2004 Special Prize award the 2nd Web creation". google translation for ja:Wikipedia:受賞.--Makesdark (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is outdated...

[edit]

...as it implies that the GNU Free Documentation License is still the only license that the Japanese version of Wikipedia uses (is uses the same liscence as the English version). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karjam (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another time I forgot to sign? All well. Anyways, I ALSO noticed that the dates in this article seem to go as far as 2006. Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, changing the outdated part from the whole article to the section "characteristics", as I saw a "2008" date in the article. (still think this is outdated, though). Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the footer and some of the documentation has been updated to reflect the license change, the change has not entirely sunk in (yet) among the community. In fact, ja:Wikipedia:Copyrights only mentions GFDL. Many request for deletion still get deleted on the grounds of GFDL violation. I'm not reflecting this on the article because that'll be my OR, though. --朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will no longer be utilizing the japanese wikipedia. J4lambert (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mentioning of Shosei Koda

[edit]

Well, this article is a little bit outdated now: his name doesn't appear in the title of the ja.wp article, but is mentioned (and even bolded!) in the lede since this edit. Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Japanese Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Japanese Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Otaku

[edit]

I understand that you don't want acknowledge, but It is fact. HAHAHA --101.128.237.20 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "fact" means a lot of different things to different people and your edit is considered original research on Wikipedia. You still haven't provided a rationale or source for this change. Please stop edit warring and instead gain consensus for this change first. Opencooper (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there few articles in the project as compared to the language's importance by number of speakers?

[edit]

I found out Swedish and Cebuan Wikipedia [2] are just so big because most of their articles are created by bots. Why are Wikipedias in French, German, Spanish, so much bigger? And I think connection of Japanese Wikipedia with others is low because few outside Japan speak Japanese, and the Japanese on average don't speak many other languages (living on an island is one factor). Crotopaxi (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Japan, English is taught as a compulsory subject starting from the 5th grade and continues as such to the higher education. Therefore Japanese intellectuals tend to read and write in English on specialized topics and don't take a local-language online encyclopedia seriously. Also for the same reason, much of the cream of Japanese Wikipedians are absorbed in the English edition (like me!) 124.25.156.190 (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slate Article

[edit]

