Talk:Shōjō

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

Moving material to this page from Shōjo page[edit]

I just posted a comment on the Shōjo page about moving some material there, about the Shōjō (shoujou), from there to here. Then we can delete the Shōjō material from the Shōjo page, and edit out redundancies here. Any comments?

Timothy Perper (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been moved, unless you're talking about all the discussions on the talk page there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I meant, but that has been moved also. See below. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Citation for Shōjō (fixed)[edit]

"*Shōjō, a kind of sea sprite with red hair and a fondness for alcohol."

This "myth" was contested on the Shōjo article, and it's inclussion here is just as suspect. --DesireCampbell 08:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was surprised to find out this is true. The Japanese-language page is here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Thorn (talk • contribs) 07:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, do you have a reference to this other than the Japanese Wiki, which we can't use as a reliable source? Timothy Perper (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this little cutie from Commons! Isn't that a Noh mask only a mother could love?  ;) -Malkinann (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoopee! Wahoo! Burp. Marvelous. What's the play, I wonder? Timothy Perper (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly an adaptation of a legend? (allegedly R. Gordon Smith wrote a book called Ancient Tales and Folk-lore of Japan which covered a tale of a sick father whose son got sacred health-giving sake from the Shōjō, but a greedy neighbour also wanted some, and became sick from it because his heart wasn't pure.) -Malkinann (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real book. You can buy it from amazon.com (which I just did). From amazon.com:

Smith, Richard Gordon. 1908. Ancient Tales And Folklore Of Japan. Reprint edition, 2006, Kessinger Publishing, LLC (published May 15, 2006).

If you have the patience to wait for 7.8 megabytes to download, you can get the full book for free from Google Book Search (search for the author).

That's one of the dangers of dealing with Shōjō -- their sake is perhaps more than you bargained for. Once it -- the book, not the sake -- arrives, I'll let you know more about her.

Timothy Perper (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a date (early 1700s) to the caption of the Shōjō (from linked the Wiki article on the encyclopedia.) The Wiki article says 1713, but if it had that many books, it wasn't published in a single year. So I compromised by saying early 1700s.
What gets me about her is how modern she looks. Takahashi drews Lum drunk in one episode, and Lum's not that distant from the image here.
Timothy Perper (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More on this Shōjō. You have a very good memory, Malkinann. I downloaded the pages in Gordon-Smith that tell the story -- it's Chaper XXXVIII, pp. 239-243, called "White Sake."
Now we have a very interesting phenomenon, which will need some detective work. The story is exactly as you told it, with one detail changed. A young lad gets sake from the Shōjō, and it is delicious and his father gets much better; it makes the greedy neighbor sick, although he recovers and finally works with the father to brew white sake, which one can still obtain around Mount Fuji. The crucial detail is that Gordon-Smith's Shōjō is explicitly a man, although he is with a woman on the beach, both of them drinking sake out of a huge urn.
My strong impression, based only on knowing something about how the British dealt with such things, that Gordon-Smith changed the gender of the Shōjō from female to male. It won't really do, now, will it, to have a female sea being swilling booze half-naked on the beach! Robert Louis Stevenson wrote a story called "The Beach at Falesa" about the South Seas, which has a more than half-naked native woman, but Gordon-Smith wasn't Stevenson.
The detective work? Ascertain the original gender of the Shōjō in this story. We can't reference it in this article until we're sure that Gordon-Smith changed the Shōjō's gender.
It's one of those things that an expert would say, "Oh yes, Gordon-Smith did that a good deal... the original, from XYZ, was definitely female.."
Timothy Perper (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More on the 猩々folk. I googled 猩猩 and got 6,140,000 hits -- I don't think this is our guy. I have real trouble imagining that red-faced, red-haired alcoholic Japanese sea spirits would produce 6 million Google hits. I think I hit better pay dirt googling 猩々 with 268,000 hits. OK, so if you time and inclination, Matt, here are two interesting looking websites from googling 猩々:
鳴海商工会 猩々 | トップ - [ Translate this page ] 鳴海商工会 猩々(しょうじょう)チームのウェブサイトです。narumi-shojo.jp/
猩々（しょうじょう - [ Translate this page ] 月の美しい夜、潯陽で高風が酒を持って猩々を待っていると、猩々が海中より浮かび上がって、酒を飲んでは舞い遊びます（［中之舞］）。最後に猩々は、汲めども尽きぬ ... funabenkei.daa.jp/noh/shojo.html
The second one describes the Noh play and speculates about why they had red skin. Maybe it will have a reference to the original play and explain if there were male and female Shōjō.
Timothy Perper (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
猩猩 probably gets so many hits because it is the Chinese word for orangutan. Did you try searching for it together with the word 传說传说 or 傳說 ("legend", written 伝説 in Japanese)? The "々" in 猩々, however, is distinctive to Japan, and though 猩々 is also sometimes used to mean orangutan, it is much more common in Japanese to call an orangutan "オランウータン" (oran'ūtan). The first site you cited is the home page of a local business association that participates in a local festival under the team name "猩々". This is not very helpful. The second one describes the Noh play, but seems to be written by an amateur, and is questionable as a reference. It makes no reference to gender at all. The biggest frustration I've encountered is trying to find a reliable source for the claim that the legend comes from China. Dozens of sites say so, but none offers any concrete references. I asked Da Vynci, and he never heard of such a legend. It's possible that it is a minor/local legend that was imported to Japan, but is now almost completely forgotten in China.... Oh, wait. I think I found it. It appears in an ancient Chinese text titled 山海経 ("Mountains and Seas Book") pronounced sengaikyou in Japanese). I found references (and a picture) here and here. I'll keep looking. Matt Thorn (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. In the 山海経 it is written at least two and maybe three different ways. But here's a Chinese encyclopedia entry that has it written 狌狌. Oh, and I was wrong about "々" being distinctive to Japanese. In the 南山経 ("Mountains, South Book") of the 山海経, our Shōjō is written "狌々". In the 海内経 ("Inside the Seas Book"), it is written 猩猩.

