Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/October 2015

During a bot trial, I ran into an issue with bolded Japanese text while using infoboxes. See: [1].

The bolded text appears to be fairly difficult to read given the complexity of some Japanese characters. I question whether it's ever desirable to have bolded Japanese text as a result, or whether it's even within policy to do so, given our accessibility standards and the WMF's non-discrimination policy. My recommended solution would be to wrap the Japanese text outputted by templates such as {{Nihongo}} in {{Nobold}}, which would keep all Japanese text in non-bold form regardless of the font weight specified by a particular template. It is possible to override this if desirable in a specific situation by using the wiki markup for bold inside of the Nihongo template, as the Nobold template only removes font weight outside of itself (i.e. if you wanted bold Japanese characters, you would write {{Nihongo|English stuff|'''Japanese stuff'''}}).

Thoughts on this? I'm going to let the Accessibility WikiProject know about this too, as this is an issue that likely concerns them. ~ Rob^Talk 01:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Emboldificated Japanese text -- like oblique (ignorantly called "italic") Japanese text -- is ugly and hard to read. I have seen it perpetrated on paper by native writers of Japanese, but this is uncommon. (Commoner is to use a minchō font for the bulk of the text and a goshikku one for bits within it that you want to stand out. But this is of no use here.) Ja:Wikipedia uses bold, but sparingly. As a humdrum example, see ja:基礎自治体. This starts

基礎自治体（きそじちたい）は、国の行政区画の中で最小の単位で、

but I can't see from this how the second character is constructed. (I instead glance up to read the title of the article.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think bold Japanese text is particularly a problem and I disagree that it is uncommon; I see it all the time in my work. The main issue obviously is the font size; if it is larger then it is easier to read. Complex kanji are difficult to construct if they are small. Bold font does have an effect, but I believe size is the main factor.

Having said that, I do not see the need to use bold Japanese text in the English wikipedia. Only vitally important Japanese text should be included, so having to distinguish some Japanese text from others by used bold font seems unnecessary to me. Is there a particular example in the en wiki you are referring to? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Athomeinkobe: See the diff provided in the first line above. The bold Japanese text is within the infobox under the English name. It's bold by default because of the way the infobox is coded, and this is very common for "native names" in many infoboxes. It's not really possible to force all Japanese characters to full size within infoboxes to maintain the font weight (boldness) because that could make the native name larger than the English name, which is undesirable. Unfortunately, even our default font size makes it relatively hard to read bold Japanese characters. The Japanese wiki sidesteps this by making their default font size larger than ours. ~ Rob^Talk 02:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see now. The use of "nobold" in the subsequent diff certainly makes it a bit easier to read. I have nothing to say on the technical side of the implmentation, but I agree that bold Japanese font is unnecessary in the infobox, such as in your original example (which I should have paid attention to the first time). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the proper term is for an error, misconception, whatever that is so widespread it is embodied in international standards, but there is one here. It's the assumption that "text size" is determined by the "font height"; this assumes that all writing has roughly the same "aspect ratio", i.e. height-to-width ratio for an arbitrary unit of writing such as a "word". But this isn't true: a typical English word is 6 letters long, and letters are 3:2, so the shape is 4:1, whereas a Japanese "word" (2 kanji) is 2 square boxes, or 2:1. To get the same information density, and thus effective "text size" the Japanese "font height" should be root(2) bigger. Therefore, even if the Japanese "font height" is 1.4 times the English one, this does not "make the native name larger than the English name", and is no problem. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I would also point out that the text inside the infobox Template:Infobox station (as most infobox probably), is smaller than the normal text, which also makes the boldened Japanese text harder to read. I believe it is at 80% of the normal text size.

Is this readability problem limited to Japanese characters, or are other languages or alphabets concerned too ? If so, we could also resolve this problem by modifying the infobox itself. The field {{{native_name}}} could be placed as a row in the core of the infobox, instead of being in the emboldened heading. What do you say ? Dodoïste (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I just started this-it's not great, but it has potential.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's worse than "not great", frankly, it's almost complete junk: welding a boilerplate phrase "Janpon-ken" is written 鋏紙岩 in kanji and means", to a following bit of unrelated historical text. But even if it were converted to a real list, I don't see the point. Do we have lists of just-about-anything in Japan, with explanation of the underlying meaning of the kanji? I don't think so, because where would such a scheme end. It seems to me much more appropriate to add a similar explanation to the article for each ken. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Imaginatoriu and am not sure why such information needs a separate article. The individual prefecture articles have "History" sections and a few even have specific sections/subsections devoted to their names. Why not simply add any new information/sources you have found to those articles instead? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Aren't all prefectures except Aichi, Hokkaido and maybe Okinawa named after the administrative centres for these areas in the early Meiji era? So etymologies like that gives a bit of a false impression, linking the literal character meanings to the areas, when these referred to different places. --Prosperosity (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It may be better merged into the individual prefecture articles as a section in each. I am not aware of any other countries which have such an article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It is quite a hodge-podge at the moment in terms of both contents and format. Perhaps it should be moved to userspace? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

