Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/March 2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talk & archives for WP Japan
Project talk
Task force talk/archives

↔ = joint task force
Old notice board
Related talk/archives
Search the archives:
V·T·E


help with Nihon Chinbotsu/Nihon Igai Zenbu Chinbotsu

I need help with this. the plotline's being based on the Roger Cormanized version instead of the actual version. Anyone who watched this in 1973 and can write and speak Nippongo is more than welcome to help. The 2006 spoof also needs a tweak. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Washo/Kanseki

Resolved

Hello! Can I refer to washo (和書) and kanseki (漢籍) as "books" even in cases where they are not in physical book shape (bound) but scrolls? Please also see this discussion. bamse (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC) So basically my question is: How to translate 和書, 漢籍 for the purpose of this list? bamse (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Translation help on old photo

Could someone translate the handwritten caption on this photo? The writing in the lower right corner is especially hard to read. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, do you have a higher resolution photo? Honestly I have difficulties resolving the writing on the left let alone the one on the right. Just a partial guess for the left part: 航空母艦上の海? (海? aboard the aircraft carrier). I am not sure about the last character. As for the first characters, I can only recognize a few: 出？？向ふ. bamse (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It is "出撃に向ふ航空母艦上の海鷲" (A naval aircraft making a sortie on an aircraft carrier). 海鷲 is a "sea eagle". 海鷲 seems to mean "Naval air force" or "Naval aircraft". See Momotarō no Umiwashi or this book.Grammatically "出撃する航空母艦上の海鷲" or "攻撃に向ふ航空母艦上の海鷲" is correct. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
海鷲 is a general word and the meaning is Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service or its service men, probably including the air crafts. See this. As for the writing on the right, I guess the first three characters might be 海軍省/Ministry of the Navy of Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Since it was me who asked, I thank you all. I hoped that the aircraft carrier could be identified. Cla68 thinks it is either Shokaku or Zuikaku. The photo was captured in 1944 by U.S. forces, so no more is known. I hope you are all well at this moment! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


Photo of unknown Mitsubishi A6M

Can anybody translate the characters on this plane, please? Does anybody have any idea on the identitiy of the plane? Thank you Cobatfor (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The first line, 報国, is read hōkoku (patriotism). The last part is too blurred for my eyes, though the first kanji is 方. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It is 方義錫號. 方義錫 (Koreanko:방의석 Bang uiseok) was a name of a donator of the plane and he was a wealthy Korean businessperson. 號 (号) is a suffix meaning "number". 報国 was used for naval donated aircrafts, while 愛国 (Aikoku patriotism) was used for army donated aircrafts. The plane was a A6M3 Type 0 Model 32 zero fighter (零戦32型) and flied by Lieutenant Junior Grade Kazuo Tsunoda (角田和男 飛曹長) stationed at Buna base, New Guinea. The plane made a crash landing after shot by Bell P-39 Airacobra on 26 August, 1942.[1] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I added your information to the photo (although I cannot read anything on the citation ...). Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The meaning of this 號 (号) is not number, but it is an untranslatable suffix used with the name of ships, airplanes, trains, racing horses, show dogs etc. See 3 and [2]. Oda Mari (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you please see, if my adaption of your translations is right at the photo on Commons? Thank you Cobatfor (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed "號" from the description as the name of the donator was 方義錫. Oda Mari (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help! Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey regarding later detection of Fukushima radiation at US airports

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey which concerns

Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest

regarding later detection of Fukushima radiation at US airports, which is not yet mentioned, but is being discussed as a subtopic to be added in a more general potential article on US civilian aiport security regulation issues and public reactions, perspectives on and by foreign travelers, sociology, law, cultural phenomenology, international context articl Separately from the 'criiticms' subsection on the US Transportation Security Administration alone.

A potential general article not only on protest but on efficacy, social context, and events which are of national and international note in these regards would also include breaking 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Fukushima I nuclear accidents news such as Japan radiation sets off O'Hare airport alarms -- CBS News Chicago station reports trace amounts of radiation clinging to flights from country ravaged by earthquake, tsunami:

"Trace amounts of radiation from Japan have been detected in Chicago, CBS News station WBBM-TV reports.

