User talk:Eirikr

Hello. Feel free to drop a line. 日本語も読めますからご遠慮なく。

Lately, I'm on Wiktionary a lot more than Wikipedia, so write on my Talk page there to get my attention.

Archives

2005-2006

---

It's actially tekagi aka shuko. [1] In action: [2] Now you can restore the article in the renamed form. --Niemti (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some confusion. I don't have any authority to restore articles -- I'm not an admin here. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And, FWIW, the title should be shukō instead, with the long "o", since this is clearly the on'yomi of 手鉤. For reference, 手 te + 鉤 kagi in the kun'yomi is instead 手 shu + 鉤 kō in the on'yomi.

(There is also the reading shū with a long "u" for the 手 kanji, but this is used less often, and from what I've seen so far this long-"u" reading isn't used in the 手鉤 compound.)

HTH, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made a few changes to the etymology section of nirvana and wanted to see if you had any thoughts. The allusions to forest from Prabhupada have been removed but the more wp:rs abhidharma one is maintained. Biggest issue is if you're okay with removing the folk etymology heading. The section seems to be set up to address fringe opinions. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Iṣṭa Devatā. I've gone over the top section of the article and tweaked the wording and formatting slightly. It looks mostly good, and I agree with your changes.

I have one remaining issue / question: the last paragraph in the Nirvana#Abhidharma section seems ... out of place. How does this relate to the etymology? The mention of the five aggregates seems irrelevant here. Does this paragraph require additional content to make the connection plain? Or should it be removed? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I'm really not familiar with the Abhidharma text that is being referenced here so I largely left it alone. I'm not sure who added the five aggregates part, but I wouldn't object to it being changed. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot see how that content relates to the etymology of the term in any way, so I have removed it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eirikr, where exactly did you find this reading of 武士道 (bushido) as "mono no fu no michi"? I checked your reference but don't see it clearly. I can find "武士の道" (but that has an extra "の"). So without the extra の it would read as もののふ (武士) + 道 みち = mononofu-michi. These pronunciations are generally not used and were replaced by bushi and "bushido". - Artanisen (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Artanisen: --

There are various things going on. Let me try to explain.

• Jisho.org is not a terribly good resource. I have run across entries with flat-out mistakes, entries with borderline-incorrect content, and entries with misleading content. It's also not a very complete resource, omitting lots of detail. As a rule of thumb, I never use Jisho.org as a reference for my own studies, and I never link to it as a reference in things I'm writing. (Unless I'm writing specifically about Jisho.org. 😄)
• The references I did add are numbers 18, 19, and 20 (as of today, anyway). The KDJ and DJS are currently available online via Kotobank, a dictionary aggregator site, while Daijirin underwent a licensing change in the past year or so and has vanished from freely available websites. I still rely on my local dead-tree copy.

• The 武士道 page at Kotobank: https://kotobank.jp/word/武士道-124463
• The 武士の道 page at Kotobank: https://kotobank.jp/word/武士の道-646391

Each page includes entries from multiple resources. Note that these are all in Japanese. The KDJ heading in Japanese is 精選版 日本国語大辞典の解説, and the heading for Daijisen is デジタル大辞泉の解説.

• Japanese particles are sometimes omitted from text. This is more common in older writing. Consequently, 武士道 might be read as either bushidō, or as mono no fu no michi, depending on the context and the author's intent. If the の is spelled out, as in 武士の道, then we know that it must be read as either mono no fu no michi, or as bushi no michi, depending again on context and author.

With the medial の either spelled out or omitted, there was never any term mononofu-michi, as far as I can tell.

• Similarly, the medial no in mono no fu is not spelled out, but in this case, this has lexicalized and become the only way this word is spelled, without the particle.

Here's the relevant Kotobank page, showing the KDJ entry: https://kotobank.jp/word/物部・武士-2088242. This indicates two attested historical spellings, both 物部 and 武士 for this mono no fu reading, and without the medial no particle spelled out.

• While the character 武 in certain contexts does indeed have a kun'yomi of take, that reading is never used for the kanji combination 武士.

Jim Breem's WWWJDIC is not as complete of a dictionary, but I'll also refer to it for some things. We can see there too that the kanji combination 武士 has no reading takefu: hihongo.monash.edu/cgi-bin/wwwjdic?1MUJ武士

• Regarding "generally not used", be aware that usage patterns change over time. In the oldest texts, mono no fu was much more common of a reading than bushi. Broadly, Japanese underwent a vaguely similar dynamic as English did -- English's Germanic word stock was either replaced or shifted to informal contexts, while borrowed Latinate words took on prestige status. So too did Japanese's native word stock change places as borrowed Chinese words took on prestige status. I suspect that this is at least partly responsible for the written term 武士 undergoing its shift in reading, from native mono no fu to Chinese-derived bushi.

I hope that makes things clear. Feel free to ask if anything is still confusing. (But bear in mind that it might take me a while to respond -- I have a busy few days ahead of me.)

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 03:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. So we're talking about old Japanese kunyomi reading of the kanji. In this case I think mononofu-michi もののふみち is better. If you add an extra の then it should be written as もののふの道. Bushi is from the onyomi reading. However, the Mandarin reading is Wǔshì which sounds notably different from the Japanese onyomi. By the way, old Japanese sounds very different from modern Japanese and people now would find it difficult to communicate with someone who speaks old Japanese. -Artanisen (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artanisen:, what I describe above is largely not opinion, but accepted historical fact in Japanese linguistics.

• Chinese has changed much in the roughly 1000-1500 years since most borrowings into Japanese and the establishment of on'yomi. Looking at modern Mandarin is not terribly relevant in any discussion of ancient Japanese borrowings from Chinese.

Case in point: the term bushi in Japanese and wǔshì in Mandarin are reconstructed with the pronunciation /mɨo^X d͡ʒɨ^X/ in Middle Chinese. Upon further familiarity with Middle Chinese pronunciations and the patterns in which these are reflected in Japanese on'yomi, one would anticipate that there would also be Japanese on'yomi pronunciations of mu for 武 and ji for 士, as indeed there are. In addition, one would see the correlation between Middle Chinese /m-/ and Japanese /b-/, and Middle Chinese /d͡ʒ-/ and Japanese /ɕ-/. Consider also the modern Min Nan pronunciation of bú-sǐr -- of the Chinese dialects / languages, Min Nan is often the closest to Japanese on'yomi.

• There was no attested term mono no fu michi. Moreover, this is ungrammatical. You state, "[i]f you add an extra の then it should be written" -- as I tried to explain earlier, Japanese does not always spell out the particles, even when they are uncontestedly present as part of the term. "Should be written" does not matter -- how it is actually written and pronounced is what I'm trying to convey.
• Regarding changes in pronunciation, the linguistic consensus is that Japanese phonology has not changed all that much, certainly less than English has. This primarily involves the following shifts (off the top of my head, see Old Japanese#Phonology for some more detail):

• initial /p-/ → /f-/ → /h-/
• medial /p-/ → /w-/ or nothing (/w-/ remains before /-a/, and rarely before /-o/, otherwise it softened into nothing)

The initial /p-/ would probably sound the oddest to a modern speaker. However, the /p/ consonant is still regarded as part of the family of はひふへほ with initial /h-/ or /f-/ (technically, not labiodental [f-] but rather bilabial [ɸ-]), and would probably be understandable after some effort and a brief period of adjustment.

• initial /s-/ → /ɕ-/ before /-e/, then reverting again /ɕ-/ → /s-/
• initial /s-/ → /ɕ-/ before /-i/
• initial /t-/ → /t͡s-/ before /-u/
• initial /t-/ → /t͡ɕ-/ before /-i/
• final /-mu/ → /-u/ or /-ɴ/

The consonant shifts other than initial /p-/ would sound weird, but the consonants are still in the right family of sounds, and Old Japanese here might sound more like someone lisping than something unintelligible.

• a flattening of the 甲・乙 (kō / otsu) or subscript-1 and subscript-2 distinctions in the /i/, /e/, and /o/ vowels (see also Old Japanese#Vowels)

The 甲・乙 vowel distinctions are still uncertain -- the possibility remains that a modern speaker might not perceive the differences as extreme enough to change the meaning, and these might just sound like an odd accent. Consider the varied, but still understandable, differences in pronunciation of the English first-person pronoun, "I": /ɑe/, /aɪ/, /aː/.

• a flattening of various diphthong (two-vowel) sounds, such as /au/ shifting first to /ɔː/ and then merging with /oː/, or /eu/ shifting to /joː/

The diphthong shifts would be strange, but also somewhat familiar to anyone with some background in Classical Japanese -- which is pretty much anyone who has gone through the Japanese educational system.

The bigger problem in understanding Old Japanese would not be the pronunciations, so much as the changes in particle usage, verb conjugations, usage, and vocabulary. Modern mirareru ("to be seen") was Old Japanese miyu. Modern da ("is" as the plain-form predicate) was Old Japanese ni te ari or ni ari (depending on the syntax and grammar). There have also been shifts in meaning, such as itadaku shifting from "to carry on top of the head" to modern usage primarily as a polite and humble word for "to receive". And some words have shifted in both pronunciation and meaning, such as ancient kapo payusi ("face is shining", in reference to "redfaced": "embarrassed, embarrassing") becoming modern kawaii ("cute"). Etc.

Back to the main points I'd like to address in your reply:

• The ancient term was mono no fu no michi. That second no is undisputedly part of the term , even though it was not always spelled out.
• The reading bushi is derived from Chinese, and indeed all on'yomi are derived from Chinese.
• The intelligibility of spoken Old Japanese to modern Japanese speakers is, to a certain extent, unknowable, but it would probably have more to do with changes in grammar and vocabulary than in pronunciation.
• The term mono no fu and noun phrase mono no fu no michi were still in use by the time the Kōyō Gunkan was written in the earlier 1600s. These were not limited to Old Japanese, and continue to be used even into modern times (albeit with a distinct archaic tone), as evidenced by various monolingual dictionaries listing these with modern details.

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*"Should be written" does not matter -- how it is actually written and pronounced is what I'm trying to convey." Disagree here, you bring up ancient terminology that is rarely used nowadays. Then you add "no" to make it more grammatically correct as per modern Japanese grammar.

* "linguistic consensus is that Japanese phonology has not changed all that much, certainly less than English has." If you listen to old Japanese. For example here, there are big differences. A modern Japanese speaker can understand certain words, but will have a hard time to comprehend everything.

*I checked your examples: The 武士道 page at Kotobank: https://kotobank.jp/word/武士道-124463 = here ぶしどう BUSHIDO is used (written in Hiragana, because it is considered a Japanese term. It uses the on'yomi reading but it is a Sino-Japanese word. It also says 武士の道 (もののふの道 = Mono no fu no michi. Here the extra の is written not omitted.

* The 武士の道 page at Kotobank: https://kotobank.jp/word/武士の道-646391 - here it is written as 武士の道 (bushi-no-do or mono no fu no michi).

*"Chinese-derived" Bushido is Sino-Japanese (Kango, 漢語). So it's more accurate to say Sino-Japanese instead of "Chinese-derived" which has a notable different pronunciation.

So if you write "Mono no fu no michi" then it should either be 武士の道 or もののふの道. It's not an accurate translation of 武士道. -Artanisen (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think you're conflating a few things.

• The term mono no fu is ancient, but it is still known and used. The term mono no fu no michi seems to date from the Kōyō Gunkan in the early 1600s, and this is also still known and used in modern Japanese works. In modern writing, it would most likely be written as 武士の道, possibly with furigana added to clarify the intended reading. Indeed, we see in Google Books that there are more than a few titles listed that include this spelling: https://www.google.com/search?q="武士の道"&tbm=bks
• Old Japanese pronunciation is not really germane to this discussion, so I won't go into that any further.
• Your statement that "BUSHIDO is ... written in Hiragana, because it is considered a Japanese term" suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the lexicographic conventions. The Kotobank entries, including the page at https://kotobank.jp/word/武士道-124463, are all for Japanese terms. Some of those Japanese terms derive from other languages, such as English-derived ベッド / beddo, or Khmer-derived 煙管 / kiseru, or modern-Chinese-derived 你好 / nī hao, or Middle-Chinese-derived 武士 / bushi.
• In older written Japanese, particles were not always written out. The article references texts from the 1600s when the term first appears, when orthographical (spelling) conventions were different from the kind of standardized usage recorded in most dictionary headwords. There is even a tradition of deliberately omitting the particles in writing to make the text seem more like written Chinese, and then reading it back out in a more Japanese style and inserting the particles. See the Kanbun page for more on that.