May someone from the project with a working proficiency of Japanese and/or familiarity with the Japanese film/acting industry take a look at the sources and source searches provided in the above article and the AfD to see if they contribute to the notability of the subject? Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 21:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This Kanagawa prefecture document says: "Kanagawa Comprehensive H.S."

May someone figure out what the school's Japanese name is? I can't tell...

I'm trying to have some English-language articles on not only schools for foreigners in Japan (Brazilian schools and North Korean schools in particular) but also Japanese government schools that take large numbers of foreigners (hopefully some can also be written in Portuguese).

I see it as a cultural exchange, as articles about Japanese nihonjin gakko schools in the U.S., U.K., and Brazil (As well as U.S. public schools with large numbers of Japanese students) have been and/or are being made in English, Japanese, and/or Portuguese. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a list of schools in Kanagawa at Kanagawa Prefectural Board of Education, and the word "Comprehensive" does not appear on the page. I do not know of an obvious term of which this could be a (mis)translation -- in the UK sense of "comprehensive school", I think you could say all Japanese schools are such. I expect this term is someone trying to be helpful, by replacing a Japanese word they are sure you won't understand with an English one. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It could be Kanagawa Sōgō Sangyō Kōtōgakkō (神奈川総合産業高等学校)[2] (listed as "Kanagawa Sogo Sangyo High School" on Kanagawa Prefectural Board of Education) or Kanagawa Sōgō Kōtōgakkō (神奈川総合高等学校)[3] (listed as "Kanagawa Prefectural Kanagawa Sohgoh High School"). All schools in Kanagawa are listed here. The word being translated as "Comprehensive" is 総合 (Sōgō); that's a literal translation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It is probably Kanagawa Sogo Koto Gakko since it is the only one that has something like that name which accepts 在県外国人等特別募集 (Zaiken Gaikokujin-tō Tokubetsu Boshū) [4], which is the system that was discussed in the original English page. Michitaro (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, everyone! I started Kanagawa Sohgoh High School. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

While Hamamatsu Municipal Senior High School passes the high school assumed notability criteria on ENwiki, I am very interested in having someone write a Portuguese version. Hamamatsu is famous for its Brazilians and the school has an official website in Portuguese.

In order for a PTwiki article happen, the article needs to pass the Portuguese Wikipedia GNG requirements.

Therefore I'd like to see which reliable, independent secondary sources would accomplish the goal. I checked the JAwiki article at ja:浜松市立高等学校, and unfortunately no sources are cited there.

I would like to consult any of the following, but I am not sure which resources will have what I need:

• Books from reliable secondary publishers
• Newspapers in Japanese
• Brazilian Nikkei newspapers in Portuguese

If anyone knows some good references related to Hamamatsu I would be very happy to get the information! WhisperToMe (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

For this list I am struggling with the translation of: 海士漁具, 磯見漁具, 釣漁具. Would appreciate any help. Thanks. bamse (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's my shot at it:

• 海士漁具 (amagyogu) - Diving tackle, perhaps used by divers seeking oysters, mussels, sea urchins, etc.
• 磯見漁具 (isomigyogu) - isomi tackle, not sure what the "isomi" is...it literally means "seeing the beach" or "visible from the beach" (or something like that), so maybe surf fishing tackle?
• 釣漁具 (tsurigyogu) - Angling/trolling tackle, pretty straightforward on this one.

Hope that helps. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't those be gyogu? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for catching that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

磯見 fishing is described here.[5][6][7] Fishing from a boat using a 磯見鏡(hydroscope) and gig, grains, or hook.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So, maybe it's fishing in a boat near the shore? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the term would be, but it looks like it's indeed fishing near the shore (rocky shore?), but doing it with a hydroscope (a box with a glass window in the bottom). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The page 2 says:

"使用場: 本郡ノ沿海ニシテ陸ヲ去ル二三町深八尋位海底岩礁ノ處 Point of use: Inshore of this district 2-300m from the land, water depth of 14m, seabed reef."―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"漁船:　本村叩網ニ使用スルモノト同一ノ「カンコ」船ヲ用ユ Fishing boat: The same Kanko boat as used for tataki-ami"