Aha. We're closing in! I figured the first link was to the orangutan because one of the websites had "Pongo" in it, in romaji -- Pongo is the genus in Latin (and has its own long and fascinating origin, that goes back to 1848, ah, later). Look up orangutan if you want to see a very likely natural model for the Shōjō sea being in the picture from Wakan Sansai Zue in the article. Orangs have red hair, of course. The alcohol part I don't know about, but, for all I know, real orangs may love booze. I'll check the websites you gave when I sign off Wiki.

On a related issue. Check Baku (spirit). It's another stub I worked on and added a bunch of references to, including to various legends and whatnot for the baku, mo, and yumekui. It needs some detective work also.

The connection is that our Shōjō is based -- in part, I am suggesting -- on the real orangutan. In the wild, they live in Southeast Asia, not in mainland China and certainly not in Japan, although it's possible that the Chinese emperor whose fleet brought back giraffes to China (I've forgotten his name) also imported some orangs. The giraffe picture, plus and minus some imaginary touches, made it to Japan as the kirin. Well, likewise the baku -- because mo was/is originally the Malayan tapir, also from Southeast Asia, the same neck of the woods as the orang. So we get baku = mo = dreameater, illustrated by Hokusai as a chimerical creature (pic at baku (spirit)). Now we have yet another Southeast Asian animal, the Shōjō, who made it to Japan with an elaboration of mythology and legend, again through China. Finally, Rumiko Takahashi did a Lum episode, which was made into a film by Mamoru Oshii, of a dreameater drawn as a real tapir (refs in the baku (spirit) article.

So we have a clutch of these little articles on real animals that got to China, and thence to Japan with legends attached to them, and from thence, in manga, anime, and imported beer, to the rest of the world. One is Shōjō, the others are baku and kirin.

OK, so let's put in a bunch of refs to the Shōjō legends, and plan on splitting out an article on Shōjō, plus another on Kirin. There's an article on the Kirin Brewery but nothing on Kirin (giraffe). Their Japanese website has to have a reference to the emperor and his giraffes. (I have some references to the story somewhere; I'll check my files.)

Oh, and take a look at baku (spirit).

Timothy Perper (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found one rumor that (real) orangutans drink beer and one photograph of an orang drinking what seems to be a can of beer (possibly photoshopped). Neither is evidence we can use. But I suspect that orangs like beer, if they can get hold of it. I'm still working on it. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think finding out about the origins of the Noh play will help connect the dots between the creatures (perhaps inspired by real orangutans) described in the 山海経 and the Japanese Shōjō. I read somewhere today that the legend probably existed in Japan long before the Noh play.
Tim, did you know there is a an article on Qilin? Matt Thorn (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't -- that's him! (Or her, as the case may be). Wonderful! I completely agree about the Noh connection. About 山海経 -- you mentioned buying a translation. In Japanese or English? If English, what's the title? Timothy Perper (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Classic of Mountains and Seas Matt Thorn (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea seems to have a Shōjō[edit]