What I stated earlier is that, "... 武士道 might be read as either bushidō, or as mono no fu no michi, depending on the context and the author's intent" (emphasis added). Particularly if the context is an older, non-modern text, we cannot say with 100% certainty that 武士道 was intended to be read as bushidō or as mono no fu no michi. In modern contexts, this spelling would indeed be read by default as bushidō, unless the author has used furigana to explicitly indicate a reading of mono no fu no michi.

• Sino-Japanese, by definition, is derived from Chinese. It's not more accurate to say one or the other. Arguably, "Chinese-derived Japanese" is more easily understood, but they both mean the same thing.
• On'yomi, by definition, is derived from Chinese, and is Sino-Japanese. Consequently, your statement that "BUSHIDO ... uses the on'yomi reading but it is a Sino-Japanese word" seems confused. If it is an on'yomi reading, it is Sino-Japanese, no "but" about it.

With regard to the article itself, I'm unclear on what concerns you might have? The text doesn't say that 武士道 is read as mono no fu no michi, and I never added anything to say that. As I describe here, 武士道 might have been intended to be read as mono no fu no michi in certain historical works, but we can't know for sure. In addition, I don't think that this is important enough to mention, and also I think that this detail would be confusing to readers, and that it is largely irrelevant to the subject in the article. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree, you're mistaken. The term mono no fu no michi is rarely used nationally in Japan and internationally generally unknown. That it is also written in Hiragana further supports that it IS a Japanese term, yes it could be derived a long time ago from something else, but if it were a truly foreign loanwoard it would be written in katakana. The problem with your claim that this 武士道 could be read as mono no fu no michi is because an additional の is missing, so it should either be written as 武士の道 or もののふの道. Sino-Japanese is more accurate to say, because it is a combination of Sino and Japanese. - Artanisen (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artanisen: You've missed some key qualifiers in what I've written previously.

1. As I stated before, in the historical context of the Kōyō Gunkan, kana usage for particles and okurigana was not as standardized as it is today. Compare the spelling of English words in Chaucer versus today -- there was a lot of variation, even within the same text by the same author. So too was it for Japanese. Consequently, in the historical context of the Kōyō Gunkan, in the text itself, if there are no furigana, we cannot know for sure whether 武士道 was intended to be read as bushidō, or as mono no fu no michi.

   Again, in modern texts, we can be reasonably sure that 武士道 is intended to be read as bushidō -- unless, again, the author has used furigana to indicate a different reading.

2. The term mono no fu no michi does not have much currency in the modern language. When we're talking historically about the Middle Japanese used when the Kōyō Gunkan was written, the term bushidō instead was the rare term -- indeed, it may have been coined afresh in that very work, in which case it may have been quite unusual indeed.
3. Whether a word is written in katakana or hiragana or kanji is not proof of origin. The term tabako is a foreign term, yet it is commonly written in hiragana as たばこ, and it even has kanji spellings like 煙草 or 莨. So too is the term tempura a borrowing, even though it has kanji spellings like 天麩羅 or 天婦羅. Certain everyday native Japanese terms are often written in katakana, such as アリ (ari, "ant"). Moreover, in historical contexts, one must be aware that everyday texts in the late Meiji and onward used katakana as the main script up until after World War II. Writing a word in either hiragana or katakana is proof only that it can be pronounced by a Japanese speaker.
4. As explained earlier, "Sino-Japanese" = "Japanese term derived from Chinese". The prefix "Sino-" means "related to China or Chinese". See also wikt:Sino-Japanese, clearly defining this as "the Chinese-derived elements in the Japanese language" (emphasis mine). See also Sino-Japanese vocabulary, explaining that such terms are borrowings from Chinese, such as 具足 (gusoku, "gear; furnishings; equipment"), or coinages in Japanese using elements borrowed from Chinese, such as 自転車 (jitensha, "bicycle").
5. Whether a Japanese term is known internationally is irrelevant to any discussion of Japanese terms as used in the Japanese language.
6. In the Bushido article itself, the only mention of mono no fu no michi is in the Bushido#Etymology section, mentioning the term as a synonym to bushidō that was in use contemporaneous with the Kōyō Gunkan. Nothing about that is incorrect.

If you feel that this mention is extraneous and confusing, I have no objection to removing this. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Artanisen:, regarding your recent edits at Wikimedia, 武士の道 in the Kōyō Gunkan cannot be either bushidō or bushi no dō. See again monolingual Japanese sources, such as the Kotobank page here, clearly showing this as mono no fu no michi. Also, Mandarin is wholly irrelevant to the fact that the bushidō reading is derived from Chinese. I have consequently reverted your edits there. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In your reference it is written as "もののふの道". In the Koyo Gunkan it is written with kanji as 武士の道. While it was likely read in ancient times as mono-no-fu-no-michi, this can also be read as bushi-no-do. The Mandarin is not irrelevant, because your use of "Chinese derived" is too vague, because it should be "Sino-Japanese" (on-yomi). Also see |this article: "The first use of Bushidō was in Kōyō gunkan, considered the “scriptures” of the Takeda-ryū school of martial arts. The writings, comprising 20 scrolls, mention Bushidō over 30 times.". Note they never mention the reading "mono-no-fu-no-michi". Nowadays, the Japanese public, experts and internationally use the pronunciation "bushido". From a historical perspective I understand your point in the use of "mono-no-fu-no-michi" for 武士の道 (not for 武士道). However, the reading "mono-no-fu-no-michi is rarely used nowadays so renaming the file would make it confusing for people. Bushido is considered a Japanese term, regardless of that it is read in on-yomi. -Artanisen (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artanisen:, re-read the entries shown on the Kotobank page for 武士の道.

• The headword (the term for which this page provides information) is 武士の道.
• The top of the page shows this line:

武士の道（読み）もののふのみち

The big text is the headword. The smaller text is clearly labeled in parentheses as the 読み (yomi, "reading", a.k.a. "pronunciation").

• The KDJ entry (the one at the top of that page) defines the term as:

武人として守らなければならない道。武士としての生き方。ぶしどう。

The ぶしどう at the end of that line is part of the definition -- this indicates that ぶしどう is a synonym (different word with the same meaning) for the headword 武士の道 (mono no fu no michi).

• The KDJ entry also provides a quote from a text written in the mid-1300s that uses the 武士の道 spelling.
• The Daijisen entry (the second one on the page) defines the term as:

武士として守らなければならない道。武士道。

The 武士道 at the end of that line is part of the definition -- this indicates that 武士道 is a synonym (different word with the same meaning) for the headword 武士の道 (mono no fu no michi).

1. Regarding "Chinese-derived", all Japanese terms classed as on'yomi are Chinese-derived (with very few exceptions), which is the same thing as "Sino-Japanese". See again the Sino-Japanese vocabulary article. Mandarin is largely irrelevant to any discussion of modern Japanese on'yomi. Chinese is more than just Mandarin.
2. Regarding the English text you referenced, that article is explicitly looking at the word bushidō. Their non-mention of synonyms is irrelevant. A discussion of eggplants that fails to mention the term aubergine does not in any way serve as evidence that aubergine is somehow not a synonym for eggplant.
3. Regarding mono no fu no michi or bushi no dō, I can find zero evidence for bushi no dō, neither in my dead-tree references here to hand, nor online. Compare:
   • Google search for "武士の道"+"もののふのみち": 26 hits
   • Google search for "武士の道"+"ぶしのどう": zero hits

   The mono no fu no michi reading is indeed rare. However, it demonstrably exists, even in modern writings.

   The bushi no dō reading does not seem to exist at all.

   There are hits for the reading bushi no michi, wherein this is described as a mistaken reading for mono no fu no michi on someone's blog -- definitely a modern context.

   Do you have any textual evidence for the bushi no dō reading in use in a Japanese text? If so, please provide links and/or quotes.

4. Regarding my proposed renaming of the commons:File:Word-Bushido-in-Koyo-Gunkan-by-Kosaka-Masanobu-1616.png image over at Commons, see the Talk page there. In summary, the text shown in the photograph of that page from the Kōyō Gunkan does not show the word 武士道 (bushidō) anywhere, and the white box highlights the term 武士の道 (mono no fu no michi) instead. Consequently, the file is incorrectly named.

Key issues (as I understand them):

1. You object to ... something? In the body of the Bushido article here at Wikipedia? I am honestly not clear what you want for the article.
2. You object to renaming the commons:File:Word-Bushido-in-Koyo-Gunkan-by-Kosaka-Masanobu-1616.png image over at Commons. Considering that the filename does not accurately describe what the image shows, I suggest that you find an alternative image that actually shows the term 武士道 (bushidō), without any の (no), rather than the term 武士の道 (mono no fu no michi).

It would help this discussion if you could restate your specific concerns, regarding specific edits or moves that you or I have committed or proposed, or are considering. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you made this edit on tabi. If you are willing to look over jika-tabi, your knowledge would be very useful in disentangling PR from history. HLHJ (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ: Looking over the Jika-tabi page, I don't see too much that raises any concerns for me. The one dangling issue might be that mention of JOSHRC and approval for use of steel-toed jika-tabi in workplaces. I've searched the JOSHRC website (https://joshrc.net/) specifically for "地下足袋" any mention of jika-tabi, but I'm not finding much (just two PDFs from the early 1990s discussing certain incidence rates, where jika-tabi are only mentioned in passing, and nothing is said about steel-toed anything).

That JOSHRC thing aside, I think the Jika-tabi page looks good. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Eirikr. The photo of steel-toed jika-tabi is by someone I could e-mail and ask. I was wondering about the invention of jika-tabi; there are a lot of photos of pre-1920s people wearing tabi with soles of straw, leather, and possibly even rubber, outdoors, while travelling on roads, etc.. So the idea that a company invented jika-tabi, or even rubber jika-tabi, in 1922 seems a bit odd. Surely outdoor, ground-touching tabi are a fairly old idea? Is it okay to call the kutsu "jika-tabi"? Or is that term only for rubber-soled cloth? HLHJ (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ: Ah, that's the portion that caught your attention. Ya, from what I can find in Japanese-language sources, these were indeed invented in 1922. Tabi as a general thing are much older, but they are basically socks -- to protect the feet from rubbing against the material of the outer footwear. I'm not sure if you've ever had a chance to handle waraji (straw sandals): they are very rough, and would require a lot of practice to build up calluses before someone could wear them for very long without tabi and without rubbing holes through their skin. Moreover, straw sandals don't last very long, falling apart after a single day of hard use.

If you can read Japanese, there's a lot of good and reliably vetted information on the Kotobank page: https://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%9C%B0%E4%B8%8B%E8%B6%B3%E8%A2%8B-72434

Kotobank is a resource aggregator, providing one-glance access to various dictionaries and encyclopedias. The page here for 地下足袋 includes entries from seven different sources: the Encyclopedia Nipponica, the digital version of the Daijisen dictionary, the Japanese version of the Encyclopædia Britannica International edition, the Mypedia encyclopedia, the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten dictionary, and two editions of the Sekai Dai Hyakka Jiten. Where specified, these sources agree that jika-tabi were invented in 1922 by the brothers who later went on to found Bridgestone.

I'll see about updating with some sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Understanding better your concerns, I've had another go at the article. Notably, the images are not of jika-tabi: the Edo-period leather versions are just tabi as they originally were -- leather shoes -- as described in the etymology section at wikt:足袋#Japanese. I think the distinction in the name jika-tabi is that these are made to be used directly on the ground, like shoes again, without the need to wear them with waraji (straw sandals) or to sew some additional reinforcement onto the sole.

Please have a look and adjust, etc. as appropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Eiríkr! Your edits look excellent. Now the history makes sense. I can believe that rubber soles were introduced in the early 1920s; not that no-one attached outsoles to tabi for centuries. And the historical images now make sense too. Hobnailed kutsu, late-Edo samurai in tabi in the snow, a Hokusai ninja, clam diggers in tabi, a bevy of children, a flower pedlar, more pedlars, constructions workers, a sawyer, and a second, and a third displaying leather soles, all pre-1920. Are these all kutsu? Tabi? Do you have suggestions for how should I file them on Commons?