There's a concern regarding this article: https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/japanese-wikipedia-misinformation-non-english-editions.html. Daiichi1 keeps deleting on the basis that it is non-reliable and is "an opinion piece based on the author's own blog". But, this does not seem to be an issue considering that Slate is considered to be a generally reliable source by WP:RS here. Daiichi1 raised the point the reliability is based on its 'area of expertise', however Slate covers culture, technology and politics. Japanese Wikipedia can easily be categorized into culture and technology. Next, there's no indication on the article that it is an opinion piece. Daiichi1 raises the point that it is "based off the author's own blog". But, there's no indication that, even if it is (for which there is no source attributed), Slate considered that to be an issue. Considering it is considered generally reliable, it would have sufficiently read-over and verified the statements made by the author; also, there appears to be no strong criticism made about the veracity or reliability of the article made by an equally or more authoritative source. Even if the article was an 'opinion piece', it has been sufficiently attributed to the author, which is required under WP:RS and under the perennial sources. The fact that it promotes a viewpoint is irrelevant, as long as the source itself is sufficiently reliable, as has already been stated. The source should be kept NettingFish15029 (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Slate's reliability is stale (since 2015), you cant consider it generally reliable when its current state has not been evaluated or discussed. Japanese politics, history, or culture are not Slate's area of expertise, technology is not touched upon in the article. The author plugs their own blog in the article where the contents are nearly identical, except the blog is much longer (the article can be thought of as a summary of their blog). Has Slate ever release anything detailing their editorial policy? If not how can you know that the piece was even read over once? Plenty of publications have very lax standards for publication, do you have some information that would indicate Slate is an exception to this? Again this is not an area of expertise for them, even if they did review the piece (which is uncertain) they are not capable of evaluating its veracity, do you have some information that would indicate they typically consult experts for pieces they are not capable of evaluating themselves? Even per the dated 2015 discussion Slate was not considered reliable for area outside their expertise.
Statements must be based upon independent reliable sources, the reliability of the source is questionable, the independence of the author however is beyond question, they admit themselves (on their blog) to being directly involved in multiple of the disputes on Japanese Wikipedia that they are covering in the article.
I'm removing the section while this is being discussed on the basis that
1.) It is contentious
2.) It is unlikely given the authors personal involvement with the subject matter that it will pass any scrutiny by a third party.
In case your curious on whether or not the author holds any credibility on the subject regardless, their only qualifications are that they are a music therapist (according to their blog), in other words, a completely unrelated field (if that even is a legitimate thing, im honestly not sure). This would explain the multiple falsehoods and mistakes in their article, for example they claimed that The Nanjing Massacre (南京大虐殺) being renamed as The Nanjing Incident (南京事件) on the Japanese Wikipedia is a form of revisionism. But The Nanjing Incident (南京事件) is the standard name given Japanese historiographic naming conventions. The whole piece is a mess and seems to be just an outlet to air out her personal problems with the Japanese Wiki. Daiichi1 (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recent discussion on Slate on the noticeboard still seems to support the conclusion that it is reliable, like in the context of Middle East politics and 'liberal' politics. There's no reason what that reasoning (which concluded that Slate is reliable with sufficient attribution) could not be used here. The article was part of a collaboration to examine the way 'technology is influencing how we think about speech', which shows it's still within Slate's area of expertise. It was also published in 'Future Tense', which also involves Arizona State University and New America, which also supports reliability by contacting professionals and experts in this field.
You also question Slate's editorial policy. Considering it had won several awards, such as the National Magazine Awards, that suggests it has a strong reputable one. The fact it also has a corrections page also shows that it regularly fact-checks its articles and transparently shows any errors it makes.
As for 'scrutiny by a third party, you haven't shown any other reliable sources that contradict what the author has said. As long as the article remains sufficiently attributable, it is reliable. For the author, she is also a writer as stated on her blog and has written many books on Japan, which I think helps her credibility. Even if she has participated in editing Wikipedia (which I'm not sure where you found this), that doesn't automatically disinclude her. She is rather highlighting the lack of discussion around contentious material and the advocacy for a particular viewpoint, at the expense of others.
For your suggested mistake as to the naming conventions, I won't get into what name is more appropriate considering the considerable controversy on the matter. However, the article tries to point out that a decision was made with little discussion and considerable opposition, which I think is the main point.
In this regard, the article is still reliable NettingFish15029 (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no recent discussion on Slate in the perennial sources noticeboard. The 'middle east' link you provide is from a discussion from 2009, i do see though that in the 'liberal politics' link users consider Slate generally reliable. However the article is not about the middle east or liberal politics. I've already said this but, Japanese history, culture, and politics, are what the article is actually about, and that falls outside their area of expertise (outside their area of reliability). I've also said this before but the article makes no mention of technology. This is not what their qualified to write about or factcheck. You're making claims that you have no way of knowing are true. Do you have anything that indicate Arizona State University is actively involved in fact checking and contacting experts and professionals for the articles published in Future Tense (as you claim) and not just funding the column? Future Tense is focused on technology, per slates own website the topics Future Tense covers are "robotics, information and communication technologies, synthetic biology, augmented reality, space exploration, and other technologies", all of which are completely unrelated to what the article in question is about.
The author has not written any books about Japan, it would not give her credibility even if she did, on what basis are you claiming this? The closest thing about Japan she has published is "戦争の歌がきこえる" but this is about her own experience as a music therapist caring for an american veteran (who apparently killed Japanese soldiers in WW2) in hospice. This is only a single book, not many (as you claim), and is not about the topic of the article or Japan.
She says on her blog she was directly involved in editing multiple of the pages she goes on to cover in her slate piece, I clearly included "(on their blog)" in my last reply right after I said this, this means I got that information from their blog, I dont know how you can say you didn't know where I got this information from.
This is a clear conflict of interest and should automatically throw her article out regardless of any of the other points I made.
On the naming convention, the article clearly states she views it as a form of historical revisionism, the whole point of the article is to cover "historical revisionism", the point she was trying to make was not that the decision was made with little discussion, it would make sense if it was made with little discussion because its an obvious decision to make given its literally the correct name in the language. This along with multiple other mistakes indicates that 1.) she is not qualified to write about the subject (reminder her only real qualification is that shes a music therapist) and 2.) no one with any knowledge of the subject looked over the article before publication.
To summarize, the article is ridden with mistakes and is written by someone with a clear conflict of interest. Slates reliability (on this topic) cannot be proven given they have no experience in it, so the article should be evaluated individually. Any further discourse on reliability would just be a waste of time as whether slate is reliable on different topics is irrelevant to whether or not they're reliable on this one. Instead the focus should be the article contents and the bias of the author. Daiichi1 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slate is considered a reliable source under WP:RSPSOURCES, and the information from the article was attributed to the author, following WP:INTEXT. And according to WP:INTEXT, in-text attribution "can also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words, and it should always be used for biased statements of opinion. It avoids inadvertent plagiarism and helps the reader see where a position is coming from." Given this information, the information provided by Slate should remain in the article. It doesn't validate Wikipedia guidelines; it complies with them. DonaldObamaBiden (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Information on Wikipedia needs to be factual and reliable, I think i've illustrated already how this article is both full of errors and unreliable, undue weight shouldn't be given to conspiracy theory level ramblings. Per WP:UNDUE "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". Beyond this there are notability issues, like there being no independent coverage of these claim. Daiichi1 (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia prefix 'ja' rather than 'jp'?