Setting aside Shōjō-orangutans, sometimes the obvious takes longer. In Miyazaki's most recent film, Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea, Ponyo's father is a human shaped, magic-using sea-being with long, wild bright red hair, and I mean bright red. So I guess he is a Shōjō, and, if so, that settles one issue -- yes, there are male and female Shōjō. By now, I imagine there's a fair amount on various websites in Japan about him. If we can find a Japanese source that identifies him as a Shōjō, then we might include his picture. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are pictures of Granmammaire and of Fujimoto, Ponyo's mother and father, with their crimson hair, at http://www.nausicaa.net/wiki/2008-05-News. She is quite beautiful. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found anything that suggests that those characters are Shōjō, but there is a creature clearly identified as a Shōjō in Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke. Here's a screen grab on someone's blog, along with the Shōjō's dialogue: "Feed us humans. We'll eat humans and become strong." These Shōjō don't look or behave like the Shōjō in the Noh play, but they do more closely resemble the descriptions from the 山海経. The 山海経 references don't seem to make any mention of a fondness for alcohol, or red coloration. The image from the online encyclopedia looks pretty red to me, though. The reference in the 南山経 describes the 狌々 as an ape-like monster with white ears that walks like a human, but hunched over. I've ordered an English translation of the 山海経 (which seems to be a veritable encyclopedia of imaginary creatures), so maybe I'll have something more to offer in a few days. Matt Thorn (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the one I thought it was -- the red-eyed creature of the forest. There's no question that the Shōjō from Gordon Smith's story "White Sake" are sea-dwellers with red hair and body color who possess considerable magic and who can breathe/live on land. They're friendly to human beings, as are the Shōjō from Ponyo. Ponyo and her parents match Gordon-Smith's description of Japanese Shōjō very closely. Early in the film, Ponyo's father finishes off three jugs of some unnamed and unidentified fluid, which is as close as Miyazaki gets to showing their fondness for alcohol. Ponyo herself is too young, so she doesn't count. I don't know if real orangutans have white ears; older sexually mature males might. "Ape-like monster who walks like a human but hunched over" is not a bad description of an orangutan. Maybe the Japanese and Chinese Shōjō are somewhat different? Timothy Perper (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a really nice pic of Ponyo's beautiful mother. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3072/2741666568_33aa01b6b9.jpg?v=0 When I say red, I mean red! Timothy Perper (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess she would be a 美猩猩? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very clever. I wish we could use that... hmmm... maybe we can... no, just kidding. For folks who don't recognize the kanji -- it's a pun on bishōjo, which means "pretty girl," in this context, a beautiful woman. But because she's a shōjō = 猩猩, that means she's a bishōjō. I wish I had thought if that. Timothy Perper (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving material to Shōjō page[edit]

OK, I just posted a query on the shōjō page. Now we can select material to move over there. That will help focus this article (on Shōjo, I mean) by removing details that no longer belong here. Any objections? Suggestions? Timothy Perper (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nihonjoe has already moved the text section on Shōjō (thanks, Nihonjoe). That leaves the material discussed here on this talk page that deals with Shōjō. In specific, two appearances in Miyazaki films of Shōjō, from Princess Mononoke and from Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea plus their references to material cited way up in the first item on the talk page from Matt Thorn and from me.
I apologize for the complexities of this here, that there, but I'm trying to gather it all together from various scattered locations. I'll copy some of that stuff down here, to get it in one place.
Timothy Perper (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the first is from Matt Thorn and I copied it here. Yes, all of this needs to be rewritten.
山海経 ("Mountains and Seas Book") pronounced sengaikyou in Japanese). I found references (and a picture) here and here. I'll keep looking. Matt Thorn (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Found it. In the 山海経 it is written at least two and maybe three different ways. But here's a Chinese encyclopedia entry that has it written 狌狌. Oh, and I was wrong about "々" being distinctive to Japanese. In the 南山経 ("Mountains, South Book") of the 山海経, our Shōjō is written "狌々". In the 海内経 ("Inside the Seas Book"), it is written 猩猩. This Shōjō makes an appearance in Princess Mononoke.
Next the material about Ponyo.
In Miyazaki's most recent film, Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea, Ponyo's father is a human shaped, magic-using sea-being with long, wild bright red hair... The reference is to Smith, Richard Gordon. 1908. Ancient Tales And Folklore Of Japan. Reprint edition, 2006, Kessinger Publishing, LLC (published May 15, 2006). ... Smith's book gives a very precise description of the Shōjō that matches Miyazaki's imagery exactly; Smith's book can be seen here: http://books.google.com/books?id=o8QWAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Richard+Gordon+Smith%22&lr=&as_brr=0#PPA239,M1 with an illustration from 1908. ... Here's a really nice pic of Ponyo's beautiful mother. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3072/2741666568_33aa01b6b9.jpg?v=0. She also has bright red hair. So the legendary Japanese Shōjō are both male and female.
Have I left out anything from these two?
I like the idea of adding that maples in fall are also called Shōjō if we can find a reference for that.
Over to everyone else about what else we need to transfer to the Shōjō article.
Timothy Perper (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another reference for the Shōjō who appear in Ponyo.
F. Hadland Davis (1992 reprint edition) Myths and Legends of Japan. NY: Dover Publications (March 23, 1992). ISBN-10: 0486270459; ISBN-13: 978-0486270456.
Timothy Perper (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional edit[edit]

Here's a proposed and provisional edit containing the preceding material. It has some overlap with existing material on the shoujou page, but we can eliminate that when we get to it. Matt, can you fill in the missing cites for the encyclopedias you found? Please, everyone, check for accuracy and syntax.