I can't really read Japanese, unfortunately, because I can't speak the language. If you habitually go barefoot outdoors, you tend to have enough callus that straw soles feel fine. Jute waraji reportedly last longer but feel even harsher. All-wood clogs are reportedly accepted as safety wear equivalent to steel-toes in the EU.

If I may lade you with another question, the phrase "zōri resembling tatami mats" is used twicein the zōri article. Would you happen to know the Japanese term? The uncited gendering of assorted types of zōri also contradicts the images in the article and on Commons, so I am a bit doubtful of it. HLHJ (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ: Sure, I'll have a look at the Zōri article. Just now briefly glancing through, the gendered descriptions match what I saw when I lived in Japan -- feminine zōri might be flat, and they also commonly have a slight rise in the heel, not so much as an espadrille but definitely a shallow wedge shape when viewed from the side. All feminine zōri that I've seen are a narrow oval when viewed from the top, and the entire sandal tends to be narrower. Meanwhile, masculine zōri tend to be flatter and wider, with more of a rectangular shape.

The original Japanese term you're looking for is probably 畳表 (tatami-omote, literally "tatami-facing"), describing the top of the zōri and the way the woven material (straw?) would look like the weaving of a traditional tatami mat. This 畳表 term shows up twice in the Japanese article at w:ja:草履.

Regarding waraji, I wouldn't think that the soles themselves would cause much trouble, so much as the straps and the thong. In fact, at least some Japanese dictionaries include a term 鼻緒擦れ (hanao-zure), literally "thong/strap rubbing", that refers to the blister or abrasion a wearer might get from the thong rubbing between the toes, or the strap rubbing the top of the foot. See also this Kotobank page (in Japanese) and Google Images.

Hope this helps! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 09:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain why some of the images show cotton-looking ties for waraji. I have copied your text on early tabi to the tabi article, which it significantly improves. I'm sorry, I'm still a bit confused: is tatami-omote the top surface typical of setta and sometimes found on okobo, as the existing uncited text suggests? Or is it the matting with many more warps, edged with a strip of cloth, as in my first image (the one captioned 'The "zōri resembling tatami mats"?'? Thank you! HLHJ (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ: Word nerd warning :) --

• The noun 畳 (tatami) literally refers to "folding", and derives as the compounding and noun conjugation of verb 畳む (tatamu). You can tatamu a piece of paper, or a sheet, or bedding. The word is also used metaphorically like English "to fold up [a business] → to shut down, to go out of business". You can also tatamu straw, as at the end of the weft during the process of weaving a tatami mat, whence the idiomatic "woven straw mat" sense of the tatami conjugation.
• Meanwhile, 表 (omote) means "front or top, facing, surface", and comes from 面 (omo, "face, facing") + 手 (te, literally "hand" but also used to refer to a direction or side of something).

The Encyclopedia Nipponica entry at the top of this Kotobank page agrees with my local copy of Daijirin in describing the top surface (the omote) of zōri, geta, or other footwear as sometimes made of tatami. I don't think the presence of absence of edging matters -- so long as the top surface is made of woven straw, particularly in the traditional tatami strip-like pattern, a piece of footwear could be described as having tatami-omote.

HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. But the article text seems to use tatami-omote for the top surface of setta and some okobo – which I think is bamboo-culm sheath, woven around four warp threads, as in waraji. The sandals labelled "informal" in the article look more like tatami mat upper surfaces, in pattern (far more than four warp threads), and in material, which could be common rush, split bullrush (tho I'd think that'd be coarser and more varigated) or fine straw. Materials: wara, igusa, and whatever you call bamboo sheath in Japanese, maybe 糸竹 (しちく, shichiku)? Etymology is great but only gets one so far; "mouse"≠"muscle". HLHJ (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ: Ah, forgive me for leaving out detail earlier. As defined in sense #2 of the Daijisen entry for tatami here:

2 履物の表につける、藺草・籐(とう)・竹の皮などで編んだもの。
A thing attached to the surface of footwear, woven of material such as igusa (soft rush), rattan, or bamboo sheath.

It seems the material used is not necessarily definitive for what constitutes "tatami" for purposes of footwear. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've added that source to the zori article. I've left the pre-rubber outdoor tabi in the jika-tabi ctagory for now, too, as I dont' know of a better name. There's a lot I can't usefully contribute here with my level of language knowledge; I should probably go work on something else, maybe the varieties of materials used in wicker worldwide or some such, and stop plaguing you. Thank you very much for your help. HLHJ (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eirikr,

After you move an article from main space to Draft space, it would really help administrators out if you tagged the original page for speedy deletion, CSD R2. Most editors use the program Twinkle to tag pages for all types of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.) and I highly recommend it. Tagging the pages for speedy deletion as cross-namespace redirects from main space brings them to admins' attention when the pages might otherwise be unseen and forgotten. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thank you for the message, I was unaware at that time that the move was leaving behind stub redirects. From serving as an admin over at EN Wikt, my experience has been that redirects are only created if the specific "Leave a redirect behind" checkbox were checked, and I didn't see those checkboxes at all when I moved these articles. The specific user I was cleaning up after had been very problematically prolific, and I was apparently moving too quickly as I tried to plow through, thus missing the text description across the top of the "Move" page that explains about the redirects. Doh!

Anyway, thanks again, and apologies for the trouble! I'll be sure to tag the redirects accordingly in future. Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you removed a lot of similar sounding western names from the list of Names of Japan, however these are valid and educational examples. Also on the actual Japanese page about Japan ja:日本 the additional spellings of the names are included. -Artanisen (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Artanisen, thank you for the post. I'd like to address your concerns here, going down the list of terms.

Here's the list from w:ja:日本#その他の言語, sorted alphabetically and by date. Many of these are simple duplicates, which make the list confusing and bigger than it needs to be. Other items are not straight duplicates but rather declensions of noun forms that are already listed.

• 「CIPANGU」1300年頃^[1]

• 「IAPAM」1560年頃^[2]

See Note 1.

• 「IAPAM」1568年頃^[3]

Duplicate.

• 「IAPAN」1567年頃^[4]

See Note 1.

• 「Iapan」1632年^[5]

Duplicate.

• 「Iapan」1657年^[6]

Duplicate.

• 「IAPAO」1628年^[7]

See Note 1.

• 「IAPON」17世紀^[8]

See Note 1.

• 「IAPON」1720-30年^[9]

Duplicate.

• 「IAPON」発行年不明^[10]

Duplicate.

• 「IAPONIA」1595年^[11]

Latinized version of IAPAN / IAPON above.

• 「IAPONIA」1598年^[12]

Duplicate.

• 「IAPONIA」1598年^[13]

Duplicate.

• 「IAPONIA」1655年^[14]

Duplicate.

• 「IAPONIA」1660年頃^[15]

Duplicate.

• 「IAPONIA」18世紀初^[16]

Duplicate.

• 「IAPONIAE」1595年^[17]

This is the genitive declension of base noun Iaponia. Effectively a duplicate.

• 「IAPONIÆ」1595年^[18]

Duplicate.

• 「IAPONICUM」1585年^[19]

This is the neuter adjective form of base noun Iapon or Iaponia. Effectively a duplicate.

• 「IMPERIUM IAPONICUM」1710年頃^[20]

Latin for "Japnese Empire". Here, we see IAPONICUM as the neuter adjective form of IAPON or IAPONIA. This is neuter (ending in -um) because the adjective’s gender must match the gender of the noun to which it applies, and IMPERIUM is a neuter noun.

• 「IMPERIUM IAPONICUM」18世紀初^[21]

Duplicate.

• 「IMPERIVM JAPONICVM」1727年^[22]

Duplicate. Alternative orthography for IMPERIUM IAPONICUM above.

• 「JAPAM」1628年^[23]

Alternative Portuguese orthography for IAPAM above. Effectively a duplicate.

• 「JAPAN」発行年不明^[24]

Alternative Portuguese orthography for IAPAN above. Effectively a duplicate.

• 「JAPANIÆ REGNVM」1739年^[25]

Latin for "Japan's Kingdom". Here, we see JAPANIÆ as the genitive declension of noun JAPANIA, itself an alternative orthography for IAPANIA above.

• 「HET KONINKRYK JAPAN」1730年頃^[26]

Dutch for "The Kingdom (of) Japan". The genitive form in Dutch has largely disappeared as a distinct declension.

• 「NIPHON」1694年頃^{[27][注 1]}

Archaic French spelling for modern romaji Nippon. The ⟨ph⟩ spelling is meant to indicate the geminate /-pp-/ sound.

• 「YAPAN」1628年^[28]

Spelling not found. The string Yapan is not found on that page anywhere. Was this in an image? The Wayback’s archived copy of the page doesn't seem to include any of the images.

Even so, this is alternative orthography for IAPAN above. Effectively a duplicate.

• 「ZIPANGNI」1561年^[29]

The given reference doesn’t include any initial source material or direct quotes, making it impossible to verify. The author also confusingly includes multiple spellings, including Zipangu, Zipangni, Cipango, without context or source. All are likely transliterations of Chinese 日本國, from something similar to modern Min Nan Ji̍t-pún kok, Cantonese jat⁶ bun² gwok³ or ngit⁵ bon² gok², or Wu zeq pen koq.

Note 1:

Portuguese orthography of the time was somewhat unsettled, as we can see quite clearly in the 1604 Portuguese edition of Arte Da Lingoa De Iapam Composta Pello Padre Ioão Rodriguez, Portugues da Cõpanhia de Iesu Diuidida em Tres Livros ("Art of the Language of Japan, Composed by Father João Rodriguez, Portuguese of the Company of Jesus, Divided into Three Books"). Here is the scan in Google Books.

From the frontispiece through to the first few pages, we find the following spellings all used together in the same text, all used in a Portuguese-language context:

• Iapam.
• Iapão.
• Japaõ. Note the "I" ↔ "J" alternation. Note also that the tilde was used as a kind of shorthand marker for an "n", so this spelling could presumably be expanded to Japano. In fact, on this same page, we see both Nãgasaqui and Nangasaqui spellings for ながさき (modern romaji Nagasaki), one using the shorthand tilde and the other spelling out the "n" explicitly.
• Iapaõ.
• Japoa. Possibly a shift caused by influence of the word lingoa?
• Japão.
• Iapões as the adjective form.
• Iapoa.

The consonant themes are that the first letter represents either /ʒ/ (like in English leisure) or /j/ (like in English yes), possibly reflecting allophonic sounds in Portuguese at the time (consider the overlap in modern Spanish dialects between those who pronounce ⟨ll⟩ or ⟨y⟩ as /ʒ/ versus /j/), and that the last consonant is a nasal of either /m/ or /n/.

The second vowel is either /a/ or /o/ in almost free variation.

In light of these circumstances, all of these "Note 1" spellings could be considered as variants of each other, and not any indication of separate names for the country.

After deduping the straight string matches (such as including only one of the many instances of IAPONIA), and then deduping the grammatical variants (such as removing the genitive IAPONIÆ or adjective IAPONICUM, both just grammatical forms of IAPONIA), and then deduping the orthographic variants (such as standardizing the many free-wheeling variations found in Portuguese texts of the time as cataloged in Note 1), the list is much shorter -- and also more distinct and more useful.

I hope this explains my edit. If you have any questions, please respond and I will do my best to answer.

Kind regards, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit off-topic, but I'm curious about what would be the noun to 「IAPONICUM」1585年^[19]? On the painting, it is written on some sheet of paper, and on another one we see "VILNENSE", the neuter adjective "belonging to Vilnius". "Imperium" or "Regnum" (in analogy to "Imperium/Regnum Iaponicum" in other examples) might be an option, but then "Imperium Vilnense" or "Regnum Vilnense" look odd. Do you have an idea? –Austronesier (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Thank you for the question, this has prompted me to look more closely at the image.

Certainly, imperium or regnum would make sense grammatically and contextually. My sense is that imperium would be more likely, considering how the Japanese state has referred to itself as an "empire" for a very long time. Meanwhile, the term 王 (ō, "king") is not used much at all in Japanese to refer to the head of state, so regnum seems less likely.