Travelers coming in from Japan on Wednesday triggered radiation detectors at O'Hare International Airport as they passed through customs. Only very small amounts of radiation were detected.

...Feds move more radiation monitors to West Coast...

"We are aware of the radiation," said Chicago Aviation Department spokeswoman Karen Pride. "We are adding screenings and precautionary measures."

...Radiation was also found in luggage and on passengers on flights from Japan.

Mayor Richard M. Daley and other city officials wouldn't provide any additional details, saying federal authorities were handling the situation.

"Of course the protection of the person coming off the plane is important in regards to any radiation and especially within their families," Daley said at an unrelated event." [more at] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey [and in the original CBS article March 17, 2011]. - Pandelver (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

English name RFC

There is an important RFC discussion regarding an English-language name move at Talk:Toki o Kakeru Shōjo#Move proposal. Please join in the discussion by posting your thoughts on the move proposal there. Thank you, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Geology of Japan

For such a geologically active country, I am very surprised that Geology of Japan contains very little information. It's clearly in need of expansion. Ivolocy (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"The existence of Shinto before the Meiji era is contested"

User:Urashimataro is making edits using "The existence of Shinto before the Meiji era is contested". Per WP:Fringe theories, I have never heard anyone here espouse that, it seems to come from a single source. Anyone?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I should have said "before the middle ages", which is more correct, but in any case what Kintetsubuffalo calls "a fringe theory" is actually a very common criticism of the classic view of Shinto which is high time Wikipedia reflected. Prominent historians like Kuroda Toshio, Sueki Fumihiko, Abe Yasurō, John Breen, Mark Teeuwen, Allan Grapard, Karen Smyers, and others all subscribe to the view that the religion called Shinto is a Meiji era invention. I can prove what I say with countless quotations from the best authorities. My edit aimed only at achieving a NPOV, and my changes were, as anyone can verify seeing the history of the Hachiman article, very innocent. Perhaps he should have first posted this question, and THEN, perhaps, proceed with the undo. -- Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what this is about -- not really; but in my experience, Urashimataro's careful edits are very much concerned with maintaining the academic credibility of our project. As context, please consider Revision history of Template:Shinto shrine.

My best guess is that the normal process of collaborative editing will help resolve this misunderstanding. In other words, this does not need to be problematic. In fact, this thread has already produced the beginnings of an editing process, i.e.,

  • The existence of State Shinto before the Meiji era is uncontested. "Before the Meiji period, the existence of State Shinto as we know it has not been contested.{{fact}}
  • The existence of Shinto before the middle ages is contested by some contemporary scholars. "Before the middle ages, the existence of Shinto as we know it has been contested by some contemporary scholars."{{fact}}
I suppose it is possible that a misconstrued phrase or a clause could have been inconsistent with WP:Synthesis? If so, it is possible that Urashimataro may have erred in some inadvertent manner. In any case, a closer examination of the supporting reliable sources will make the relevant factors plain. In other words, my guess is that this likely nothing more than an example of miscommunication; and any impasse can be resolved by examination of the specific citations which inform Urashimataro's writing. --Tenmei (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a chance to discuss whether to proceed or not with something I think is necessary: the revision of Shinto-related articles, including Shinto, to reflect the lack of consensus among historians about what Shinto exactly is. This may sound incredible to those unfamiliar with the subject, but those who read about Shinto know what I am talking about. As I know from experience, without this crucial piece of information reading about Shinto can be a very frustrating and confusing experience, because different texts by world-class universities say conflicting things about it. A NPOV would require explaining all this to readers. Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The fallen ginkgo at Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū
Urashimataro -- This may a good time to remind you of something you already know. The first paragraph at WP:V explains:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth-— that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
The project you propose is worthy; but it is also problematic. You must be prepared to proceed slowly and gingerly.