[edit]

Just curious - why is Wikipedia's prefix 'ja' rather than 'jp'? Was the ccTLD 'ja' when Wikipedia started? Jimw338 (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimw338: The subdomains Wikipedia uses for each language are based on their two-letter ISO 639-1 codes if they exist or three-letter ISO 639-3 code. For Japanese, these are ja/jpn respectively. Opencooper (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Essay written by Yumiko Sato reliable resource to know about Japanese Wikipedia?

[edit]

Hello. I saw some version that using essays written by Yumiko Sato([3]). At next version, it has been reverted that because of Sae Kitamura's speech. (I guess [4] and [5] is the thing which is talking about.) Other than just reverting, why don't we make an agreement about how do we treat these resources we've got. 遡雨祈胡 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Slate article by Sato Yumiko you're referring to has already been discussed above: Slate Article. ThomasKyhn (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sato's remarks have many mistakes in the preconditions, and despite being pointed out by other users, he continues to make announcements while ignoring them. Therefore, the majority of Japanese Wikipedia's editors say that Sato's opinion is not worth reference. See also ja:Wikipedia:井戸端/subj/日本語版ウィキペディアの管理体制について--User:S.S.Exp.Hashimoto (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not surprising that editors of the Japanese Wikipedia are dissatisfied with Sato's criticism as it's directed against what they, at least some of them, are responsible for. Considering the historical denialism a loud minority of Japanese Internet users engage in elsewhere, it does not come as a surprise either that this would affect the Japanese Wikipedia. ThomasKyhn (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sae Kitamura has pointed out the problems of the remarks of Sato in her blog(Japanese).In summary, Kitamura states that Sato has made an announcement based on many misconceptions.
The editor of the Japanese Wikipedia does not mention Sato's political claims. The editors of the Japanese Wikipedia point out factual misconceptions to Sato in the same way that Kitamura pointed out, but the problem is that Sato continues to ignore it. Since therefore Sato's article is not based on fact, I also do not think I deserve to be described here. --S.S.Exp.Hashimoto (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kitamura's criticism of Sato's article appears to be directed at Sato's understanding of how Wikipedia works and not at the claims she makes about historical revisionism (denialism) on the Japanese Wikipedia. ThomasKyhn (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sato's claim to Wikipedia has been sublimated into conspiracy theory due to her lack of understanding of Wikipedia's rules and operations, and is closely related to the content of Kitamura's article.
I am one of the parties to the case that Sato points out, but I just reverted this case to a benign version because it was suspected of violating Japanese copyright law. But she claims to be historical revisionist because she doesn't understand the rules of Wikipedia. --S.S.Exp.Hashimoto (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why Kitamura's criticism of Sato's technical understanding of Wikipedia couldn't be pointed out in the entry. Using Kitamura's criticism as a pretext to remove Sato's criticism altogether, on the other hand, is something else. ThomasKyhn (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a fundamental issue, as Kitamura points out, Sato doesn't understand the rules and community of Wikipedia, but more than that, Sato is a music therapist, not a history expert. Therefore, I don't think Sato's article is "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" and should be removed from Wikipedia.--S.S.Exp.Hashimoto (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The validity of Sato's criticism does not depend on her profession; if parts of her criticism are valid they're valid regardless of her profession and educational background. The reliable sources issue is discussed above: Slate Article. ThomasKyhn (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Slate's article, Daiichi1's point in the discussion presented states that the field of Japanese history is not subject to peer review by experts. Also, it is stated that it is an article about a thing that Sato is involved in, and that one-sided articles by the parties should not be the source.
In the unlikely event that Sato's article was a reliable source, I don't think her article should be mentioned as it has many fundamental misconceptions about the Japanese Wikipedia. --S.S.Exp.Hashimoto (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to participate in this discussion, you need to at least read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to understand the content of WP:RS. By WP:RS, "piece of work itself, the creator of the work, the publisher of the work, any of the three can affect reliability."(from WP:SOURCEDEF) So, your statement, "The validity of Sato's criticism does not depend on her profession", does not conform to (English) Wikipedia's guidelines.
In addition, "the reliability of a source depends on context" (by WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). Therefore, it cannot necessarily be said that Sato's article is reliable because it is published in Slate. This is also pointed out by Daiichi1 above(Slate Article). --紅い目の女の子 (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her claims about historical revisionism (denialism) on Japanese Wikipedia may still be valid regardless of her understanding of how Wikipedia works. Using the latter as a pretext to get rid of the former, which isn't premised on the latter, does not seem like an ideal solution. There's no reason why the problems with her understanding of Wikipedia couldn't be pointed out in the entry itself. ThomasKyhn (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:RS? If you want to introduce Sato's essay on Wikipedia, you need to prove that who wants to publish it meets WP:RS.I can only think of Sato's essay as "Self-published sources" and "Questionable sources", and I don't think it meets WP:RS.