That said, the caption for that painting is:

PLVRA SEMINARIA ET COLLEGIA CONDIT INTRA ET EXTRA EVROPAM

"[The pope?] establishes several seminaries and colleges inside and outside Europe"

I note too that the various sheets of paper (parchment?) visible in the painting all appear to be maps of what could be college campuses. Consequently, I think the specific noun applicable here would be collegium instead, which still fits the grammar (as a neuter noun), and arguably fits the context much better.

As I'm sure you'll understand, the change in noun does not affect the fact that IAPONICUM in this image is still a grammatical derivative of IAPONIA, and not an independent name for Japan.

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it must be collegium. This matches with the legend in the painting and the floor plans seen on the parchments. Thanks! Btw, this is an interesting case where the derived adjective iaponicum seems to have an earlier attestation than the corresponding toponym Iaponia itself. –Austronesier (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Cheers! And yes, I do find the dating to be quite interesting. I suspect this points to one (or both?) of two possibilities:

• Iaponia was in use before we see iaponicum, but we just haven't found the documentation yet, or that documentation no longer exists.
• Iaponicum was the latinized adjective form of earlier-attested Iapon.

Lexicography geek mode off.  :) (For now, anyway -- I have a lot of other things to get done today!) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eirikr, I removed a broken reference of "jisho-tsuwamono" from the article bushido on 21 June 2022‎. However, you reverted it and re-added it. Please see the references list in the bottom of the article. -Artanisen (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Artanisen: I am sorry for the trouble. I must have misunderstood the diff, as clearly your edit fixed the very issues that I mentioned (mistakenly) in my edit comment. I have reverted myself accordingly, restoring the version from your edit. I apologize for my confusion. Thank you for the ping! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I checked the ja:片仮名 katakana page on the Japanese wiki and didn't see a table with the Extended Katakana. I think it should be added there so that people become more familiar with it since it's useful for language learning and to better write loanwords, names etc. Maybe it's on a separate page? What do you think? -Artanisen (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Artanisen, thank you for the message.

After looking over the Katakana and ja:片仮名 articles, I think the key issue is that the Japanese and English versions organize the information differently.

• The EN article has that table at Katakana#Extended_Katakana_2, which includes the so-called 拗音 (yōon, "(specific kind of) diphthong, glide", literally "crooked / bent + sound") as a catalog of many of the digraphs (two-character combinations) that can be used to spell these, like キャ or シュ. Meanwhile, the JA version doesn't bother with digraphs, and only lists the small sutegana in their own table, labeled as 拗音 (yōon) and 促音 (sokuon, "gemination mark", literally "blocking / stopping + sound"). Note that some phonologists class things like シェ or ファ as 直音 (chokuon, "straight sound", i.e. "monophthong"), while others treat these as yōon, so it seems there is some confusion or disagreement about these in Japanese-language circles.

Since Japanese readers are already thoroughly familiar with sutegana and spelling conventions generally, I suspect that this is why there is no such section in the Japanese article to explain how sutegana and digraphs work: this may well be viewed as obvious for Japanese readers.

I think there could still be a case made for including this information in the Japanese article. It might require some 根回し (nemawashi) on the Talk page.

• Separately, regarding our article, "extended katakana" is a confusing label. Considering articles such as Extended shinjitai or Small Kana Extension, "extended katakana" sounds like a set of single katakana glyphs that belong to a specific section of the Unicode encoding tables. However, our article section instead shows how multiple katakana can be combined as digraphs to spell out specific sounds.

I think that that section title should be rewritten. I don't have any immediate and clear thoughts currently about how best to reword it.

HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. I think "extended katakana" is a good name since it's also used on other language pages such as German, French and Spanish. On the German wiki page it's called Erweiterte Katakana (特殊音). So it could also be "Tokushuon" or Special Katakana. I think a lot of Japanese are not so familiar with these combinations. For example, Japanese still frequently use シ (shi) instead of スィ (si) which is evident in the many loanwords such as Cinema = シネマ (Shinema) could be written as "スィネマ" (Sinema). London = ロンドン (Rondon) could be ロ゚ lンドン (London). Lebanon = レバノン (Rebanon) could be written as レ゚ バノン (Lebanon). Scotland = スコットランド (Sukottorando) could be スコットラ゜ンド (Sukottolando). Italy = イタリア (Itaria) could be イタリ゜ア (Italia). Manila = マニラ (Manira) could be マニラ゜(Manila). New Delhi = ニューデリー (Nyuuderii) could be ニューデリ゜ー (Nyuudelii). Venus = ビーナス (Biinasu) could be ヴィーナス (Viinasu). Lion = ライオン (Raion) could be リ゜オン (Lion). In my opinion the page should explain everything, just like how it shows basic Katakana and the stroke order for writing. I'm not skilled enough to discuss such matters on the Japanese wiki Talk page and probably couldn't convince them to add it. -Artanisen (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Artanisen: Cheers. I think I see where you're coming from, but I can't quite agree.

Re: heading wording in other languages' wikis, that's not a compelling criterion: if it's incorrect as English, there's no reason to persist in that simply because it parallels what it's called in some other language.

• The FR Wikipedia article at fr:Katakana uses the expression Caractères étendus. This is arguably wrong, as the table shows combinations of kana characters, not actual different characters. The character set of katakana itself has not been "extended" in any way to include these spellings.
• The DE Wikipedia article at de:Katakana uses the expression Erweiterte Katakana, which again I'd argue is incorrect -- these are combinations of kana characters, not different or extended ("erweiterte") characters.
• The ES Wikipedia article at es:Katakana uses the expression Tokushon. Presumably this is from JA 特殊音 (tokushu-on, 'special sounds'). While I'd prefer it if they used the proper romanized spelling (there is no such Japanese word tokushon of any meaning that I'm aware of), I think this use of a romanized JA term is preferable over something like caracteres extendidas.
• The JA Wikipedia article at ja:片仮名 doesn't include any of these 特殊音 (tokushu-on) spellings, as mentioned above. There is a separate article with a related title, at ja:片仮名拡張 (Katakana kakuchō, 'Katakana extension(s)'). Unlike the DE, FR, or EN articles' confusing use of "extended" to describe the combinations of standard kana used to spell 特殊音 (tokushu-on), this JA article doesn't talk about 特殊音 (tokushu-on) at all -- instead, this JA "Katakana extensions" article describes the special newly-encoded katakana characters used for spelling non-Japanese languages like Ainu. These are actual extended characters, as the term "extended" is used in other English-language contexts to talk about glyphs and encoding systems.
• In terms of "extended" or "extension" with regard to katakana, we have articles such as Small Kana Extension or Katakana Phonetic Extensions or Kana Extended-B, which use the term "extend" to describe an "extension" of the encoding scheme and character set to include separate specific individual glyphs. Meanwhile, none of the 特殊音 (tokushu-on) spellings use these glyphs, or any other non-standard kana glyph: they use the standard kana characters, just in unusual combinations. The set of katakana characters themselves has not been extended in any way to account for these.

Re: the alternative kana spellings you list for foreign terms such as "Manila", I believe these (kinds of) spellings are actually used in specialty linguistic contexts. However, you will pretty much never find things like マニラ゚ in everyday usage. This is vaguely similar to how English word the could be spelled ði in specialty linguistic contexts, but in everyday usage, you just won't encounter that.

There's also the issue that some of these different multi-kana spellings are only used specifically to spell out non-Japanese sounds. Borrowed terms like cinema appear in everyday Japanese as シネマ (shinema), precisely because that's how people pronounce the word -- there is no phonemically distinct si sound in mainstream Japanese. Thus, there is no reason for people to spell this as スィネマ (sinema) instead. There's also the minor problem of other borrowings like スイッチ (suitchi), where the combination of full-sized katakana ス (su) and イ (i) is used to approximate the English sound swi. That, together with the rarity and non-phonemic nature of the スィ (si) kana spelling, would likely lead many people to misread スィネマ (sinema) as something like "swinema" instead.

That's all I have time for at the moment.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the words are spelled as e.g. "shinema", but a new spelling can be promoted that better reflects the original foreign words. People can pick whichever one they prefer. For example does someone with the foreign sounding name Lisa want to be called Risa in Japanese? They'd prefer Lisa since Risa sounds like a different name. It can be written the same in Japanese by using Extended Katakana as リ゜サ. People prefer that their names are pronounced correctly. There are countless more examples like this. Does someone in London prefer their city be called Rondon or London? The latter ロ゜ンドン, (London) since Rondon sounds like a different name. It's like when foreigners call Tokyo, Zokyo, when it's possible to write it as Tokyo. Now your argument is that because things are currently spelled a certain way that it should stay that way. However, languages do change. Many loanwords that we use today were uncommon in the past. Many languages also had new spellings and suggestions that eventually became standard. -Artanisen (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Artanisen -- Most Japanese people don't know what the maru symbol is supposed to signify on the らりるれろ kana. Moreover, the /l/ initial consonant sound that that notation is supposed to signify just doesn't exist in the Japanese phoneme inventory. Neither does the English-style rhotic /ɹ/ sound. So for most Japanese speakers, neither "Lisa" nor "Risa" are pronounced like リサ -- the most-common katakana rendering of the name.

Names transposed into different languages are commonly altered to fit the phonemics of the adopting language. English Paris doesn't sound like French Paris, and neither of those sound like German Paris, and none of those three sound like Spanish Paris, and none of those sound like Japanese パリ (Pari) -- and this is both unconcerning and expected. The key is whether speakers of a given language can understand each other, not whether they can understand speakers of other languages. Notation like ロ゜ is largely useless for Japanese speakers communicating with each other. The only context where this becomes useful is if they are talking about how things like "London" are pronounced by speakers of other languages, such English.

Similarly with regard to the less-unusual spelling of スィネマ (sinema) -- Japanese speakers have no reason to use this notation. None at all. Unless they are talking about how this word is pronounced in languages like English, or French, or Spanish, that distinguish between /s/ and /ʃ/. Otherwise, Japanese speakers just don't differentiate between the sounds /ʃi/ and /si/ -- this is not a distinction that has any meaning for Japanese speakers. Just as English speakers don't differentiate between /ʂ/ and /ʃ/ and /ɕ/, or between /f/ and /ɸ/. And inasmuch as the distinction is meaningless, there is no use case for notation like スィ (si) for most Japanese speakers.

If any phonemic distinction arises, notation to clarify that distinction generally also gains acceptance. We have seen that in recent history when borrowings of English words like fan or fact led to a need to distinguish between /ha/ and /fa/ (or rather, technically /ɸa/), and thus the kana combo ファ (fa) became commonplace to differentiate /ɸa/ from /ha/.

I am no arbiter for how Japanese people choose to spell their language. I am speaking merely as an observer. I am not saying "that because things are currently spelled a certain way that it should stay that way." I am saying that, until and unless a particular spelling notation becomes useful, it will not gain traction. Change is expensive (learning new things, updating dictionaries, reworking software, etc. etc.), so the benefits from that change must outweigh the costs. Sometimes that change happens generationally, as we saw with the emergence of ファ (fa). Younger speakers might differentiate between /ɕi/ and /si/, giving rise to new phonemic contrasts and a need to distinguish these in writing. I have seen no such signs of this at present.

→ It sounds to me like you're building an argument for why we (Wikipedia) should recommend how the katakana are used ("a new spelling can be promoted"). Inasmuch as Wikipedia is intended to describe how things are more than how they should be (sticking to facts as recorded and presented by other respectable sources), I don't think we should be writing articles in any way to advance our own personal recommendations for how we think our readers should be doing things.