The Japanese legendary shōjō appears in an early Chinese encyclopedia, 山海経 ("Mountains and Seas Book") [citation needed] where it is described as a mountain and forest monster who walks like a human, but hunched over. The term is written in different characters, including 狌狌[citation needed], 狌々 (in the 南山経 ("Mountains, South Book" of the 山海経), and 猩猩 (in the 海内経 "Inside the Seas Book")[citation needed]. The Japanese sea shōjō is found in a folktale quoted in full by R. Gordon Smith where they are sea spirits with great magical powers and bright red hair who live in an undersea palace.[1][2]
In anime, both kinds of shōjō appear in films by Hayao Miyazaki. One appears in Princess Mononoke where the mountain or forest shōjō is seen as a monster with glowing red eyes who wants to eat human beings. The second is Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea, in which Ponyo's mother and father are shōjō supernatural sea-spirits with brilliant red hair.[3]
  1. ^ Smith, Richard Gordon. 1908. Ancient Tales And Folklore Of Japan. Reprint edition, 2006, Kessinger Publishing, LLC (published May 15, 2006). Chapter XXXVIII, pages 239-244. Smith's book can be seen here: http://books.google.com/books?id=o8QWAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Richard+Gordon+Smith%22&lr=&as_brr=0#PPA239,M1. (Accessed September 15, 2008).
  2. ^ F. Hadland Davis (1992 reprint edition) Myths and Legends of Japan. NY: Dover Publications. ISBN-10: 0486270459; ISBN-13: 978-0486270456.
  3. ^ Ponyo's mother: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3072/2741666568_33aa01b6b9.jpg?v=0. (Accessed September 16, 2008).

BTW, the material for Miyazaki is not OR. It's simply based on what is in the two films, and knowing, from the references cited, what those beings are named. It's like recognizing Washington DC in a movie, except less famous.

Timothy Perper (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are the characters in Ponyo explicitly identified as shoujou? I haven't seen the movie yet. I don't know about autumn leaves, but several flora and fauna have the word shoujou in their name, because they have that bright, reddish orange color. My 大辞泉 dictionary of Japanese has 13 entries apart from 猩々 beginning with the characters 猩々. This page includes many others not in my dictionary. What they have in common is that color or a connection to a fondness for saké. For example, a 猩猩蜻蛉 (Shoujou tonbo) is a bright reddish orange dragonfly, but a 猩猩蠅 (Shoujou bae) is a kind of fly that tends to swarm around open saké. Matt Thorn (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this talk about shōjō belongs over on the Talk:Shōjō page in order to allow those interested in that article to know about the discussion. The discussion here should focus specifically on shōjo. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nihonjoe -- that's where are now. The shoujo article and talk pages are quickly being cleaned out of shoujou material, which is how it should be.
Matt, thanks for moving all that stuff over here. I was about to do it myself when this silliness about deleting Hatsu Akiko interupted me. Well, I voted keep on that article and posted some other material plus a website that sells two of her manga as e-books, so I'm back over here now.
I have no idea if anyone says "shoujou" or not in Miyazaki's film. To my way of thinking, it doesn't matter much -- what does matter is that Miyazaki's drawings unquestionably show red-haired sea-spirit supernatural beings that both Gordon Smith and Hadland Davis describe identically in their books. It's like being shown a picture of Tokyo Tower and saying "That's Tokyo Tower." And so it is.
Timothy Perper (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to move my provisional edit to where we can see it more clearly. Then we can work on it. Matt, can you add the missing references? Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting new section[edit]

It's for the material above plus some other material, and is called "Folklore, Popular Culture, and Nature." I will shift the Vertrees reference into the text with a comment (good find, Caspian Blue!). Then we can shift the material above into the same section. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put maple trees, dragonflies, and some other material into the section, and updated the Vertrees maple-tree reference to the current, 3rd edition of the book. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added Volker to the main text and cited him in a footnote. So we don't need that reference in a bibliography.
I do not recommend quoting the folktale in any detail because it gives too much information and is not written in the telegraphic style needed by an encyclopedia and is required specifically for Wikipedia. If anyone wants to read the folktale, the Gordon Smith book is cited and it's available there. So please do not include the opening of the folktale in the article.
Timothy Perper (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that is too detail, but still an interesting feature to show the character of the spirit in Japanese mythology. How about inserting summary of the story?--Caspian blue (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have many articles on folktales, and if my prose is bad it can be improved. Currently, the article is a stub - it's crying out for more information! I felt it rounded out the section nicely to have a summary of the tale there. (It wasn't like I was going "O Best Beloved..." XD) If the legend is the subject of a Noh play, then surely the legend should be mentioned? -Malkinann (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be introduced to the article after revised and shorten. I found somewhere that shoujou is also linked to Japanese version of lion dance.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of editing conflict hasn't helped either! OK, let's pause and take a breath. The folktale is fascinating, but too long to include. A summary would be a very good idea. The Volker book on Japanese art that Caspian Blue found points out that the shoujou is connected to the sea, and the folktale -- and Miyazaki's use of the shoujou in Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea emphasizes this -- is very much connected to Japanese folklore beliefs in supernatural beings who live in the sea. Since I want to include a reference to Ponyo, having a summary would be a big help.