And since it is only the opinion of an amateur, such as the opinion of a music therapist who is not an expert in modern Japanese history, I do not think it is particularly notability. --S.S.Exp.Hashimoto (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing for the introduction of Sato's article; it has already been introduced. Sato's blog may be self-published, but the Slate article is not. Kitamura's (self-published) criticism of Sato's understanding of how Wikipedia works could very well be added, but this criticism has no bearing on Sato's claims about historical revisionism (i.e. denialism) on the Japanese Wikipedia and neither does Sato's professional background. ThomasKyhn (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ThomasKyhn:It doesn't matter if it's already written in the article. We should decide whether to continue or remove according to Wikipedia rules. As I have said many times, that slate article and Sato's remarks about history are contrary to WP:RS.On the contrary, you cannot explain at all whether it conforms to WP:RS. --S.S.Exp.Hashimoto (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@S.S.Exp.Hashimoto: You were referring to Sato's article as if it hadn't already been introduced. At most, the article is in a grey area; and as I've said before, there's no good reason not to keep the passage about it, with the possible addition of the criticism it's been subjected to. ThomasKyhn (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ThomasKyhn: If so, I think we should wait for someone who is familiar with the mechanism of Wikipedia and has some research results on modern Japanese history. At least, Kitamura Sae, who is recognized as an expert on the Japanese Wikipedia itself, has denied Sato's claim about the Japanese Wikipedia. Therefore, at present, Sato's articles and claims are only amateur impressions and should be removed from Wikipedia.--S.S.Exp.Hashimoto (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@S.S.Exp.Hashimoto: Again: The criticism in Kitamura's (self-published) blog post is not directed at Sato's criticism of the content on the Japanese Wikipedia, and yet you're using it as an argument for getting rid of this criticism. This way of arguing does not come across as entirely convincing. ThomasKyhn (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Return indent) @ThomasKyhn: Ask you again, can you prove that Sato's essay meets "WP: RS"? Kitamura's article was presented to show that Sato's essay is not "WP: RS". It will not be published in Wikipedia articles. There is also speculation that Sato was using an account called Yabukit (talk · contribs), and Yabukit ignored WP: CS, added some articles, and was immediately reverted by other users. .. However, Sato's Japanese blog claims that such inconvenient facts are a concrete example of historical revisionist behavior. And that is mentioned in Kitamura's article as an example of factual misunderstanding by Sato. --S.S.Exp.Hashimoto (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@S.S.Exp.Hashimoto: So "speculation" is good enough for you when it suits your argument? Let me just refer you to the comments by NettingFish15029 in section 13 above. ThomasKyhn (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ThomasKyhn: Is NettingFish15029's claim refuted by Daiichi1? Daiichi1's counterargument follows Wikipedia's rules and does not need to adopt NettingFish15029's claim. --S.S.Exp.Hashimoto (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I want to point out that the article by Sato seems to indicate a lack of fundamental knowledge not just about Wikipedia, but also about how the Japanese language works: For example, the complaining about the Nanking Massacre being referred to as an incident seems to imply that this is some sort of effort at downplaying it, but "jiken" does not have that implication in Japanese, and all sorts of massacres and terrorist attacks that have happened TO Japanese people (for example the Tokyo metro saline gas attack) are also referred to as "jiken". It's just how the language works, and thus how the Nanking Massacre has always been referred to in Japanese with the Wikipedians having nothing to do with deciding on the terminology. Sato seems to be primarily based in the US so that probably has a lot to do with her misconceptions.
I want to make it clear that I am NOT defending the Japanese Wikipedia users though, they are clearly biased and it's run by a small group of right-wing nutjobs as can be seen in the whole Kozo Iizuka fiasco. It's just that, from the point of view of someone who actually understands Japanese, Sato has little idea what she's talking about.
That being said I'm not against quoting the piece on this article, she does raise important issues and some of the stuff she talks about is completely true. Perhaps some of the more outlandish stuff being cited (the semantics about "incident" being the foremost example) should be pruned? 2404:2D00:5000:841:F4B7:6751:FB3C:503F (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to the Slate article and also related to criticism on Japanese Wikipedia though, could it be possible to add something to this article about how right wing Japanese Wikipedians sometimes invade English Wikipedia and try to change things to fit their narrative? I don't think it's been covered by any news sources, but it's pretty clear if you look at edit histories and talk pages on controversial topics. 2404:2D00:5000:841:F4B7:6751:FB3C:503F (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@2404:2D00:5000:841:F4B7:6751:FB3C:503F:As explained above, it is not possible to write such an article based on discussions and posts on Wikipedia because it goes against WP:RS.
Regarding Kozo Iizuka, Kitamura previously told the Asahi Shimbun, "There is no organization that supports Wikipedia in Japan, and I hate the risk of proceedings that require compensation for damages, so the Japanese version is compared to the English version. The privacy standards are very strict. This time, it can be said that it is a normal judgment. " I have the same perception. And if Iizuka's decision is finalized after three years in prison and the Japanese law, the Order to seize the medal, is applied, I think Ikebukuro's traffic accident can be added as "an event that had a significant impact on his career." . (Similarly, if he dies, the privacy clause will not apply, so I think I can add it.) Because, in Japanese case law, except for very serious crimes, they can request that past criminal records remaining on the Internet be deleted after the sentence is over.　