Or did you have some other intent? I confess that it seems this thread has gotten a bit off-track... ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr, you mention the German French and Spanish sounds different when they say the word "Paris. That is due to accents, but they all Respectfully, write the name of the French capital city as Paris, not some transmutation that is very different. I didn't give the example Paris, earlier because パリ = Pari sounds close to the French pronounciation. "Similarly with regard to the less-unusual spelling of スィネマ (sinema) -- Japanese speakers have no reason to use this notation. None at all." - this is a Loan word. It is true Japanese can keep writing and pronouncing it as SHINEMA, but that makes a worse loanword than Sinema. A lot of Japanese don't even know that they can write SI スィ in Japanese. I don't mean to change the spelling of every word, but it could be shown that there is another way to write words with Extended Katakana. Or can you show a page about Extended Katakana on the Japanese Wiki? As you might know in Japanese culture change is generally resisted until there is no other way but to change things. Because to question the status-quo takes a lot more effort such as this long debate. You can be a defender of the old spellings and part of the old-guard which is disappointing. For change to happen the first requirement would be awareness of Extended Katakana so that more people would use it. Artanisen (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC) -21:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Swadesh list 207 trans2 notes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Rosetta Barnstar
	Thank you for helping explain foreign language translations and wiki use for editors. Inomyabcs (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that you reverted me in the article "Old Japanese". I don't really understand why it "introduces inconsistency": in this case, "Central Old Japanese" is a proper noun, languages with "Western", "Eastern", "Southern", "Northern", "Middle", "Early", "Late", ... are written with an uppercase (Western Catalan dialects, Eastern Katu, Southern Yukaghir, Northern Ping, Middle French, Early Old Tibetan, Late Khitan, ...). Also, sources use the form "Central Old Japanese" with an uppercase (Elisabeth de Boer, Martine Robbeets, John Kupchik, ...). Some link are available in my library, at frwiki. What do you think ? Did I make a mistake somewhere ? PS: I'm sorry if this is misrepresented, I'm on my phone. Best regards, Rishāringânu 06:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richaringan: If that is supposed to be a proper noun, please go through the article and fix all instances -- you only changed one, so it seemed almost more like a random drive-by edit. 😄

FWIW, the literature I've read before describes primarily Western Old Japanese and Eastern Old Japanese, often abbreviated as WOJ and EOJ. The WP article at Old Japanese first mentions central Old Japanese in the #Vowels section, and then later in the #Dialects section, there's the line "They record Eastern Old Japanese dialects,[177] with several differences from central Old Japanese (also known as Western Old Japanese):" I note that the reference titles include a mention of "Western Old Japanese", but no mention of "Central Old Japanese". A quick-and-dirty survey of Google Books finds 5,130 hits for the string "Western Old Japanese", but only 189 hits for the string "Central Old Japanese". It looks like the article didn't mention "Central Old Japanese" at all until edit by Kanguole (talk · contribs).

@Kanguole:, could you provide any insight into your choice of the phrasing "Central Old Japanese" instead of the more-prevalent "Western Old Japanese"? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry, I corrected when I saw it and didn't take the time to watch all the section.

In fact, the term "Western Old Japanese" is widely more used than "Central Old Japanese. But in even rarer cases, "Western Old Japanese" refers to Kyūshū Old Japanese.

That's why I think it would be better to cite "Western Old Japanese" first.

Best regards, Rishāringânu 06:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Elinruby: I have posted on that thread. I too am very much in favor of an articulated policy prohibiting the use of MT + chatbots, and intend to comment further over there. Events IRL are keeping me likely too busy to do that for the next few days, however. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The closing statement says There was also a lot of discussion around WP:TNT deleting the articles created as a result of the translations, so I would suggest starting a separate discussion focusing on how best to deal with the articles, now that the editing restrictions are in place. I don't know where would be best to have that discussion, or how to phrase it, but perhaps you do? -- asilvering (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for asking, because I was wondering the same thing. How did the CTX effort get kicked off? I would like to comment on that discussion and any others about machine translation efforts. I am currently preoccupied with an Arbcom evidence phase but in general I remedy machine translation (carefully) and have given related matters a great deal of thought. The translation Noticeboard was a great idea btw, but care should be taken to make it collaborative rather than punitive. I asked for sanctions in Immanuelle's case because I did not think she took the issues seriously or was able to fix them Most translation problems in my experience are created by topic area experts who overestimate their ability to speak English. That is why they are so often badly referenced but quite correct, and why I reacted with such alarm to the realization that we had a bunch of machine translation created by someone doing bad OR. We are not set up to detect that, and we should be.

By the way, Immanuelle has created a Wiktionary entry for "Immanuelle". Could someone please reality-check that?

Elinruby (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: is clueful about policies and procedures, more than I am, for sure Elinruby (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the wiktionary entry: if we're talking about the same thing, it was actually first created as wikt:Immanuelle/kamidere, later turned into a redirect after moving it to wikt:kamidere. As for machine translation, that is a complex issue, and isn't going to be settled here. My personal feeling is that no one except those with familiarity in both languages should use it, and then only by following up with modifications to correct it and bring it into line. It's okay for saving some typing, but not okay for finding the best way to translate something. I would also be alarmed by the translation/OR scenario that Elinruby described above. I think it's unlikely MT will be banned completely, but I'd be sympathetic to an effort to do so. AI-based chat programs are too new to be the subject of policy or guidelines as of yet, although there are discussions and essays about it in various places; here's one. As far as a translation noticeboard, that would be great; many noticeboards are strictly about cooperation, not sanctions such as Wiki Edu NB and India NB, for example. WP:PNT is one project page aimed at articles with translation issues, but is not currently organized in a Noticeboard format, but maybe that's just because there are too many articles listed there, and not enough responses. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

kamidere (redirect from Immanuelle/kamidere)

Borrowed from Japanese 神デレ (kamidere), from Japanese 神 (kami, “god”) and Japanese ツンデレ (tsundere) surface analysis kami -dere. kamidere (plural kamidere...

756 bytes (69 words) - 23:52, 5 October 2022 Elinruby (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby, thank you for the heads-up. The EN entry at wikt:kamidere#English is a bit of a mess, I'll clean that up later. For starters, I corrected the JA entry at wikt:神デレ. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Aha, I guess you were the first to flag me with the concerns about wikt:kamidere#English. Thanks to you as well, @Mathglot! 😄

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "collaborative rather than punitive" is a good way to frame it. That's exactly why I suggested a noticeboard+CSD rather than just a CSD. We need to be able to recognize when cleaning a machine translation is just a waste of time (something AfD is very bad at establishing), but we also ought to be doing what we can to assist new editors and facilitate inter-wiki collaboration wherever possible, imo. I don't know much about the CXT controversy (before my time).

I can't find that wiktionary entry - am I just being dense? -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering:, see my post-ec comment. Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Eirikr: -san, the user Scanyaro harasses me about a mistake in the Japanese description of this artwork. I explained several times that it was a mistake and unintentional. The English description was copied from the source. I've adjusted the description, but he doesn't assume good faith and also does not follow the Universal Code of Conduct for Wikipedia users. Please see the discussion 「日蓮、歌舞伎役者」(starts at April 17, 2023). My Japanese writing skills are basic so I only respond in English. He insists that people are only allowed to respond in Japanese. Since you're fluent in both languages can you please help? -Artanisen (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Artanisen — Glancing over the thread, I see miscommunication leading to rising emotions and intemperate responses. Unfortunate all around.

What outcome are you seeking with regard to that thread? I am not sure how I could help, since I do not know what you are ultimately trying to achieve. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr, well he insists that I respond in Japanese, but to hold such a debate I need to be a lot more skilled in the language. I explained to him in English that any mistakes were unintentional and that I correct issues on Wiki Commons if possible and/or cooperate to solve issues. I cannot fix other language issues if it requires a (near)-native speaker though. He makes a mountain out of a molehill by taking rare instances which he deems inappropriate. However, the far majority of all the images that I've uploaded are approved and fine on Commons. Also, he did not bother to update the description of the aforementioned artwork so all he does is complain and berate users. That is not constructive nor supportive behavior. His continuous rants are harassment which violates Wikipedia's Universal Code of Conduct. People contribute voluntarily on Wikipedia and usually have the best intentions even if they make mistakes. The thread is going in circles since he insists that I reply in Japanese, while my level of Japanese is inadequate. So please help end the debate: tell him to calm down, remind him to assume good faith and to stop harassing other users. -Artanisen (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the thread in the specific limited scope of the w:ja:旭日旗 page, the image in question is not vital to the article. Scanyaro's initial concern was that the Japanese caption was wrong, and could prove offensive to Japanese readers, so they removed the image from the article.

I cannot fault them for this. Removal is the easiest fix.

FWIW, Scanyaro's tone was very polite, using polite and honorific registers, such as 「していただけないでしょうか」, or 「申し上げています」. At no point that I can see did they assume bad faith. They also pointed out exactly what was wrong with the Japanese caption, and they even explained how to fix it.

Rather than taking Scanyaro's points and fixing the caption accordingly, you instead responded on the Talk page there numerous times in English, doing so multiple times after Scanyaro asked you politely to write in Japanese, and pointed you to the appropriate guideline page that explains that discussions on the Japanese Wikipedia should be in Japanese. Your reply later in the thread that "I have the right to use any language I want on my discussion page", frankly, comes across as belligerent and entitled. It is also a non sequitur, since the page you both were writing on is not your discussion page -- it is a Talk page for a mainspace article, and thus any comments should be written in the language of that Wikipedia.

In your insistence in responding only in English, even after requests to write in Japanese and referrals to the relevant guideline page, you have effectively refused to follow the guidelines, specifically this section (emphasis after the initial six characters is mine):

* 日本語を使う：誰に対して投げかけるコメントであっても、ウィキペディア日本語版のノートページでは日本語を使うのが望ましいです。なぜなら、その方がコミュニティ全体に理解しやすくなるからです。日本語以外の言語の使用が避けられない場合には、コメントの日本語訳を添えるように努力してください。日本語訳を要求されても自分では出来ない場合には、翻訳をしてくれる第三者を探すのはあなたの責任です。翻訳を手伝ってくれる人はWikipedia:大使館でみつかるかもしれません。

Ultimately, your own behavior falls afoul of the very meta:Universal Code of Conduct that you exhorted Scanyaro to follow.

---

• "So please help end the debate: tell him to calm down, remind him to assume good faith and stop harassing other users."

Re-reading the thread, I do not see that Scanyaro is at all upset or at all in need of calming down. I also don't see that Scanyaro is harassing you in any way. Separately, if their Wikimedia user settings are anything to go by, Scanyaro appears to self-identify as female, FWIW.

How do you intend to "end the debate"? What debate is there, even?

• Scanyaro pointed out the problem with the caption.
• Scanyaro explained how to fix the caption.
• You posted multiple times to say ... what, exactly? It is not clear to me even what your intended point was.

I'm not sure what more is needed at this time.

I confess that I must ask again: what is your desired outcome for that Talk page thread? Please be more specific than just "end the debate". I cannot see any "debate" that needs ending. If you would like to end the discussion, simply stop posting. If you would like to achieve some other outcome, please explain. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that he removed the thumbnail from the article. I accepted that change to the article. If you check the article history, I did not put the image back and thus respected his/her edit. The politeness that you point out was lost in translation, since again my Japanese skills are not at that level. Scanyaro pointed out things in Japanese, not in English. So it makes most sense for a native speaker to fix a description if he or she finds a mistake. I mentioned on the Talk page that my Japanese skill level is not sufficient to fix the Japanese caption nor Japanese image description. I explained numerous times already that my Japanese skills are not sufficient to hold a debate at the level that he/she requests so insisting on doing something that is not possible is not constructive. Thus using another language is unavoidable; I use English for communication, every person does have the right to type in the language they prefer if there is no other option (freedom of speech is a human right). A Talk cannot continue if the user does not know the language well. Insisting that someone debates in a language he or she does not know well is pointless, because it leads to miscommunication which is evident in the talk page. Scanyaro does not take into account that the person addressed does not sufficiently know the language to fix the description. It's like telling someone to fix a caption in Vietnamese when that user only knows the basics of the language and speaks Swahili. It's unrealistic and impossible to fulfill a demand to hold a complex debate in a secondary language when that person is nowhere near that level. It's like demanding a go-kart racer to compete and keep up in a Formula 1 tournament. I do strive to follow the Universal Code of Conduct. Again, if I made mistakes it was not deliberate and I would like to learn from it. If people insist on communicating in a language at a high level that the other user cannot do then it will cause all sorts of unintended miscommunication. Simply stop replying does not close the debate though. -Artanisen (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "I saw that he removed the thumbnail from the article. I accepted that change to the article. If you check the article history, I did not put the image back and thus respected his/her edit."

Yes, I saw that. I am happy at least that there was no edit-warring.

• "The politeness that you point out was lost in translation, since again my Japanese skills are not at that level."

That is a pity. See also below.