A good first step would be to try to persuade Kintetsubuffalo to change from the role of a skeptical critic to the role of a trusted colleague and ally, yes? --Tenmei (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Urashimataro -- An arguably pivotal sentence here is weak because there are no articles about the "prominent" scholars whose names you list.
Prominent historians like Kuroda Toshio Toshio Kuroda, Sueki Fumihiko Fumihiko Sueki, Abe Yasurō Yasurō Abe, John Breen, Mark Teeuwen, Allan Grapard, Karen Smyers, and others all subscribe to the view that the religion called Shinto is a Meiji era invention."
Maybe I can be helpful by trying to create stubs for each of these academics? --Tenmei (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that it would. But let's not go overboard here. One simple reason why Kuroda Toshio and Sueki Fumihiko are unlikely to turn blue is that their names haven't been inverted. One reason why no such name is likely to turn blue is that these aren't allegedly prominent historians of, say, the decline and fall of Nazi Germany but instead allegedly prominent historians of (I inexpertly guess, without bothering to google) Shintō or Japanese mythmaking or similar, and such people are rarely interviewed on "Fox News" or otherwise impinge on the mass anglophone semiconsciousness. In short, while I have no opinion on this matter, I'm willing to be persuaded that a position may have become the mainstream in relevant books coming out of the university presses despite the clash of this opinion with what's written in grade-school surveys of world religion and the like and despite the fact that the names of its proponents may be unknown to me, sitting on the Clapham omnibus. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I found Kuroda's page and Sueki's on Japanese Wikipedia, but there's no explanation of their work on Shinto. I'm not convinced that their theories are persuasive. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
A BBC "Shinto" website explicitly mentions Toshio Kuroda in a section entitled "Problems in studying Shinto history" (at the bottom of the "History" webpage):
"The scholar Kuroda Toshio has suggested that the traditional view of Shinto as the indigenous religion of Japan stretching back into pre-history is wrong. He argues that Shinto didn't emerge as a separate religion until comparatively modern times, and that this happened for political reasons. The traditional view, he says, is a modern construction of Shinto that has been projected back into history."
This suggest verifies that the scholarship of Kuroda is both:
IMO, the assertion that "the existence of Shinto before the Meiji era is contested" can be both verifiable and vulnerable to reasonable questions and criticism based on weight.

In this context, the obvious practical solution is for Urashimataro and Kintetsubuffalo to work together in a collaborative editing and consensus-building process. --Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Summary of my proposal

Sorry for being late with my reply, but I wanted to first think about what I wanted to say.

Talking with Kintetsubuffalo is fine, of course, but what I was hoping for, what I need, was a guideline on how to proceed in future edits on the issue to solve what I think is an NPOV issue. The articles affected are many, but the community seems uninterested and has expressed no opinion one way or another. I am therefore not going to risk doing a lot of work that may be strongly disapproved by some.

I would like however to explain Kuroda's importance and summarize what I am trying to do with some quotations. I have more from other authors, in necessary.

The editors underline the enormous importance of this article (by Kuroda Toshio), which argued that Shinto as an independent religion took shape only in the modern period, having emerged in the medieval age as an offshoot of Buddhism. - Dismantling stereotypes surrounding Japan's sacred entities, Fabio Rambelli

This is a concise exposition of the thesis. BTW, about Kuroda Toshio himself, the authoritative Nanzan Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, in 1996 shortly after his death, dedicated a whole issue to his legacy, so he is no minor figure.

Recent scholarship has shown the term [Shinto] to be highly problematic - its current content is largely a political construction of the Meiji period. -Karen Smyers, The Fox and the Jewel: Shared and Private Meanings in Contemporary Japanese Inari Worship, page 219

This quote deals with another side of the thesis. It says that the word Shinto has changed meaning several times in the course of its history, and that its present content is recent and ideologically loaded.

In recent years researchers, when talking about this era (before the Middle Ages), to avoid using the easily misinterpreted term Shinto, have acquired a strong tendency to use instead other terms like jingi shinkō (kami worship).

-Sueki, Fumihiko (2007) (in Japanese). Chūsei no kami to hotoke. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha. Page 13, my translation.