Therefore, I recognize that the Japanese Wikipedia is also operated in consideration of such cases. In the end, you'll also find that the conspiracy theory about Japanese Wikipedia is crap. --S.S.Exp.Hashimoto (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slate is a reliable source. Sorry, but those arguing otherwise seem to be trying to do so in bad faith because they dislike the content of the source. There also seems to be a lot of accounts and argumentation that appears to be brigading from Japanese Wikipedia in order to prevent documented criticism of it. SilverserenC 16:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Silverseren Slate is generally reliable, this essay is not. None of the concerns raised have been assuaged, both discussions have ended with the party in favor of including the section leaving the discussion unable to defend their positions. Is that not a clear community consensus? COI of the author, and errors in the essay can be found a plenty above. There is no independent coverage of any of these claim (a blogger with no qualifications in the subject that is directly involved in the Wikipedia disputes she writes about surely does not count, right?). Per WP:UNDUE "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all", the authors claims are not only a minority they are WP:FRINGE, claiming that The Nanjing Massacre (南京大虐殺) being named as The Nanjing Incident (南京事件) on the Japanese Wikipedia is a form of revisionism, despite the latter being the standard name given Japanese historiographic naming conventions is grounds to remove the entire article itself given the clear lack of understanding on the topic it shows. Daiichi1 (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication that the Slate article is not a reliable source or that Yumiko Sato is unreliable. Especially since this isn't a regular Slate article. As it notes, this is a special academic series:
"This article is part of the Free Speech Project, a collaboration between Future Tense and the Tech, Law, & Security Program at American University Washington College of Law that examines the ways technology is influencing how we think about speech."
And that it is an article that is a part of multiple combined reliable groups.
"Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society."
So this is an article that is a part of an academic investigation involving multiple news outlets, American University, and Arizona State University. So, yeah, way higher reliability and importance than a mere Slate article would be.
Lastly, your point about Nanjing, all you're making an argument for there is that Japanese historiographic naming conventions are also themselves purposeful revisionism and bias on subjects negative toward Japanese history. Japanese Wikipedia going along with said bias is not a positive statement about its neutrality either. English Wikipedia, for example, frequently neutrally covers subjects negative toward English-speaking countries and the US even when the governments involved try to whitewash and obscure the facts of those subjects. SilverserenC 19:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about the conflict of interest of Yumiko Sato, she is not an independent source and has been involved in editing the very pages and participating in the very content disputes she wrote about in her article. :::Using the correct name for an event is not revisionism, it is standard to use, incident (事件) in the naming of historical events, even if other languages use different terms for them. This is an academic practice and has nothing to do with the Japanese government if that is what you are insinuating.
This can be seen in the naming of the Osaka school massacre which is named the Ikeda Incident (附属池田小事件) in Japanese (Ikeda is the name of the school). Daiichi1 (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the people who write articles about Wikipedia have been involved in editing Wikipedia as well, including in relevant articles and topics. Also, that's not really the meaning of how we use conflict of interest here. Furthermore, you seem to be cherrypicking what she noted. Did the Japanese article state at one point:
"“The Chinese side calls it the Nanjing Massacre, but the truth of the incident is still unknown.”"
If yes, that is a blatant and obvious bias and problem in the article. Also, she has a very direct point about the lack of any images in the Japanese article regarding the event. The few images in the article aren't about the actual event in question, whereas our article on the Nanjing Massacre just has a ton of example images of various situations that happened.
You seem to have latched specifically onto whether 南京事件 was used rather than 南京大虐殺, when that was only one of multiple things she pointed out about the article in question. It is the combination of multiple things together that showcase the biased nature of the article. If the only issue in the article was the name, then your naming convention claim would have more backing. But combined with the multiple other problems, there seems no reason to give benefit of the doubt to the naming decision. SilverserenC 04:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at the article, in the first sentence "、日本軍が南京を占領した際、約二カ月にわたって多数の中国軍捕虜、敗残兵、便衣兵および一般市民を不法に殺害[1]、暴行、虐殺、強姦、略奪、放火したとされる事件[2][注釈 1][注釈 2]。" The killing of chinese POW (中国軍捕虜), remnants of defeated forces (敗残兵), civilian clothed soldiers (便衣兵), regular civilians (一般市民), and unlawful murder (不法に殺害), assault (暴行), mass killing (虐殺), rape (強姦), looting (強姦) and arson (放火) are all mentioned. The article mentions there is still debate over the scale and extent of the event and whether or not the unarmed civilians killed include women and children, this seems to be true, the Death toll of the Nanjing Massacre page covers these debates in detail. According to jisho.com [6] 大虐殺 which is what the Chinese call it, can also mean genocide and holocaust. The translation by Yumiko “The Chinese side calls it the Nanjing Massacre, but the truth of the incident is still unknown.” leaves out this nuance.
The first sentence of the article gives in my opinion a pretty non biased and non revisionist description of the event. Regardless of whether or not we end up keeping Yumikos piece in the article, as the current section stands now it is too long (and unencyclopedic imo) and gives too much weight to a single blogger with no qualifications or training in the field of history. I propose for now to revert the section back to this previous version [7], what do you think about this? Daiichi1 (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why does your version have all the other parts of the criticism section not related to Sato removed? That seems a little bizarre. But, yes, the section is too detailed for just that source, but that's easily fixed in a much better way, which I'll go do right now and we can discuss. SilverserenC 19:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? Is that better? I also fixed up the wording of the final paragraph, because it was in pretty bad English. SilverserenC 19:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