"使用法: 海船一艘ニ漁夫二人乗組ミ採取具ヲ搭載シテ使用場ニ至リ磯見鏡ヲ以テ海底ヲ注視シ... Usage: Sailing a boat with Two fishermen and fishing equipments to a fishing place. Watching the bottom of the sea with a hydroscope..."―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not within the scope of this project, but hydroscope could do with some TLC. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. bamse (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Should Miho Jinja be moved to Miho Shrine? bamse (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure. Neither seems to be terribly more popular than the other, and they don't have a website (in Japanese or otherwise) as far as I can tell. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought "Jinja" should always be replaced by the word "shrine"!? bamse (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup, you're right. I need to go refresh my memory on a few things there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

人生はまだまだ続く: Jinsei wa madamada tsuzuku or Jinsei wa mada mada tsuzuku? My natural reflex is towards 'mada mada', until I realised まだまだ is listed in its own right as an adverb in dictionaries. The JASRAC song database doesn't seem to consistently list songs as being either way, and a google scholar check shows both transliterations seem to be used fairly often. --Prosperosity (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My gut feeling is "madamada"---I don't get the feeling that it's just two "mada"s (à la "very very") but a ten in its own right. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

In other words, I get the feeling that the second "mass" would be dakutenned if it were dakutenable, like 次々 . Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My view is that まだまだ appears as an independent dictionary entry, so should be "madamada". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've seen it both ways. I tend to use it as a phrase rather than a word, but I don't really have a solid preference. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

In such cases, I check WorldCat to see how academic libraries have treated it (in general, Library of Congress romanization rules are very helpful: [8]). I ignore the results from Japan or Europe, which tend to be less strict and focus on North American institutions. It seems "madamada" is the majority option: [9], [10], [11], [12], etc. Michitaro (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I recently rescued this article from an inactive user's sandbox. It seems to be an incomplete translation of his Japanese article. If anyone would like to finish expanding/translating it, and provide some useful Japanese external links/refs, it would be appreciated. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know where there is a list of Peruvian international schools in Japan? For example the Brazilian Embassy in Tokyo lists all of the Brazilian schools in Japan, but I haven't yet found such a list on the website of the Peruvian embassy... WhisperToMe (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure. I tried a few searches and came up with nothing. Perhaps there aren't any? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is just a hunch, but I suspect there are Spanish-based schools, but none that are specifically Peruvian. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• WhisperToMe: There's a Japanese Wikipedia page listing two such schools: ja:ペルー学校. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for finding that! I was able to start Colegio Hispano Americano de Gunma (it has upper secondary school to age 17) and I'll see what I can do about the Hamamatsu Peruvian school. I don't know if there are any other Spanish language international schools but if there are, please let me know! WhisperToMe (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    • And one more : Mundo de Alegría, which is a combined Peruvian and Brazilian school WhisperToMe (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

History of Japan has just been delisted as a GA. Withing 12 minutes of the delisting the nominator relisted it, despite the amount of work that needs to be done on it to bring it back to GA status. The nominator is now editwarring to keep it nominated. Can we get some more eyes on the article? It would also be nice to get some editors to help work on the article and work out its many flaws—it's an imoprtant article and needs the attention. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I was told during the good article review that the article met 70 to 90 per cent of the good article criteria. It always takes at least several weeks to get a nomination picked up, but actually it usually takes months, maybe even six months, for a nomination to get picked up. I'm certain that I and other users can finish the remaining 10% or so in that amount of time. If not, the person who picks up the article will simply tell us what needs to be done, and then can pass or fail the article depending on whether or not we do it.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And he's done it again, despite being warned on his talk page. Could an administrator deal with this, please? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I do believe the article meets all the good article criteria, and I simply want it to be on the review queue so that we can eventually find out whether or not the future good article reviewer agrees partially or wholly with my opinion. However, because this article is not likely to be picked up for a long time, there is plenty of room to make even further changes to the article before the review comes. I will take requests from other users on how to make the article even better before the next review takes place.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The article was just delisted. No edits have been made since it's delisting, so it can't possibly have been brought up to GA. You're being disruptive. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In general I think the nominator is permitted to decide whether or not he or she believes the article to be of good level quality. Whether it actually is of good level quality can only be determined by the person who picks up the nomination. If it's really very far from being ready, it will simply fail nomination, right? I suspect that it is pretty much ready, at very least 70 to 90 percent is not much more, and I am expecting that the future good article reviewer will check the article for quality and possibly recommend further changes. Please, let's just wait and see what the future reviewer wants. Until then, I will make whatever improvements to the article which you ask me to make.05:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)CurtisNaito (talk)