• "Scanyaro pointed out things in Japanese, not in English. So it makes most sense for a native speaker to fix a description if he or she finds a mistake."

Or, just remove the mistaken content -- as Scanyaro did indeed do.

• "I mentioned on the Talk page that my Japanese skill level is not sufficient to fix the Japanese caption nor Japanese image description. I explained numerous times already that my Japanese skills are not sufficient to hold a debate at the level that he/she requests so insisting on doing something that is not possible is not constructive. Thus using another language is unavoidable; I use English for communication, every person does have the right to type in the language they prefer if there is no other option (freedom of speech is a human right). A Talk cannot continue if the user does not know the language well. Insisting that someone debates in a language he or she does not know well is pointless, because it leads to miscommunication which is evident in the talk page."

There is deep irony here.

Scanyaro is a Japanese-language editor, working on the Japanese Wikipedia.

You are not capable of understanding or writing in Japanese, by your own admission.

Why are you editing on the Japanese Wikipedia?

• "Scanyaro does not take into account that the person addressed does not sufficiently know the language to fix the description."

Scanyaro is not asking you to fix the caption. Scanyaro is primarily concerned with keeping incorrect content out of the article. Your addition was incorrect, which prompted Scanyaro to delete it. Scanyaro explained the problem with the caption, and explained how to fix it, purely as a courtesy to you. They make no demands that you fix the caption.

Logically, the caption should be fixed before adding the image back to the page -- but the page does not need the image, so there is no need to add the image back, and thus no need to fix the caption.

• "It's like telling someone to fix a caption in Vietnamese when that user only knows the basics of the language and speaks Swahili. It's unrealistic and impossible to fulfill a demand to hold a complex debate in a secondary language when that person is nowhere near that level."

If a Swahili speaker were to contribute to the Vietnamese Wikipedia, despite an inability to communicate in Vietnamese, I would be wholly supportive of demands that that Swahili speaker either gain some facility in reading and writing Vietnamese, or that that Swahili speaker be blocked from further problematic editing. Just as if a Chinese speaker were to contribute to the Hindi Wikipedia, despite an inability to communicate in Hindi; or if a French speaker were to contribute to the English Wikipedia, despite an inability to communicate in English; etc. etc.

• "It's like demanding a go-kart racer to compete and keep up in a Formula 1 tournament."

Yes. And this is precisely why go-karts (or, indeed, any non-Formula 1 vehicles) are prohibited from participation in Formula 1 tournaments.

• "I do strive to follow the Universal Code of Conduct."

That is good to read.

Unfortunately, your posts in that thread show a failure to meet the very first bullet point under #Mutual respect:

Listen and try to understand what Wikimedians of different backgrounds want to tell you.

Given your linguistic limitations, you cannot understand what Scanyaro was trying to tell you. Everything in that thread stems from this initial failure of communication.

• "Again, if I made mistakes it was not deliberate and I would like to learn from it."

That is also good to read.

However, if you cannot understand what other editors are saying to you, how can you learn from your mistakes?

• "If people insist on communicating in a language at a high level that the other user cannot do then it will cause all sorts of unintended miscommunication."

Yes.

Consider: What is the main language of the Japanese Wikipedia? Can you communicate effectively in that language?

• "Simply stop replying does not close the debate though."

After all this, I still have no idea what "debate" there is, nor any idea what you want to accomplish in that thread. What do you want to achieve there? I honestly do not know what you want.

From my standpoint, your best option for that thread is to post a short message apologizing for your inability to communicate, and then to walk away.

---

Ultimately, it looks like you simply insist that other editors on the Japanese Wikipedia cater to your demands for English.

This is akin to the stereotype of the Ugly American Tourist, incapable of speaking any other languages, yet traveling to other countries and loudly demanding that others speak only English.

Basic facility in the main language of any wiki project is a common prerequisite for participation. For the Japanese Wikipedia, that main language is Japanese. If you cannot read and write Japanese, you really don't have any business trying to edit there.

I am sorry: I do not know how to help you any further with this.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "You are not capable of understanding or writing in Japanese, by your own admission. Why are you editing on the Japanese Wikipedia?"

That's incorrect. I can actually understand basic Japanese (level 2-3), but not on the high level that Scanyaro requests for debate in the Talk page. The only things I edit on the Japanese wiki are images (occasionally the caption or a sentence to describe the image). I've updated hundreds of old, low quality images (also on other language Wikis) and also added new images and nearly all are approved.

• "Scanyaro is not asking you to fix the caption. Scanyaro is primarily concerned with keeping incorrect content out of the article. Your addition was incorrect, which prompted Scanyaro to delete it. Scanyaro explained the problem with the caption, and explained how to fix it, purely as a courtesy to you. They make no demands that you fix the caption."

Good so then I don't understand the continuous replies which seems like making a mountain out of a molehill.

• "If a Swahili speaker were to contribute to the Vietnamese Wikipedia, despite an inability to communicate in Vietnamese, I would be wholly supportive of demands that that Swahili speaker either gain some facility in reading and writing Vietnamese, or that that Swahili speaker be blocked from further problematic editing."

If a Swahili speaker updates images, and if most of those image updates are approved then there is no reason to block that user. If there is an error and the Swahili speaker cooperates then that is also fine. The Swahili speaker does not edit paragraphs on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. So there is no reason for blocking whatsoever. If there is a miscommunication on the Talk page the logically switching to another language such as English would be more useful when possible. By the way, I've also updated dozens of images on the Vietnamese Wikipedia and didn't get such an issue.

• "Given your linguistic limitations, you cannot understand what Scanyaro was trying to tell you. Everything in that thread stems from this initial failure of communication."

I could roughly understand it, but a significant part was missed in translation, that's why I asked a near-native speaker such as you for assistance.

• "Basic facility in the main language of any wiki project is a common prerequisite for participation. For the Japanese Wikipedia, that main language is Japanese. If you cannot read and write Japanese, you really don't have any business trying to edit there."

Like I said, I do understand basic Japanese (read-write) and every user is free to contribute to Wikipedia since it's an open encyclopedia. So I disagree with your strict take on this.

• "Ultimately, it looks like you simply insist that other editors on the Japanese Wikipedia cater to your demands for English."

Sorry I didn't mean for such an impression. English is a request, not a demand, since again writing in high level (4 or native) is beyond my language ability. If the person prefers to speak in another language that is possible, but it could cause miscommunication.

• "From my standpoint, your best option for that thread is to post a short message apologizing for your inability to communicate, and then to walk away."

Thanks for all your assistance and advice. I'll try to do that. -Artanisen (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr: Can you at least let me have access to my own talk page on Wiktionary? @Chuck Entz will not answer me no matter what. Chuterix (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr, are you even here? Chuterix (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your fake Okinawan 磯 (isu) does not exist. Chuterix (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a draft on the Kobe Watatsumi Shrine, also more intuitively read as Umi Shrine (海神社) but I've been hitting a major brick wall. I can't find english book sources on it. I think this is rather strange for how highly ranked it is.

It is currently the highest ranked shrine in the Modern system of ranked Shinto shrines without an article, being an Imperial shrine, 2nd rank.

I'd like you to search a bit through google books or a similar service for any book sources about the shrine and determine if you think it is notable or not.

My leads are as follows to start

• It is not to be confused with the Tsushima Watatsumi shrine, which dominates English search results due to Ghost of Tsushima
• It is not to be confused with Kaijin Shrine (海神神社) in Nagasaki
• It seems its kanji 海神社 are eccentrically read as Watatsumi Jinja due to Motoori Norinaga. Umi Jinja or Kai Jinja may have been the original readings
• It was supposedly founded by Empress Jingu after she returned from her Korea campaign alongside Ikasuri Shrine and Ikuta Shrine

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ka-ru: Why did you delete this message in this revision? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eirikr&oldid=1185812562 Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle, I am not very knowledgeable about Shintō, unfortunately.

Looking at the JA WP article at ja:海神社, there are (at least) five shrines that go by this name, albeit with different pronunciations.

• Watatsumi Jinja in Kōbe
• Kai Jinja in Toyooka
• Kai Jinja in Kinokawa
• Kai Jinja in Nishinoshima, Shimane
• Umi Jinja in Iki, Nagasaki

The readings of the 海 character are not specified on the disambig page, and three of those are redlinks, so I'm basing the readings for 2, 3, and 5 above on Google results.

The "Kai" reading is relatively newer. This is the Chinese-based on'yomi for the 海 character, and as a non-native, Chinese-derived reading, this would not have been used in ancient times.

For the shrine in Kōbe, the Watatsumi reading is from the name of the sea god 海神, where wata is an Old Japanese (and possibly Koreanic-derived) reading meaning "ocean, sea"; tsu is the Old Japanese genitive / possessive particle; and mi is the Old Japanese for "god, spirit, deity". According to the JA WP page for the Kōbe shrine (ja:海神社 (神戸市)), this reading was first recorded in 1871, based indeed on Motoori Norinaga's ideas.

Per the JA WP article, according to the 播磨国官幣中社海神社史 (Satsuma-koku Kanpei Chūsha *Kai Jinja Shi, "Satsuma Province Offerings Middle-tier Shrines, *Kai Shrine History", unsure of the "Kai" reading), the 海 character in the shrine name should be pronounced as in ancient times, as either ama or tarumi. Ama is an Old Japanese word for "ocean, sea", while tarumi is from 垂水 (tarumi), literally "dripping water", in reference to a waterfall -- and apparently tarumi may have been the name of the kami originally enshrined there. All that said, nothing in the relevant paragraph at ja:海神社_(神戸市)#概要 is referenced: while I can vouch for the meanings of the individual terms in Japanese, I have no idea if the claims made are backed up by other sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. I tried searching google books but didn't find anything good. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 04:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Eirikr, in regard to the chat on the Saikū article. I created these articles over the past decade and a half, I worked as a volunteer at the museum, I've sat and watched the archaeological digs. These latest changes are incorrect. I've provided sources, but they've just been ignored by everyone. I just don't understand. Thank you for being the first person in that entire discussion to acknowledge that sources are important. Personally, I thought that was the whole point of Wikipedia (yes, there's a little sarcasm there, and a hint of disappointment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka-ru (talk • contribs) 04:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ka-ru, cheers! I had it drilled into me in uni years ago, when dealing with text, go to the text -- what does the text actually say? 😄 In my work at Wiktionary, I've been all about documenting what sources say about what words mean and where they come from, reinforcing that "go to the text" approach. Happy that that has come in handy here! Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of getting the Bibliography to you without destroying the Talk Page, I'm posting it here for you, because I have no idea how to make it condense.

Bibliography

Alvar, Manuel. “La embajada japonesa de 1614 al rey de España.” Thesaurus, Tomo L 1-2-3, 1995, 518–525.

Andressen, Curtis. A Short History of Japan, from Samurai to Sony. Canberra: Silkworm Books, 2002.

Asao Naohiro. “The Sixteenth-century Unification.” In John W. Hall, ed., The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 4, Early Modern Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 40–95.

Bayle, Constantino. Un siglo de Cristiandad en el Japón. Barcelona: Editorial Labor, 1935.

Beasley, William G. “The Foreign Threat and the Opening of the Ports.” In Marius B. Jansen, ed., The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 5, The Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 259–307.

_____. La restauración Meiji. Gijón: Satori Ediciones, 2007.

Bellah, Robert N. Imagining Japan. The Japanese Tradition and its Modern Interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.

Benedict, Ruth. El Crisantemo y la Espada. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1974.

Benesch, Oleg. Inventing the Way of the Samurai: Nationalism, Internationalism, and Bushido in Modern Japan. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Berry, Mary Elizabeth. Hideyoshi. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.

Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia. Tomo CCV, No. 1, Madrid: Royal Academy of History, 2008.

Bolitho, Harold. “The Myth of the Samurai.” In Alan Rix and Ross Mouer, eds., Japan’s Impact on the World. Melbourne: Japanese Studies Association of Australia, 1984, 2–8.

_____. “The Han.” In John Whitney Hall, ed., The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 4, Early Modern Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 183–234.

Boxer, Charles R. The Christian Century in Japan, 1549–1650. Manchester, UK: Carcanet Press, 1993.

Brading, D.A. “Europe and a World Expanded.” In Euan Cameron, ed., The Sixteenth Century. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006, 174–199.