[edit]

"As of March 2022, it has over 1,317,000 articles with 15,639 active contributors, ranking fourth behind the English, Spanish and Russian editions." -- What does the rank mean? Is the rank by number of articles, is it the rank by active editors, etc.? Sheep (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flash

[edit]

The use of Flash here is concerning. Flash is a shūkanshi, which in general is not reliable enough and should be discouraged per WP:RS. Is there any better source to use instead? --2001:240:2428:5951:8602:AC8:4458:1C8C (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been more than a year. If the paragraph about Oyamada is not going to be better sourced, it doesn't make sense to keep it here. All the news coverage indicates is that it was Oyamada's controversy, not Wikipedia's. --2001:240:2471:DA45:EBF5:2D1F:3399:44AC (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --2001:240:2466:3790:A4E0:32EF:DD6B:DD69 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the same person who made the above two comments? toobigtokale (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I thought it was obvious enough. --2001:240:2460:8806:3F8C:CDF2:675F:F4C9 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics section

[edit]

The current Characteristics section of this article delves into overly intricate and technical details about Japanese Wikipedia policies that are of interest only to a small number of active Wikipedia contributors. It also assumes that the audience has some prior knowledge of Wikipedia's editorial process, as terms such as "IP users" and "edit war" suddenly appear without any explanation of what IP editing or edit warring means.

The section needs to be substantially rewritten to provide context and summary of the information presented for non–Wikipedia contributors to understand. Pacifio (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim et al. (2023)

[edit]

Kim et al. (2023), cited in the "Alleged historical revisionism" section, does not support the claim that historical revisionism is indeed prevalent on the Japanese Wikipedia. The paper shows that World War II–related articles on the Japanese Wikipedia are significantly more likely to be subject to edit wars, and then hypothesizes that there is a "possible presence of groups of editors seeking to disseminate revisionist narratives". However, the paper makes no attempt to test whether this hypothesis is correct.