Also, can someone look at the illustration in the Gordon Smith book and see if we can download it into this article? I think it also makes the red-haired, sea-spirit connection very clear, and I really like the huge urn of sake in the picture. The book is from 1908, so it's in hte public domain. I've never downloaded an image to Wiki, so I'm asking you experts for help here.

Timothy Perper (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration won't be in the public domain until the 100 years 'death day' of the illustrator. Without further data on the illustrator, it's tricky to say what it should be licensed under. However, as the book was published prior to 1922, {{PD-art-US}} may be appropriate. -Malkinann (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is in PD because Google might not ignore the U.S law regarding image. It is also published before 1923. So the whole text including illustrations can be uploaded without any restriction. But for clarification, the illustrator's name should be credited (I did not find it yet) as well as adding the birth/death year of him/her. I tested to make it as a jpg file.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The illustrator's name is given only as Mo-no-yuki, with the hyphens. I don't know anything else about this person. I agree that the whole thing is likely to be PD. But a fair use explanation when downloading will still be very useful! Timothy Perper (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the author's statement[1], the illustrator is him. But nothing about him can be found on web. I uploaded the image with {{PD}} tag. Image:Smith-Monoyuki-White sake.jpg --Caspian blue (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That tag only works if you drew the image yourself.  :( Please look through Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All#Public_domain and find one which better describes the situation. -Malkinann (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}--Caspian blue (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we move it into the article and see what happens. Verious bots will pick up on it if it's not PD, which, however, I too think it is -- 1908, London, is pre-1923 and not US. I suggest the caption: "Shoujou by the sea, drinking sake, from a 1908 illustration of "White Sake," a Japanese folktale." Or something equivalent. Great work, guys! Timothy Perper (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Ponyo has been added[edit]

I just added the Ponyo section, with references. The picture from Gordon Smith would be nice to add if there aren't any copyright probs with it. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I don't think the picture has any problem regarding copyright. If you're concerned, I will ask an admin at Commons who deals with images. But if we add the image, either have to insert more texts or make a gallery section.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree that we'll have to add more text or create a gallery. I'd prefer at the moment to add a summary of the story plus the picture, but since we don't have the summary yet, maybe we should wait a few days before adding the picture. What do you think? Timothy Perper (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... well, actually, I'm going to nominate the article to T:TDYK (it fulfills the minimum requirements right now). So either way I'm okay. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done with the nomination.[2] If you have a better hook, feel free to add it. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neat! Let's see what happens -- thanks! Timothy Perper (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I did some research on the animation and the main theme is actually linked to little mermaid and there is no distinctive indication about whether the ponyo's mother is shoujou. If any reliable source speculates that she is a shoujou, the anime section is worthy to be included, but I also could not find such claim from the attached references.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So Grandma Mer could owe her design to Ariel as well as the shoujou? -Malkinann (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know but just saw somebody interprets the new film with the fairly tale.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're a little confused, it's her father who is a shojo. He's flushed, has wavy red hair like kelp, and brews magical sake. Even if Fujimoto was born human it's evident he's meant to have become a shojo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.31.84 (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Improperly Removed Material[edit]

A well-intentioned editor removed material about Miyazaki's film Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea without discussion or consensus. I have restored the deleted material.

I believe that this was a good-faith, but erroneous, removal. First, it makes no difference if the official website mentions the identity between the characters in the film and shoujou. An official website need not mention all such things, indeed, it could not. Perhaps I am being unclear. The sources cited are sufficient to establish that Ponyo, Fujimoto, and Guranmamaire Guranmanmare are shoujou no matter what is said on the official website.

Second, if the editor who made this good-faith edit has not read and studied the sources cited, then they acted, IMO, too quickly and without thinking deeply enough. Those sources were cited and are in the (restored) entry. Please read them carefully. Then, if you -- I mean "you, the editor who removed the material" -- do not agree, please discuss the issue here on the talk page before removing material that you have perhaps not understood.

Be aware, please, that I do not intend or mean to offend you. I believe your edit was made in good faith. But I also believe that it was made too quickly and without thinking about the material. This is a matter to be discussed before taking action, and a matter to be discussed before taking action.