Brower, Robert H., and Earl Roy Miner. Japanese Court Poetry. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988.

Brown, Delmer M. “The Impact of Firearms on Japanese Warfare, 1543–98.” The Far Eastern Quarterly, 7 (3), 1948, 236–253.

_____ and Torao Toshiya, eds. Chronology of Japan. Tokyo: Business Intercommunications, Inc., 1991.

Brown, Philip C. “Unification, Consolidation, and Tokugawa Rules.” In William M. Tsutsui, ed., A Companion to Japanese History. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007, 69–85.

Buruma, Ian. Inventing Japan, 1853–1964. New York: Modern Library, 2004.

De Bary, William Theodore, Donald Keene, George Tanabe and Paul Varley, eds. Sources of Japanese Tradition: From Earliest Times to 1600. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.

_____, Carol Gluck and Arthur E. Tiedemann, eds. Sources of Japanese Tradition: 1600 to 2000. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.

Cabezas, Antonio. El siglo ibérico de Japón. La presencia hispano-portuguesa en Japón (1543–1643). Valladolid, Spain: University of Valladolid, 1995. Cameron, Euan. “The Turmoil of Faith.” In Euan Cameron, ed., The Sixteenth Century. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006, 145–173.

Chamberlain, Basil Hall. The Invention of a New Religion. London: Ratio-nalist Press, 1912.

Cooper, Michael. They Came to Japan: An Anthology of European Reports on Japan, 1543–1640. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.

_____. The Japanese Mission to Europe, 1582–1590. Folkestone, UK: Global Oriental, 2005.

Cullen, L.M. A History of Japan, 1582–1941. Internal and External Worlds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Deal, William E. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. New York: Facts on File, 2006.

Delgado, James. Kamikaze. History’s Greatest Naval Disaster. London: Vintage, 2010.

Elison, George. “The Priest Keinen and His Account of the Campaign in Korea, 1597-1598: An Introduction.” In Motoyama Yukihiko, ed., Nihon kyōikushi ronsō. Kyoto: Kyoto Shibunkaku, 1988, 25–41.

Elisonas, Jurgis. “The Inseparable Trinity: Japan’s Relations with China and Korea.” In John Whitney Hall, ed., The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 4, Early Modern Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 235–300.

_____. “Christianity and the Daimyo.” In John Whitney Hall, ed., The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 4, Early Modern Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 301–372.

Farris, William Wayne. Japan to 1600. A Social and Economic History. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2009.

Fernández-Armesto, Felipe. 1492. El nacimiento de la modernidad. Barcelona: Random House Mondadori, 2010.

Friday, Karl F. Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Fukuzawa Yukichi. The Autobiography of Yukichi Fukuzawa. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.

Genjō Masayoshi, ed. Sengokushi. Tokyo: Natsumesha, 2005.

Gil, Juan. Hidalgos y samuráis. España y Japón en los siglos XVI y XVII. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1991.

Gilbert, Marc Jason. “Deshima Island: A Stepping Stone between Civilizations.” World History Connected 3 (3), Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2006.

Goble, Andrew Edmund. “Medieval Japan.” In William M. Tsutsui, ed. A Companion to Japanese History. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007, 47–66.

Goodman, Grant K. Japan and the Dutch, 1600–1853. Richmond, UK: Curzon Press, 2000.

Gordon, Andrew. A Modern History of Japan: From Tokugawa Times to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Griffis, William Elliot. The Mikado’s Empire. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1890.

Hall, John Whitney. Japan. From Prehistory to Modern Times. New York: Dell, 1970.

_____. El imperio japonés. Madrid: Siglo XXI Editores, 1973.

_____. “The Muromachi Bakufu.” In Kozo Yamamura, ed., The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 3, Medieval Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 175–230.

_____. “The Bakuhan System.” In John Whitney Hall, ed. The Cambridge History of Japan, vol.4, Early Modern Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 128–182.

Hane, Mikiso. Breve historia de Japón. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 2000.

Hanley, Susan B. “Tokugawa Society: Material Culture, Standard of Living, and Life-styles.” In John Whitney Hall, ed. The Cambridge History of Japan, vol.4, Early Modern Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 660–705.

Henshall, Kenneth G. A History of Japan: From Stone Age to Superpower. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999.

Hillsborough, Romulus. Shinsengumi: The Shogun’s Last Samurai Corps. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing, 2011.

Huffman, James L. “Restoration and Revolution.” In William M. Tsutsui, ed. A Companion to Japanese History. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007, 139–155.

Hurst, III, G. Cameron. “Insei.” In Donald H. Shively and William H. Mc-Cullough, eds. The Cambridge History of Japan, vol.2, Heian Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 576–643.

_____. “The Heian Period.” In William M. Tsutsui, ed. A Companion to Japanese History. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007, 30–46.

Imatani Akira. “Muromachi Local Government: Shugo and Kokujin.” In Kozo Yamamura, ed., The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 3, Medieval Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 231–259.

Ishii Susumu. “The Decline of the Kamakurabakufu.” In Kozo Yamamura, ed., The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 3, Medieval Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 128–174.

Jansen, Marius B. “The Meiji Restoration.” Marius B. Jansen, ed. The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 5, The Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 308–366.

_____. The Making of Modern Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Javier, Francisco. Cartas de Japón escritas por Francisco de Xabier. Pamplona, Spain: Government of Navarre, 2005.

Junqueras, Oriol, Dani Madrid, Guillermo Martínez and Pau Pitarch. Historia de Japón. Economía, política y sociedad. Barcelona: Editorial UOC, 2012.

Keay, John. China: a History. London: Harper Collins Publishers, 2009. Kondo, Agustín Y. Japón. Evolución histórica de un pueblo (hasta 1650). Hondarribia, Spain: Editorial Nerea, 1999.

Lee, Christina H. “The Perception of the Japanese in Early Modern Spain: Not Quite ‘The Best People Yet Discovered.’” eHumanista 11, 2008, 345–380.

Lisón Tolosana, Carmelo. La fascinación de la diferencia. La adaptación de los jesuitas al Japón de los samuráis, 1549–1592. Tres Cantos, Spain: Ediciones Akal, 2005.

López-Vera, Jonathan. “La misión jesuita en Japón y China durante los siglos XVI y XVII, un planificado proceso de adaptación.” Asiadémica no. 1, 2012, 44–56.

_____. “La Embajada Keichō (1613-1620),” Asiadémica no. 2, 2013, 85–103.

_____. “Descripciones de Japón para Felipe II: El Imperio del sol naciente visto por el Imperio donde nunca se pone el sol.” Osami Takizawa and Antonio Míguez, coords. Visiones de un Mundo Diferente. Política, liter-atura de avisos y arte namban. Madrid: Centro Europeo para la Difusión de las Ciencias Sociales y Archivo de la Frontera, 2015, 59–86.

Manegazzo, Rossella. Japón. Barcelona: Random House Mondadori, 2008.

Mass, Jeffrey P. “The Kamakura Bakufu. In Kozo Yamamura, ed. The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 3, Medieval Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990, 46–88.

Massarella, Derek. A World Elsewhere: Europe’s Encounter with Japan in the 16th and 17th Centuries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990.

McCullough, Helen C. The Tale of Heike. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988.

Meriwether, Colyer. “A Sketch of the Life of Date Masamune and an Account of His Embassy to Rome.” Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, vol. 21. Yokohama: R. Meiklejohn & Co., 1893, 3–105.

Milton, Giles. Samurai William: The Adventurer Who Unlocked Japan. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2003.

Mitford, A.B. Tales of Old Japan. London: Macmillan, 1871.

Miyamoto Musashi. El libro de los cinco anillos. Barcelona: Ediciones Obelisco, 2005.

Morillo, Stephen. “Guns and Government: A Comparative Study of Europe and Japan.” Journal of World History, 6 (1), 1995, 75–106.

Morton, W. Scott and J. Kenneth Olenik. Japan. Its History and Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.

Mungello, D.E. The Great Encounter of China and the West, 1500–1800. Oxford, UK: Lowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1999.

Murdoch, James. A History of Japan, vol 2. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1903.

_____. A History of Japan, vol 1. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., 1925.

_____. A History of Japan, vol 3. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1926.

Mutel, Jacques. El fin del shogunato y el Japón Meiji, 1853/1912. Barcelona: Editorial Vicens-Vives, 1972.

Nakai Nobuhiko. “Commercial Change and Urban Growth in Early Modern Japan.” In John Whitney Hall, ed. The Cambridge History of Japan, vol.4, Early Modern Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 519–595.

Nauert, Charles G. “The Mind.” In Euan Cameron, ed. The Sixteenth Century. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006, 116–144.

Nitobe Inazō. Bushido: The Soul of Japan. New York: Kodansha America, 2012.

Pastells, Pablo. Catálogo de los documentos relativos a las Islas Filipinas existentes en el Archivo de Indias de Sevilla. Barcelona: Compañía General de Tabacos de Filipinas, 1925.

Pratt, Edward E. “Social and Economic Change in Tokugawa Japan.” In Tsutsui, William M., ed., A Companion to Japanese History. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007, 86–100.

Ravina, Mark. The Last Samurai: The Life and Battles of Saigō Takamori. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.

Reis Correia, Pedro L. “Alessandro Valignano, Attitude towards Jesuit and Franciscan Concepts of Evangelization in Japan (1587–1597).” Bulletin of Portuguese/Japanese Studies, vol. 2. Lisbon: New University of Lisbon, 2001, 79–108.

Reyes, Ainhoa. “La introducción de las armas de fuego en Japón.” Brocar, Cuadernos de investigación histórica, 33, 2009.

Robertson, Lisa J. “Warriors and Warfare.” In William E. Deal, ed. Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan. New York: Facts on File, 2006.

Rubio, Carlos (introduction, notes and translation) and Rumi Tani Moratalla (translation). Heike Monogatari. Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 2009.

Sadler, Arthur L. The Maker of Modern Japan: The Life of Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1980.

Sansom, George. A History of Japan, 1334–1615. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1961.

Schirokauer, Conrad, and Miranda Brown. Breve historia de la civilización china. Barcelona: Edicions Bellaterra, 2006.

Shigeno Saburō. Han Bushidōron. Tokyo: Bungeisha, 2014.

Sola, Emilio. Libro de las maravillas del Oriente Lejano. Madrid: Editora Nacional, 1980.

_____. Historia de un desencuentro. España y Japón, 1580–1614. Alcalá de Henares: Fugaz Ediciones,1999.

Takeuchi Rizō. “The Rise of Warriors.” In Donald H. Shively and William H. McCullough, eds. The Cambridge History of Japan, vol.2, Heian Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 644–709.

Takizawa, Osami. “La delegación diplomática enviada a Roma por el señor feudal japonés Date Masamune (1613-1620).” Archivo de la Frontera, Centro Europeo para la Difusión de las Ciencias Sociales (CEDCS), 2009, 3–29.

_____. La historia de los jesuitas en Japón (siglos XVI-XVII). Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá, 2010.

Torres de Mendoza, Luis. Colección de documentos inéditos, relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y organización de las antiguas posesiones españolas de América y Oceanía, sacados de los Archivos del Reino y muy especialmente del de Indias, tomo VIII. Madrid: Imprenta de Frías y compañía, 1867.

Totman, Conrad D. Japan before Perry. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.

_____. Tokugawa Ieyasu: Shogun. San Francisco: Heian International, 1983.

_____. Politics in the Tokugawa Bakufu, 1600–1843. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

Turnbull, Stephen. Samurai Warfare. London: Arms and Armours Press, 1996.

_____. The Samurai Sourcebook. London: Cassell & Co., 1998.

_____. Samurai Invasion. Japan’s Korean War 1592–1598. London: Cassell & Co., 2002.

_____. The Mongol Invasions of Japan, 1274 and 1281. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2010.

_____. Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2010.

Varley, H. Paul. Japanese Culture. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2000.

Wakita Osamu. “The Social and Economic Consequences of Unification.” Hall, John W., ed. The Cambridge History of Japan, vol. 4, Early Modern Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 96–127.

Yamamoto Tsunetomo. Hagakure. El camino del samurái. Madrid: Dojo Ediciones, 2014.