To present this research with such a weak claim at this length under the heading "Alleged historical revisionism" strikes me as a strong POV pushing, in clear violation of WP:NPOV. Pacifio (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added the article. I disagree that it’s intentional POV pushing; the current wording does not imply that the paper definitively proves the existence of historical revisionism. I think it’s more to do with how the authors presented the paper itself, the title of the session and paper allege historical revisionism. I agree that they don’t directly test for it.
I think a possible solution is clarifying that discrepancy better, although would need to do so without making it original research; otherwise I think what’s currently written isn’t false or necessarily intended to be biased, just incomplete and needing improvement. toobigtokale (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I agree that it’s currently too long for how indirect the evidence is; I was unhappy with that too. It’s just hard to concisely explain technical things on such a serious topic without coming across as hand-wavey 🫠 toobigtokale (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not evidence, just a hypothesis, and the authors make no attempt to show that it is correct. In fact, most of the paper is devoted to discussion on the method of identifying controversial articles, or which topics are most controversial and subject to edit wars, which has nothing to do with historical revisionism on the Japanese Wikipedia.
I understand that Wikipedia editors are not supposed to evaluate or interpret sources and instead present information the same way it is discussed in academia, mainstream media, etc., but the fact is simple: there is simply nothing of substance to Kim et al. (2023) that can be used in a reference work like Wikipedia to suggest the presence of historical revisionism on the Japanese Wikipedia. Pacifio (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that Wikipedia editors are not supposed to evaluate or interpret sources
You should have stopped there. If you have issues with the reliability of the information in the source, then you can get it checked out at WP:RSN. And we can also discuss how much information from it to include, per WP:DUE. But, otherwise, the source stands on its own merits. SilverserenC 16:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by saying "the source stands on its own merits"? Pacifio (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that you, as a Wikipedia editor, can't decide that a source is bad because you disagree with the information/conclusions it comes to. If there is no issue with a source's reliability in itself, then you have no standing to try to remove its inclusion in the relevant article. SilverserenC 16:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained that the paper does not attempt to test whether the hypothesis that historical revisionism is prevalent on the Japanese Wikipedia is correct, which is the point that User:toobigtokale confirmed in his reply. What I should be doing as a Wikipedia editor is therefore to wait for the subsequent credible research papers that do the testing to be published, rather than making assumptions about whether the hypothesis is correct by "evaluat[ing] or interpret[ing] sources". Pacifio (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hold up, I don't think the source is uncredible or somehow worthless. Most papers in the humanities that use computational methods are similarly indirect. Case in point, try to describe how revisionism can be precisely measured computationally, with no ambiguity. It's impossible; all we can do in many scenarios in the humanities is establish indirect metrics. Then once there are enough of a combination of metrics and qualitative analyses, an academic consensus forms (still indirect, but this happens for all research that's not math). I just think this needs to be presented better; making it clear that it's an indirect method and not an academic consensus. Deleting it entirely is unreasonable, especially given that there's few other papers in the area. It'd make more sense to delete it if the body of research was so developed that there were better options to choose from. As it stands it's one angle of examining the issue. toobigtokale (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a bit concerning to me that you've switched the initial scope of your concerns from "it's biased" to "it's worthless". Do you feel both, and if so why didn't you say the latter earlier?
I disagree with both claims btw. The source adds value to the article, even if it does not prove things 100%. That's the humanities for you. I'm also completely open to collaborating on a rewrite of it. I liked your prev changes and even am happy to discuss rewriting to remove POV concerns. That doesn't smell like bias to me. toobigtokale (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are significantly mischaracterizing my argument. I never claimed that the source was "uncredible" or "worthless". Indeed, I never used the latter term. Not did I deny that the paper is written by subject-matter experts. Terms like "worthless" are also never defined, and they are a distraction from a constructive discussion.
Those who want to reject my argument can either (a) deny that Kim et al. (2023) does not support the claim that historical revisionism is indeed prevalent on the Japanese Wikipedia, but only presents a hypothesis, or (b) deny that we should wait for the subsequent research that tests the hypothesis to be published. What is your argumentative strategy? Pacifio (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wat
"there is simply nothing of substance to Kim et al. (2023) that can be used in a reference work like Wikipedia to suggest the presence of historical revisionism on the Japanese Wikipedia"
This implies it is not useful here (scrap the word worthless since you don't like it, but same thing really)
For your arguments:
a) I do deny that. It is an indirect measure, which is already allowed even in articles about health and science.
b) I do deny that. Reread my previous comments.
I'll wait for other peoples' contributions. I'm happy to rewrite info about the article if they think it's worth it. I try to not get involved in these kinds of debates. I only participated now because I think the issue is important, but when arguments devolve to repetition... idk I could be spending my time contributing elsewhere. toobigtokale (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the terminology I've used, I'm not wedded to it. Frankly, I don't know why you've become so heated in this conversation when all I'm doing is showing you the objective facts and what we can logically deduce from them. It is objectively true that the paper merely hypothesizes, or does not "definitively prove" (in your words), the existence of historical revisionism, and it is also objectively true that we do not assign a dedicated section to cover such a claim on Wikipedia when the claim in the source is so weak. "[I]n articles about health and science articles", for example, we write John (2023) concluded that the vaccine is safe; we don't write John (2023) stated that it is possible that the vaccine is safe when there are other credible sources discussing the topic, such as the Sato–Kitamura dispute (unless, for example, the claim had received significant media coverage and is notable on its own). Pacifio (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
let's wait for other people to contribute, i doubt we'll convince each other of much toobigtokale (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot avoid having to show where you think my argument is mistaken by saying "let's wait for other people to contribute". Pacifio (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened it a bit, thoughts? I'm willing to work to revise it more. toobigtokale (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the edit. I am still not sure whether articles associated with right-wing topics is the best way to articulate what is stated in the paper. Would changing it to articles discussing topics susceptible to historical revisionism or articles discussing topics susceptible to right-wing revisionist narratives be an improvement? What do you think? Pacifio (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes either sounds good. I’m glad you’re on board with the edits toobigtokale (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used the latter phrasing you suggested. Do you think this is sufficient to remove the npov template? toobigtokale (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed the POV template since the problem seems to be fixed now. I also made some minor changes to the article to improve readability. Pacifio (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion in Kim et al. (2023) was too weak to be presented as fact in the article, and removing that part leaves nothing directly related to the "Controversies" heading in the article, so I thought we either needed to remove the mention of the paper from the section, or reorganize the article to properly contextualize the information presented, but I conceded the latter point because I didn't want to continue this heated discussion (especially given that an uninvolved editor suddenly jumped in and rushed to attack me (argumentum ad hominem) without carefully reading what I had said earlier). Hopefully one day an experienced editor will step in and fix the article by reorganizing relevant information into proper order, proportions, and headings. Pacifio (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