Timothy Perper (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the person who removed this employed the WP:BOLD philosophy - if the article is to successfully be nominated on WP:DYK for a possible front page appearance it's important that it adheres to policies, including WP:OR, the policy cited by the removing editor in their edit summary. At the moment, it's a matter of interpreting the brightly red hair of Grandma Mer to mean that she is a shoujou. It could also be that Grandma Mer is an extraordinarily powerful goldfish. (this article refers to Ponyo as "half goldfish, half human") it may be a different matter when the film comes out in English and people start analysing it properly. Perhaps someone will publish an essay on the myths and symbols in the film and clearly say that Grandma Mer is a shoujou. -Malkinann (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Timothy Perper. The sources you provided don't directly support the information you added to the article. It is written in WP:OR. That is why I thought your edit as an original research. Please show me the proof that Ponyo, Fujimoto, and Guranmamaire are shoujou. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. The word 猩猩 appears in Classic of Rites too. See line 10. 猩猩能言，不離禽獸. Shojo can speak but they are still beast. And I found two different folk tales in Japan. [3] and [4]. Checking on monsters in Japan, I found ja:酒呑童子 is similar to shojo. Oda Mari (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. If you have not seen the film (I have) then perhaps it is unwise to comment about the nature or identity of Ponyo, Fujimoto, and Guranmamaire Guranmanmare (I've taken the spelling of her name from the Anime News Network site, which was referenced). Let me give another example: in Burst Angel, in one scene a giant robot monster climbs a huge tower in Tokyo where it battles various good guys. The film does not identify the tower. However, if one knows what Tokyo Tower looks like, then it is clear that that's what the tower is. That is not original research -- it's merely a matter of recognition. Likewise in Ponyo -- if you know what shoujou are, then you recognize Ponyo, Fuhimoto, and Guranmamaire Guranmanmare. It's that simple -- and once again it is not OR. If an anime shows red-haired supernatural sea-beings with the powers that Ponyo, Fujimoto, and Guranmamaire Guranmanmare have, then they are shoujou by definition, as you can see from the Gordon Smith reference cited. (It's like saying, "Oh, look! They're shoujou!")
I made a minor change in the wording of the first sentence in the paragraph, which states (and stated) the evidence Oda Mari asks for. But perhaps the new sentence is clearer. Nor is it a matter of waiting until more Anglophone viewers see the film; few of them know what a shoujou is, I imagine, and their future opinions wouldn't count for much either way.
Guranmamaire Guranmanmare is not a goldfish. First, goldfish (= carp or koi) are freshwater fish, and Ponyo and her family live in the sea. Second, if you looked at the image of her that I cited, you can see that she is a woman. The site you quoted, Malkinann, is partly true of Ponyo early in the film, where she is shown as part human, part fish. But she soon transforms herself (by her own actions) into a complete human girl. None of these beings are beasts, monsters, or goldfish. They are bright red-haired, powerful sea-dwelling supernatural and magic-wielding beings with human form and language, for whom the name, in Japanese, is shoujou. To be honest, I had not known that before, but I do now -- and I cited the sources that show us why that name is correct.
So, no, it's not OR. One conclusion of the debate is not to take on face value what a website might say (e.g., that they're goldfish when they're not) and another conclusion is that we ourselves must think and reason when we evaluate evidence. I can explain that in more detail if you want or you can take my word for it.
And, Oda Mari, thank you for the additional references to 猩猩. If they are Chinese, then we might not be able to use them in an article about the Japanese shoujou. BTW, Matt Thorn found some Chinese sources as well, but the Chinese creature seems to be a forest-dweller, if I understand what Matt said.
Timothy Perper (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note added later by TP. Please note that there are several different meanings to shoujou that Matt Thorn discussed earlier in this (by now) long, complicated thread. The shoujou I am discussing are the red-haired, sea-dwelling, human-shaped supernatural beings discussed by Gordon Smith in the reference cited. BTW, we can't use the Japanese Wikipedia as a source here (for one thing, we can't use Wiki articles in general, and second the article cited has no sources).
I thought I'd mention an example that would be OR if I included it, which I did not. I suspect that Miyazaki welded together the red-haired shoujou with a "Little Mermaid" type story to get the plot of Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea. But I have no sources for that speculation, and it is therefore original research -- and I did not include any such statements. But saying that Ponyo, Fujimoto, and Guranmamaire Guranmanmare are shoujou is not OR. I hope that's clearer.
Timothy Perper (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No explanation, please. Just show me a reliable source that says they are shojo. If you cannot find a source, the information is OR. As for the Tokyo Tower, you can see it in Tokyo and see on maps. But not shojo. Oda Mari (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the reference -- the Gordon Smith book, which shows pictures of these shoujou and identifies them. So you can see them too, just like the Tokyo Tower on a map. Nothing else is needed. You are arguing without thinking. Read the references cited. Timothy Perper (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added later by TP. I think I see the source of the problem, in the referencing of the opening sentence of this section. So I fixed the sentence and referencing, and there should be no further problem. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Timothy Perper (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Curses! I misspelled "Guranmanmare" above -- so I fixed it. Sorry about that. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the book can be the source for the characters. You are the only one who says that they are shojo. All I want to see is a source which says the characters in the Ponyo film are shojo. Miyazaki says that the Ponyo's model is a goldfish in a news paper interview. See this. Do you still think she is a shojo? Oda Mari (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. The shojo noh mask is categorized as male mask. See this. Oda Mari (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the section since I made the change mentioned above? The reference to Ponyo is to Anime News Network and I am now going to add the official website from Studio Ghibli. But the reference to shoujou is to Gordon Smith. I do not use Gordon Smith as a reference for the characters but for the definition of shoujou. As I said, it's like identifying Tokyo Tower in the anime Burst Angel -- we don't need any other sources for it other than a map or guidebook to Tokyo.