I believe this article to already be of good article quality, but if anyone disagrees, just tell me what to do. I will implement any changes which are recommended. 05:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)CurtisNaito (talk)

And avoid discussion at all costs, we know. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, please knock it off. User:Prhartcom explicitly stated in his close that he was a neutral observer -- his "percentage estimate" was not a statement that he agreed with your point of view that the article was GA quality. You need to respect the views of others a lot more than you have. None of the users who supported delisting (either explicitly on the GAR or by expressing negative opinions of the article on the talk page) had any malicious agenda in doing so. We all legitimately felt that the article, then and now, was not GA standard. Your immediately renominating the page upon its being delisted by unanimous consensus is disruptive and counterproductive. I still think you may have something to offer the article (you appear to be the only one with time to read the not-ideal sources that currently form the bulk of the article's references so you can at least provide quotes to help verify or falsify the points of contention). But you need to be able to edit collaboratively and engage in constructive discussion on the talk page -- immediately renominating with any acknowledgement that the article still needs improvement is a pretty gross slap in the face of everyone who has been working so hard to convince you that the article is not "fine the way it is" and needs improvement. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't unanimous consensus. Four or five users opposed delisting. However, the main point I want to make is that the future good article reviewer will probably ask for revisions to clear up any remaining issues, and I will implement those revisions. I will also implement any revisions which might be necessary before the review, which is not likely to occur for months. I was wondering what the rules are for renomination, and when I checked them it seemed like it was not an inappropriate act. One portion of the good article FAQ states "I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified! - That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations..."CurtisNaito (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you name them? I can only think of you, Calvin999, TH1980 and Hko233. The first was the original reviewer, who showed extremely poor judgement in the review and had a vested interest in covering his tracks by not having the article immediately delisted; the second has devoted virtually all of his energy on Wikipedia to undermining everything I do over the last five months; the third was an SPA from September 2008 to June 2015, when he/she showed up suddenly after a seven year absence, and his/her opposition to delisting was in line with the SPA POV he/she registered the account for the purpose of promoting. None of them have any substantial history of editing Japanese history articles or contributing to that article in particular. On the other hand, every user who supported delisting has been editing a wide variety of articles over many years, including many in this particular topic area. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It was noted during the good article review that, "in looking at this article it does appear to have the basics in place and is adequately sourced for GA." It was said that the article was "70–90%" towards good article status. As you noted, at very least four experienced Wikipedia users offered their well-reasoned opinions against delisting. Clearly, the article was either good article quality or on the verge of it. I am expecting more changes can be made to the article both before and during the next good article review.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, your use of the passive voice (It was noted, It was said) is incredibly deceiptful. You know full-well that the person who wrote those words was the same person who closed the discussion as having a delist consensus. Who on earth are these "at very least four experienced Wikipedia users" I supposedly noted -- you appear to be misquoting me to my face now. Please get back to helping us improve the article and stop this childish bickering and gaming of the system. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to continue improving the article before and during the future good article review, whether the article currently meets 70% or 100% of the good article requirements. I hope other users, including TH1980, Hko233, and others, will participate as well. I don't think we should be denigrating their opinions, and ultimately, anyone who is willing to contribute to the article will aid the article's chance of passing good article review.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's totally okay for you to denigrate the opinions of everyone else in the worst possible manner -- by completely ignoring them. Anyway, if you are actually interested in improving the article, please respond to me on the talk page rather than endlessly arguing in the Wikipedia namespace. I know you don't agree with what I posted there a few hours ago, and I know if I implement my edit you will try to throw it back in my face later. Please acknowledge that the source you cited was inaccurate and fringe. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have been very prompt in implementing all suggestions which can be reliably sourced. I'm not going to ignore anyone.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You've been exasperatingly persistent in avoiding all attempts at discussing suggested additions. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, about a month after it was suggested that you insert a reference to Japan's national epic, you did so but did not mention that it was Japan's national epic, instead including a bizarre factoid that, while not inaccurate, is useless to our readers and far out of the scope of a general historical survey article. When asked to correct this, you essentially said "You do it!" Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The facts I included were from Totman, which is a general overview covering all Japanese history in 600 pages or so. I figured that the information in that overview would also make a good summary for the History of Japan article. However, once you clarified that you wanted the article to mention its historical reputation, I also added that. I told you that if you have a better source you can add it as well, but for the purposes of this article I think Totman is a very reliable scholar of Japanese history.