The new enthusiasm for the study of Shinto in academic circles outside Japan is due, in no small degree, to Kuroda's groundbreaking work. Breen, John; Mark Teeuwen, eds. (July 2000). Shinto in History: Ways of the Kami. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, page 5

Unless you believe Sueki, Breen and Teeuwen are lying (but Sueki is on the advisory board an Nanzan, which is as good an institute as it gets. Breen and Teewen write for them.), these last quotations put to rest fears that we are talking about a fringe theory. While completely unknown and even shocking to the non-specialist, Kuroda Toshio's work has had an enormous impact on researchers, changing their outlook. Simply the number of articles based on this view is in my opinion persuasive.

I think taking all this into account in writing about Shinto on Wikipedia is all but necessary. Warnings must be added where necessary that there's a controversy about what Shinto exactly is, and that incompatible theories (given as facts) can be found in specialistic books on the subject. The word Shinto should be used with discipline. Studying Shinto can be enormously confusing because of the incompatibility between the classic view of scholars like Joseph Kitagawa and the more recent research spurred by Kuroda. As I said, however, I am not going to do anything without the community's support. Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not at all my area of expertise, but what you are saying, F(UT), squares with my memory of what I have read in such books as Fujitani's Splendid Monarchy: Power and Pageantry in Modern Japan (U California Press, '98): that various ingredients of what we call Shintō are indeed old, but that much of the tennō-related and other mumbo-jumbo was (like so much of tradition worldwide) invented in the 19th century. The western visitor to Japan marvels at the cross-cultural convergence of symbolism within Japanese and European wedding ceremonies -- but no, the two are similar simply because the freshly minted Japanese tradition was a conscious adaptation of the European one. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
That statement by Kuroda is really bold and far from the common understanding of Shinto. I don't think you can validate it with the material that is available at Ise, Izumo, or other major shrines. Also, most people don't read academic journals of Shinto to understand his thesis. I would say that his is an alternative theory.
It's true that the Meiji government played a major role in the development of State Shinto. With the introduction of Western religious studies and concepts to Japan, the Japanese word ja:宗教 to translate the concept "religion" and the academic understanding of the word ja:神道 were established during this period. Still, some court rituals like ja:新嘗祭 are older than that.
What is Shinto? There's no simple answer to this question because it is multifaceted. I think Kuroda's view may be an oversimplification because you also need to understand other aspects, such as shrines, folk beliefs, and natural deities, and mythological tales.
Please read the following excerpt from the main article of Shinto on Japanese Wikipedia. The main source is the Heibonsha World Encyclopedia.
神道は太古の日本から信仰されてきた固有の文化に起源を持つとされる宗教である。宗教名の多くは何教と呼称するが、宗教名は神教ではなく神道である。日本列島に住む民族の間の伝統的な民俗信仰・自然信仰を基盤とし、豪族層による中央や地方の政治体制と関連しながら徐々に成立した[1][2]。
神道には明確な教義や教典がなく[3][4]、『古事記』、『日本書紀』、『古語拾遺』、『宣命』といった「神典」と称される古典を規範とする。森羅万象に神が宿ると考え、天津神・国津神や祖霊をまつり、祭祀を重視する。浄明正直（浄く明るく正しく直く）を徳目とする[3]。他宗教と比べて現世主義的であり、まつられるもの（神）とまつるもの（信奉者）との間の連体意識が強い、などといった特徴がみられる。
一説には、神道とは惟神の道（かんながらのみち）であり、「ただあるがままを生きる。この世には人智を超えた神々の計らいがあり、その中をただ自然に生きることこそ大切」とも言われるが、その根幹にあるものは森羅万象や祖霊、死者への畏敬の念である。古来、日本人は「人道」に対する「神道」という、人道よりももっと高度な、善悪を超えた、宇宙や地球の法則のようなもの、人類も含めた「物・事の在り方」「道（みち）」をその精神の中心に置き、大事に伝承し、国民全体に普及させる努力を重ねて来ていた。それは、新嘗祭などの日本古来の伝統的な「祭事」にも表れている。
神道と仏教の違いについては、神道は神話に登場する神々のように、地縁・血縁などで結ばれた共同体（部族や村など）を守ることを目的に信仰されてきたのに対し、仏教はおもに個人の安心立命や魂の救済、国家鎮護を求める目的で信仰されてきたという点で大きく相違する[1]。
神道は日本国内で約1億600万人の支持者がいると『宗教年鑑』（文化庁）には記載があるが、これは神社側の自己申告に基づく数字である。約85000の神社が登録されている。
Does this match Kuroda's theory? I think not. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to add another quote from "A New History of Shinto" (2010) by Breen and Teeuwen. Referring to Kuroda's theory they write: This insight has since served as the starting point of a fundamental reconsideration of Shinto and its role in Japanese history.. bamse (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention of kami