You can think about it this way. How would I disprove the identification of Ponyo, Fujimoto, and Guranmanmere as shoujou? Well, that's easy. (1) I would have to show that Gordon Smith did not say that shoujou are red-haired, sea-dwelling magical human-shaped beings -- which is what he does say. (2) I'd have to show that Ponyo, Fujimoto, and Guranmanmere are not red-haired, magical beings who live in the sea -- which they are. Note that if you found a source saying that they're something else (oni, for example) then you'd be able to put that in the article with its reference, but that would mean only that someone else has a different identification, not that they are RIGHT and I am WRONG.
To be honest, Oda Mari, I think you getting overwrought about this issue. It's quite simple. Miyazaki's animation draws Ponyo and her family in ways that very closely resemble what Gordon Smith calls a shoujou. In fact, they're identical except possibly for the shoujou's fondess for sake. But Ponyo, he, and Guranmamere otherwise match Gordon's shoujou perfectly. What else do we need?
You ask if I believe that they're shoujou. My beliefs don't have much to do with this -- it's a matter of what is in the references. And yes, Ponyo and her family are shoujou according to the description of shoujou given by Gordon Smith. That is what the section says, that and nothing else.
You said before that you don't like explanations. I think that is unfortunate because matters like this need explanation and thought. You can't settle them simply by disagreement. Here is another example. Ponyo is not a goldfish (Latin name, Carassius auratus), again no matter who says she is. Goldfish are fresh water fish, and Ponyo and her family live in the sea. Some goldfish are strikingly orange-red, and Miyazaki may have used carp or koi (= goldfish) as a model, but he ended up with a fish that is quite different than a goldfish. Both these are issues centering on the definition of words -- shoujou and goldfish -- and once defined, those definitions are no longer up for grabs, meaning they no longer can be redefined to suit our own preferences.
I don't understand your point about the Noh mask being male. Gordon Smith describes male shoujou, and Fujimoto is male. I see nothing remarkable about the mask being for a man. Have I missed your point?
Timothy Perper (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An goldfish can live in the sea (the movie set) because that film is ANIMATION and the mention of the main character being half-goldfish is a referenced description. I also think you addition is original research. --Caspian blue (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, real goldfish don't live in sea water. Imaginary ones might, and animated ones might, but real ones do not. So nothing OR about that at all... unless you think that Ponyo is a real person. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you do not provide any "exact" phrase by authorities or media, we can not hold your own analysis on the main characters.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we can, or that is my opinion. Ponyo, Fujimoto, and Guranmanmere are depicted in certain ways in the film, and that is enough to identify them, that is, to give them a collective name. I think the problem is, in part, that the concept of the shoujou is not very well known outside of experts in Japanese folklore, so many of us don't recognize it. But once we learn the word, we know what it is. We don't need anyone else to tell us what shoujou means. It'd be nice, I suppose, to find someone who made the same identification, but we don't need someone else to do that. Our own ability to see the film and read Gordon Smith is enough.
But, frankly, I'm getting bored with this argument, since it is going nowhere. So I'm going to give up on this article and let you people work through all the material Matt Thorn and I assembled about shoujou. So I'm taking this article off my watch list and won't deal with it again.
Timothy Perper (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Perper, you say that Miyazaki's animation draws Ponyo and her family in ways that very closely resemble what Gordon Smith calls a shoujou, and you judge them to be shojo. That is your personal deduction, the original research. So I asked for the directly supported reference. But you didn't provide any. So I removed the information you added on the article. When you find the reliable sauce, put it back. The differnce between Tokyo Tower and Shojo is notability and accessibility. Comapare these G serch results. tokyo tower, shoujou, shojo, 東京タワー. 猩々, and 猩猩. The noh mask and other pieces of infomation I provided are not only for you but for every editors. I just hope they are helpful to expand the article. Oda Mari (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I guess I have to get back into this. I'll try to explain again. Oda Mari, please listen and try to understand.
It is not my judgment that Ponyo, Fujimoto, and Guranmanmere are shōjō. It's a matter of (a) seeing how they are depicted in the film and (b) reading the reference to Gordon Smith. Both are as accessible as your examples of Tokyo Tower -- the web connects just as easily to Gordon Smith's book as to anything else. Have you either seen the film or read the section in the Gordon Smith book? If not, then please do so.
The point -- it is essential -- is that the film does NOT give a name to the kind of being that Ponyo, Fujimoto, and Guranmanmere are. They have individual names, but not a collective name. Therefore our information is as yet incomplete. But, in scholarship, we do not stop there. We use multiple sources -- and that means we look at other sources when we try to find out what kind of being they are. We are supposed to do that when we edit Wikipedia or write a scholarly paper or a book -- and I have done all of those things for decades. If you want one and only one reference that proves everything, then you will not find it -- never, not in this, nor in anything else. You must use multiple sources.
For example, let's say you reading a story in English about a ghostly horserider who gallops at night in a small town in New York State. Let's also assume that the story doesn't tell you anything more. And you say, Who is this? Are there any more sources I can use who can tell me about this ghost? In scholarship, we do not stop and say "Oh, we mustn't go beyond that! I have to have one and ONLY ONE source to tell me everything!" Then we do what is called in English "looking it up," meaning we find other books that tell us who the ghostly horserider is. And very soon we will find him -- he is the Headless Horseman of Sleepy Hollow, from a story originally by Washington Irving.
But now you, Oda Mari, interupt and start anxiously saying "NO! NO! That's ORIGINAL RESEARCH! You mustn't do that! STOP! I'm going to remove all of it!" But you are wrong -- because that is exactly what we must do, whether it's the Headless Horseman of Sleepy Hollow or shōjō. We must use the library and the web to find the multiple sources that we need to answer our question. This is called "assembling a bibliography" and is basic to scholarship, to editing an article on Wikipedia, and to writing term papers in college. It means that you must use the resources around you in a productive and complete fashion to answer your question.
I suspect that I am many years (decades, perhaps) older and more experienced than you in doing this kind of work. You can learn how to do research from this discussion. And you must also learn not to remove other people's work -- you need to understand, not merely revert material.
Can you learn to do this? Of course. Should you learn how to do this? I think so. Yes, I am a teacher and a scholar, and you can learn from what I am doing. Please try to comprehend what editing an article on Wikipedia means -- it means assembling a bibliography and using it to answer questions.
Timothy Perper (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Mononoke[edit]