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: You know the last time I checked, you also screwed up the Battleship Yamato addition by placing it in a random place and making it more of a factoid than anything (haven't checked to see if it was corrected yet). I'm pretty sure that Dennis Brown's warning also included "making editing miserable for others" so just keep racking up the evidence for ArbCom buddy. Oh and make sure your response to this is something like "there was nothing wrong with the article", "the article is GA quality", or "there was no consensus to delist", since those are the main falsehoods you keep repeating. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I was told to add information on the battleship Yamato, but I was not told what specific information to add. I wanted to put the information in an area where it would not seem out of place. It was mentioned in the article that the Japanese Navy was resorting to kamikaze tactics by 1944. In other words, the Navy was becoming desperate. This seemed like a good place to mention that the very next year the Navy sent Yamato on a mission without enough fuel to return to Japan. However, if you have a different idea for how to include this information, I'm willing to discuss it.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You were told exactly what information to add on the Heike Monogatari and Minamoto no Yoshitsune. You responded by adding exactly what random nonsense happened to be in the extremely limited sources you have access to. Or perhaps your own interpretations of this random nonsense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the quote you provided I was supposed to mention "Japan's national hero (Yoshitsune) Japan's national epic (the Heike Monogatari)". I did mention those topics, but you didn't tell me to say "Heike Monogatari is Japan's national epic". I mentioned those topics based on the sources I had, and I didn't realize that you wanted a quote which included precise phrase "national epic".CurtisNaito (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And that's why I said your sources were inadequate. What are you trying to say? We're just going in circles at this point! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think we should be cautious about building the article based off personal opinion rather than the views of scholars. As I said, a general, one-volume history of Japan includes only the most pertinent information. Such books are condensations of all the available sources on Japanese history and by reading such books, we can determine what topics scholars believe are the most significant. Each of us may have a personal opinion about what details are best to mention, but it's the opinion of leading scholars which should be our focus. The points of fact I included were the ones which scholars, rather than Wikipedia users, found to be most important.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition, Japan's tradition of setsuwa ("storytelling") was producing many powerful and well-developed war sagas, most notably The Tale of the Heike which recounted the key events of the Genpei War. is "the most pertinent information" on the Heike Monogatari!? More pertinent than the fact that it is Japan's national epic? Or is it being Japan's national epic just "my opinion"? I thought I cited it to Keene, almost certainly the highest-regarded Japanologist alive today. What on earth are you on about now? If you keep up this IDHT nonsense the GA review will open and fail because no one has been able to do anything to improve the article... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, since Keene's book was specifically about Japanese literature, I think it includes more than the barebones essentials. Probably the majority of topics in this article should only include the essentials, which is what the overview histories contain. My view is that the article would stand a greater chance of passing if it focuses primarily on the information viewed by scholars as most important, which is what I included, rather than just what users think is important.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Again I must say -- In addition, Japan's tradition of setsuwa ("storytelling") was producing many powerful and well-developed war sagas, most notably The Tale of the Heike which recounted the key events of the Genpei War. is "the barebones essentials" on the Heike Monogatari, but the fact that it is Japan's national epic is not!? Are you mad? Anyway, my impression of the work as Japan's national epic predates my reading of Keene. I don't remember where I first read it, but it may have been in one of Sansom's general histories. Did you make any effort to see what he says? He is still a much better-regarded authority than any of the relatively obscure authors you insist on naming in the article text. (Although I do recall reading this obscure 19th-century book around the same time as A Short Cultural History -- it might have been from that. Anyway the fact that Nagai Kafu, one of the most important literati of early 20th-century Japan, and Donald Keene, one of the most important Japanologists of late 20th-century America, said the same thing of the work makes this claim notable, and virtually every reputable commentator who has written on the work in English has said something similar: for example, the work's most recent translator into English said (Tyler 2012, xxi) "No work of Japan's classical literature influenced more pervasively the art, literature and drama of later centuries. Heike is a seminal masterpiece of Japanese culture." (And don't even think of saying -- because experience tells me you already are thinking of saying this -- "if the work's translator devoted 800 pages to the work and he didn't say national epic then we shouldn't either".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: Don't forget "Dr. Blofeld and Prhartcom opposed delisting because the article meets 70-90% of the GA criteria, is well-written, and has all the basic elements of a good article". (苦笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Caveat (I can't believe I have to add these to every remotely tongue-in-cheek post I make these days): I'm not saying those users didn't say those things (except for "70-90% of the GA criteria", which is of course CurtisNaito's interpretation of Prhartcom's ambiguous "We're 70-90% there"). I am saying those users both explicitly stated that they hadn't examined either of the complaints (sourcing and comprehensiveness) raised at GAR. The latter user did the delisting him/herself based on a clear consensus to delist; the former expressed credulity to the idea that there were sourcing and OWN problems with the page, just that he wasn't willing or able to weigh in on either matter one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)