I've noticed that there are many hyphenated names of kami in Japanese mythology articles.

I think this hyphenation necessitates redirects and makes it harder to read and write articles. I personally like "Kuninotokotachi" as one word, rather than "Kuni-no-tokotachi", and "Kuninotokotachi no kami/mikoto" with no hyphenation rather than "Kuni-no-tokotachi-no-kami/mikoto" or "Kuninotokotachi-no-kami/mikoto".

Perhaps we need a standard naming convention. Thoughts? --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I support a naming convention (in whatever way). However I am not familiar enough with the topic to say which convention would be preferable. All I can say so far is that Chamberlain's Kojiki [3] uses the hyphenation convention for both Romaji and translated names. However the book is from 1919, so we might well use a more modern convention. bamse (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The naming convention of the Encyclopedia of Shinto by Kokugakuin University looks similar to my preference.
Chamberlain translated Susanoo as "His-Swift-Impetuous-Male-Augustness," but this hyphenation may be excessive. W. G. Aston's Nihongi [4] (Tuttle Publishing) follows a similar pattern. In the Nihongi, the deities have many aliases, and we would have to add hypthens to all of them.
I think compound words like Kamiumi, Kuniumi, and Kamiyonanayo should be treated as single words. (Kami and umi, kuni and umi, and kamiyo and nanayo all rhyme.) Words like Ame-no-ukihashi (天浮橋) may not need hyphens either. (cf.Amanohashidate). Hyphenation is necessary for compound kango made in Japan (和製漢語) with the suffixes -性, 制, 型, 的, 法, 力, etc. Other than that, usage of hypthens should be minimal, in my opinion. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan/Mythology_task_force.--Shinkansen Fan (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami

With the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami, we should try improving/creating articles on areas hard hit by the tsunami. For instance, Sendai Airport still says it is a stub. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I noticed that it is referred to in several articles (Japan, History of Japan, possibly more) as "...worst earthquake in its history." However as far as I understand it is rather the "worst earthquake in its recorded history", or even "the "worst earthquake in its recorded (by current means/definitions) history". Propose to change text accordingly. bamse (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
To our Japanese editors (including Oda Mari), are everyone and their families okay? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern, HelloAnnyong. I'm OK. Oda Mari (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Good to hear from you. Anyone heard from Hoary? I believe he's over in Japan, too. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fujinuma

Is there an article about the dam in Fukushima? [5][6] 184.144.160.156 (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Only in Japanese. ja:藤沼ダム --Sushiya (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone has created the article at Fujinuma Dam. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Placenames

CNN on-air has called Minamisanriku as Minami Sanriku and Minamisōma as Minami Soma (printed out onscreen text). Should we build redirects for these? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's also using Minamisanrikucho for another of its correspondents. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Soledad O'Brien is reporting from Ushiami, which Google reveals to be part of Higashimatsushima, Miyagi. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The hardest hit areas are to the northeast of Sendai, and the immediate impacts are found mainly in the Tohoku and Kanto regions as a whole. I think we should put the common names of the quake and aftershocks used by the media in the lead, rather than in the footnotes. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Kinkasan