I thought we had included a reference to the shōjō in Princess Mononoke, but if we had, it has disappeared. Whereas there is obviously a great deal of controversy about Ponyo (which I would rather not get involved in), there is nothing controversial about Princess Mononoke, since the creatures are clearly identified as 猩々, both in the script, the official movie pamphlet, and elsewhere. (A Google of +"もののけ姫" +"猩々" results in more than a thousand hits.) I think a single sentence should suffice:

  • In the animated film [[Princess Mononoke]], talking, ape-like creatures struggling to protect the forest from human destruction by planting trees are identified as shōjō.<ref>COMICBOX Editorial Staff (1997) {{nihongo3|Reading ''Princess Mononoke''|『もののけ姫』を読み解く|[http://www.comicbox.co.jp/cbmnnk/cbmnnk.html Mononoke Hime o Yomitoku]}}. Tokyo:{{nihongo2|ふゅーじょんぷろだくと|Fusion Product}}</ref><ref>[[Toho|Toho Company]] Product Enterprise Division (1997). {{nihongo3|''Princess Mononoke'' Movie Pamphlet|『もののけ姫』映画パンフレット|Mononoke Hime Eiga Panfuretto}}. Tokyo:[[Toho|Toho Company]]. ASIN B000VT47WM</ref>
Matt Thorn (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That ought to do just fine. I'd make it "Hayao Miyazaki's animated film Princess Mononoke ..." Timothy Perper (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim Matt Thorn (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese origins[edit]

Caspian Blue, is there some reason to change the {{Quotation}} template to a {{Quote}} template? On my browser, the sections in the latter format appear identical to ordinary text and there's no way to see where the quote begins and ends. Is this a Wikipedia protocol thing I'm unaware of? Thanks in advance. Matt Thorn (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the latter format display almost identical to ordinary texts except the small caption because with the first format, the box with different length is more conspicuous than the texts. It looks like a quilt. I tried to use {{Prettyquote}} and {{Lquote}}, the former of which does not have a parameter for alignment, so everything were automatically placed on the center which looked untidy. The latter made weird big empty spaces between the quote because of the image on the left. Well, if you can find better quote box, please change it. I just wanted readers to focus the quotes. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the "quilt" look. Fortunately, I found a template created precisely for this kind of circumstance, {{Imagequote2}}. I think it looks pretty good. What do you think? Matt Thorn (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new quotebox looks better. Thank you for expanding the section and finding the good one. :) --Caspian blue (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural episode[edit]

The Supernatural episode "Party on, Garth" displays a Japanese webpage that it "runs a program to translate into English". The "translated webpage" is the lead paragraph of this article.70.34.147.3 (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shōjō&oldid=1199720954"