Is it appropriate to mention allegations of historical revisionism in the lead section, not just in the body of the article? 133.106.196.251 (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imo yes.
MOS:LEAD 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. Imo based on coverage of the issue it's a prominent controversy. Other topics belong in the lead too, but it's just that nobody has added them yet. There's nothing that requires us to wait until those get added. toobigtokale (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how a single article from Slate, two pages of coverage in an OUP book whose subject is not on Wikipedia, and a few publications in academic journals constitute a 'prominent controversy.' The crucial point here is that these are all primary sources of the alleged controversy, and there is a near total absence of secondary sources covering it here (except, perhaps, Kitamura's personal blog post—which doesn't count when assessing whether the paragraph meets MOS:LEAD). 133.106.212.155 (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few publications in academic journals is sufficient in many fields to constitute a prominent controversy. There are few publications in English about the content of the Japanese Wikipedia altogether; these constitute a good chunk of what's been said, so imo still worth inclusion. Either way, given that there's a controversy section in the article it seems inappropriate to not have a single sentence about controversy, even if not about the revisionism. I think we need to hear more opinions; would like third party input from unrelated fields. toobigtokale (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for concerns about coverage:
Works by Sato published in other publications and conferences
Third party sources that cover/mention Sato's work
Not to mention the Wikimedia foundation funded research on editor behavior and networks on controversial articles on the Japanese Wikipedia, with Sato's article prominently mentioned in it.
Evidently all of these publications found it important enough to cover. I didn't include all of these sources on my original writing because it seemed redundant. If I did, would that make it less ambiguous to other readers that this is a noteworthy topic? toobigtokale (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The degree of controversy—i.e., whether a particular controversy meets the 'prominence' criteria outlined in MOS:LEAD—is to be judged by the number of independent sources covering that controversy, and how extensively it is covered in those sources. It appears that in all four of the third-party sources you provided (with the exception of Gigazine, which you rightly pointed out is 'less reliable'), Sato's work is not the primary focus of the article, and is mentioned only to provide the audience with context for the article's main topic. The first source is about climate change misinformation on non-English Wikipedias in general, the second is about the Chinese Wikipedia, and the last is about a historical dispute.
Covering her work in the lead based on these sources alone may be a departure from how controversies are generally covered in other Wikipedia articles. 133.106.248.53 (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I can agree on reducing the size of the mention, having no mention seems strange, given that there is a controversy section and the controversies have been covered by four different primary sources that have been published in around a respectable dozen venues total.
I'd like to hear other opinions if possible. toobigtokale (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are you one person? You've posted using different ips each time, for sake of transparency think it's important to disclose toobigtokale (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should have been obvious all along that the Rakuten Mobile editors discussing with you in this section are all me, one person. I would like to clarify that "for the sake of transparency". 133.106.51.137 (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the condescending snark, let's keep waiting on hearing from others toobigtokale (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japanese_Wikipedia&oldid=1254812320"