The Oshika Peninsula article said that this piece of land, Kinkasan island, was closest to the epicenter of the Great Tohoku Earthquake. Can someone reference that and add it to the article? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Impact on the Japanese economy

We have an article Impact of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry, should there also be one for other industries ? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on the video gaming sector alone, we should cover all sectors so that readers can learn the impact on the global supply chain of key components and high-performance materials exported from Japan to the whole world: Automotive components, electronic devices for smartphones, tablets, and computers, steel products, jet engines, to name only a few. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Kudos to those working on the article

The most recent Signpost features a compliment to those who have been working on this article:

*Wikipedia's earthquake coverage commended: Wikipedia's strength in covering current major events was highlighted by several notable commenters following the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami. Doc Searls recommended the Wikipedia article as one of the three "best portable media to keep up with it". Oscar Swartz [7], Harvard University's Nieman Labs [8] and Dan Gillmor[9] likewise commented favorably. In a bulletin about the related accidents in Japanese nuclear power stations, the German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety quoted reports by the responsible company "as well as various press agencies and Wikipedia" about the failure of an emergency cooling system.

Congrats to everyone who has been working so hard on this and all the related articles. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima

I've disambiguated Fukushima disaster, since the nuclear disaster is not the only disaster affecting the prefecture at the moment. Though some others may disagree with that. What do you think? 65.95.13.139 (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikinews links

user:Ohconfucius has been deleting Wikinews links from the various Great Tohoku Earthquake subarticles, are we good with that? I noticed that the Nuclear timeline article no longer linked to wikinews next to the date at which the wikinews article related to, then saw that several other articles now no longer have Wikinews. Ohconfucius's edit comments have no indication that any such edit is taking place, only that some fixing of date formats is occurring, which is quite misleading. 65.95.15.189 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC).

Northeast Asia

Northeast Asia is suffering from East Sea / Sea of Japan issues. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I edited the article per WP:NC-KO#Sea of Japan (East Sea). Oda Mari (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphen or not

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian-American history#Move request. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Mfd for Wikipedia:WikiProject Japanese Bibliography

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Japanese Bibliography. Thanks. --Kleinzach 06:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Last call. Japanese Bibliography may be deleted if no-one here responds. --Kleinzach 01:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Japanese municipal flags

There are eight pages called "List of municipal flags of some region", daughters of the page List of Japanese municipal flags. The daughter pages each contain an image of a Japanese municipal flag, accompanied by a description. However, none cite sources, and some of the descriptions are either dubious or potentially controversial. Please see Talk:List of Japanese municipal flags for more information, and help get these descriptions either properly sourced or, if that is not possible, removed. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tsunamis

I noticed that we have a List of earthquakes in Japan but there is no List of tsunamis in Japan, as not every tsunami in Japan is caused by an earthquake, and not every earthquake that causes a tsunami in Japan is in Japan, such a list would be good. We do have historic tsunamis from which to base a more in depth/detailed Japanese focused list. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have some links for information that could be used for creating such a list? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Well at bgc there are several previewable texts, and gscholar has some available freeviews. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

The Tohoku tsunami, quake, and Fukushima nuclear incidents seem to have some questionable quality redirects that would be better at disambiguation pages instead of targetting these articles (otherwise large hatnotes on the articles should be created)

65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sea of Japan/East Sea naming convention

I am reviving a discussion on the naming usage of Sea of Japan and East Sea. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names. Chunbum Park (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review for Air raids on Japan now open

The peer review for Air raids on Japan is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming of Kaiwo Maru, and splitting the article

Some issues have come to light at Kaiwo Maru II, see Talk:Kaiwo Maru II. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Obasan (Japanese term)

Obasan (Japanese term) has been prodded for deletion. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Credo

Not sure how useful it is for Japan related articles, but any content adders might want to sign up at WP:CREDO. bamse (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b 『世界大百科事典』 217-218頁。
  2. ^ 『神道』 12-13頁。
  3. ^ a b 『神道』 18頁。
  4. ^ 『神道』 140頁。
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan/Archive/March_2011&oldid=1137378360"