Yamamura Kozo. “Returns on Unification: Economic Growth in Japan, 1550–1650.” In John W. Hall, Nagahara Keiji, Yamamura Kozo, eds. Japan Before Tokugawa: Political Consolidation and Economic Growth, 1500–1650. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981, 327–372. X0n10ox (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@X0n10ox — Thank you for this! That is a lot to sift through, but better to have it than not. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is massive, and it is annoying that they do not use in-text citations as well in either the Spanish or English version of their book. Their book Toyotomi Hideyoshi Y Los Europeos does have in-text citations and is academically published, but the source they use for the section about Yasuke is their own book. X0n10ox (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Japan Barnstar 2.0
		Awarded for your continued efforts improving articles on topics related to Japan. Especially for your work on the talk page of the article Yasuke. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chrhns (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr i mentioned you on the section about me on this Incident. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		You have braved opposition from both pro and anti forces concerning the status of Yasuke, the alleged Black Samurai/Retainer, who's real personhood is being hotly debated in the media and internet right now. For your laudible efforts in striking a factual and truthful understanding of the personage in the midst of the controversy, I hereby award you with the Barnstar of Integrity! Thank You For Your dilligent help concerning the article! Awarded By: -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I cannot post on Talk: Yasuke yet becasuse my account is still too new, but I found some sources that might be useful to establishing a more referenced article.

• [3]This book mentions Yasuke was retained by Nobunaga as an attendant.
• [4]This 1993 book says he served as Nobunaga's "Court Hand"
• [5]This book refers to him as a vassal and says that he rode off with Nobunaga to battle against Takeda Shingen and had for all intents and purposes been made a Samurai.
• This Journal Article says that Yasuke was enlisted into Nobunaga's army.

As an aside, I find the spcific usage of "attendant" interesting. Partially because in this book, Dr. Deal writes Attendants (Yoriki and Doshin)"Even samurai of comparatively low social status were accompanied by attendants who furnished armor and supplies, tended to weaponry and horses, and provided protection. Figures who performed these assistant functions were called yoriki (literally, “strength that is offered”) and doshin (literally, “likeminded” or “shared hearts”). These figures were usually considered members of the warrior class in the sense that they were also professional soldiers. In the early medieval period, when their services were not needed in battle, attendants were likely to be engaged in farming activities. By the Muromachi Period yoriki was a term used for samurai who served warrior-commanders of higher rank—proof of the social mobility possible in the warrior class during feudal times. From the 16th century, yoriki were usually mounted samurai in command of other samurai or ashigaru" (Page 178)

And also Dr. Deal's work also seems useful and relevant to the discussion that was being had when I was an IP Address regarding trying to clarify what samurai were, Dr. Deal writes: Below gokenin was the samurai class. Although we tend now to think of the term samurai (literally, “one who serves”) as a generic term for warrior, during the Kamakura period samurai referred to a specific social ranking. Samurai, though less powerful than gokenin, also commanded subvassals who were loyal to them. Like gokenin, samurai were cavalry soldiers. (Page 110)

And more here Under the military rule that ensued from the Kamakura period onward, soldiers holding an official rank designated by the shogun or the imperial court were considered samurai. Thus, military figures serving in ranked positions were first distinguished from general infantry through terminology early in the medieval era. After reunification was achieved in the early modern period, the term samurai was used to indicate warriors of a comparatively high (upper-class) social status, although by that time many samurai no longer served a lord in the original military sense. From the Kamakura period, bushi were considered members of “warrior houses,” or buke, which in principle were regulated by the shogun or overseen on his behalf by a powerful lord, later known as a daimyo. The term buke came to refer generally to the warrior class and was used more or less interchangeably with the term bushi. As noted above, warrior bands (bushidan), situated on provincial shoen, came to exert significant influence in the provinces by the 10th century. Bushidan became private armies associated with specific lords (daimyo) from the time of the decline of the Ashikaga shogunate in the mid-15th century. The term daimyo was not used extensively to refer to regional lords until the Warring States period, when these domain rulers began to direct regional politics. The late medieval warrior negotiated a deceptive world in which rank and hierarchies were not always clear, and alliances could shift or disintegrate without warning. By contrast, in the Edo period, warriors were required to submit to a rigid system of socioeconomic classification with the shogun at the pinnacle (Page 137)

Hope it helps. Brocade River Poems 22:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting finds, thank you!

Some initial impressions:

• The Ninja Attack! book:

Certain passages tell me that the authors (husband-and-wife duo Hiroko Yoda and Matt Alt, brief bios at AltJapan#Founders) are not worried too much about historical accuracy.

[...] he was apparently a big hit with the children in particular, who he gave piggyback rides [sic] on his broad shoulders [...]
But when Nobunaga rode off to do battle with arch-rival Takeda Shingen just over a year later, Yasuke rode alongside him in full combat regalia. [...]

We have exactly zero primary-source evidence for either of these factoids. About the Takeda thing, we even have what might be deemed "anti-evidence", in that Nobunaga himself didn't participate in any active fighting in the tail end of his assaults against the Takeda clan — see also Battle of Tenmokuzan, where we clearly describe that Nobunaga's son Oda Nobutada was the one leading the forces in 1582. Nobunaga stayed away from the hostilities, only showing up after battle had ceased and he could tour his new winnings. This after-battle visit is apparently when Nobunaga called on Matsudaira Ietada with Yasuke in tow, as recorded in one line included in Ietada's diary.

In terms of actual fighting, the only record we have of that is in the Jesuit letter from Luís Fróis of November 5, 1582, which describes Yasuke going over to Nobutada's location and fighting against Akechi's forces there, before surrendering to Akechi's men.

Here's the text, copypasted from my earlier post over at Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#Yasuke_mentioned_by_Portuguese. The original is on the left-hand (facing, unnumbered) page 66 in the Segunda Parte ("Second Part") PDF (https://purl.pt/15229/4/res-402-v/res-402-v_item5/res-402-v_PDF/res-402-v_PDF_24-C-R0150/res-402-v_0000_capa-capa_t24-C-R0150.pdf), or page 136 as numbered by the PDF file itself, starting about halfway down the right-hand column. Here I give my transcription, my updates to (mostly) modernized spellings, and the adjusted Google Translate output (emphasis mine):

Temiamos mais porque hum cafre que o padre Viſitador deixou a Nobunânga polo deſejar, depois de Nobunánga ſer morto ſe foi a caſa do principe, & ali eſteue pelehando hũ grande pedaço: hum criado de Aquechí ſe chegou a elle, & he pedio a cataná, que não tiueſſe medo elle lha entregou, & o outro foi perguntar a Aquechì, que fario do cafre, reſpondeo: eſſe cafre he beſtial, que não no matem, la o depoſitem na igreja dos padres da India, polo qual nos começamos aquietar algũa couſa, & mais quando vimos a grande miſericordia q́ o ſenhor vſou cõ eſta caſa em ſe ir poucos dias antes o cunhado de Nobunãga pera o Sacáy, porq́ ſem duuida pera o matarẽ a elle q́ tãbẽ auia de ſer dos mortos era neceſſario q́ poſeisẽ fogo a noſſa igreja que eſtaua pegada cõ ſa caſa, ou elle ſe auia de recolher a noſſa por ſer mais forte que a ſua, & aſsi milhor nos auiaõ de queimar, & deſtruir a noſſa.

Temiamos mais porque um cafre que o padre Visitador deixou a Nobunânga pelo desejar, depois de Nobunánga ser morto se foi a casa do principe, & ali esteve pelehando um grande pedaço: um criado de Aquechí se chegou a elle, & he pedio a catana, que não tivesse medo elle lha entregou, & o outro foi perguntar a Aquechì, que fario do cafre, respondeo: esse cafre he bestial, que não no matem, que la o depositem na igreja dos padres da India, pelo qual nos começamos aquietar alguma cousa, & mais quando vimos a grande misericordia que o senhor usou com esta casa em se ir poucos dias antes o cunhado de Nobunãga para o Sacáy, porque para o matarem a elle que tambem avia de ser dos mortos era necessario que pusessem fogo a nossa igreja que estava pegada com sa casa, ou elle se avia de recolher a nossa por ser mais forte que a sua, & assi milhor nos aviando de queimar, & destruir a nossa.

We feared more because a kaffir that Father Visitador [[[Alessandro Valignano]]] left to Nobunânga [to do with] as he wished, after Nobunánga was killed, went to the prince's [Nobutada's] house, & there he was fighting a great deal: a servant from Akechi approached him, & he asked for the katana, not to be afraid, he gave it to him, & the other went to ask Akechi, what would he do with the kaffir, he replied: this kaffir is beastly, don't kill him, deposit him there in the church of the priests of India, through which we began to calm some things down, & more when we saw the great mercy the lord showed towards this house in having Nobunãga's brother-in-law go to Sacáy a few days before, because without doubt in order to kill him, who was to be of the dead, it was necessary for them to set fire to our church, which was attached to his house, or he was going to save ours because it was stronger than his, & thus better dispatching us by burning, & destroy ours.

Other than this, we have no primary source materials that mention Yasuke fighting at all, let alone riding out to battle at Nobunaga's side.

• The Japan's Minorities book:

This contains a hiccup, describing Yasuke as 16 or 17, when the source texts have 廿六七 ("26-7"). Russell sources this to Fujita's 1987 book, which I have not been able to access yet. I suppose it's possible that Russell might have typoed the quote, or that Fujita might have typoed the translation or mis-transcribed the Japanese source.

In the phrase "Retained as an attendant by Nobunaga", the word "attendant" is interesting, but in terms of underlying meaning, it really just means that Yasuke was on the Oda household's payroll. The primary documents describe that Yasuke received a 扶持 (fuchi) or "stipend". Notably, at that time, fuchi was paid to a wide range of household members, from a daimyō's close lieutenant all the way down to the cooks and cleaning maids and entertainment staff. And all of them could fall under the "attendant" category.

Russell also appears confused about the events at the Honnō-ji incident when he states that "[...] he [Yasuke] later accompanied him [Nobunaga] into battle against rival lord Akechi Mitsuhide [...]". There was no organized pitched battle: the Honnō-ji incident was an ambush. According to another section of Lóis Fróis letter, Nobunaga had no suspicions of Akechi's treachery; apparently Nobunaga was in his private quarters and had just finished washing his hands and was wiping them on a towel when Akechi's forces barged in, shooting him in the ribs with an arrow. Nobunaga then came at them with a naginata and Akechi's men shot him in the arm with a matchlock, at which point Nobunaga retreated into another room and shut the doors, disappearing from view and from life.

This is not a "battle" per se, nor did Yasuke accompany Nobunaga in this fight, as best we can tell. Yasuke isn't even mentioned for another couple pages, when he goes over to Nobutada's place (nearby, but not on the Honnō-ji grounds).

• The Japan and Africa book:

I am unfamiliar with any "court hand" title, and I have not encountered any other source describing Yasuke this way. I see via Google that Themba Sono is a writer and political figure to some extent in South Africa. I cannot find anything about any expertise on Japanese history, suggesting that he may be writing at a tertiary level, or at an even further remove from the primary sources. As such, what with the changes and distortions that can occur when any text is reinterpreted, I must take any descriptors or titles like "court hand", which depend on Japanese terminology used in source documents, with a grain of salt.

• The "The Use of Race and Racial Perceptions among Asians and Blacks" article:

I believe this came up earlier, but I cannot find the thread at the moment. Wright sources this to a 1965 book by Michael Cooper entitled They Came to Japan: An Anthology of European Reports on Japan, 1543–1640, and/or to a 1995 book by Gary P. Leupp article called "Images of Black People in Late Mediaeval and Early Modern Japan" from the April 1995 edition of the Japan Form journal. (Wright's footnote formatting here is a bit confusing to me, listing two separate sources in one footnote.) Google Books claims to offer "snippet" view for Cooper's book, but either it doesn't work, or there might be zero instances of "Yasuke". And while I have found the Leupp article over at Taylor and Francis online, I cannot access the actual full text, despite the Wikipedia Library tie-in.

At any rate, I also take Wright's quote with a grain of salt, not least as the primary sources say nothing about Yasuke joining Nobunaga's army. His household, sure, the whole fuchi ("stipend") thing clearly puts Yasuke on the payroll. But exactly in what capacity, the contemporary sources don't say.

• The Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan book:

William Deal's bio page suggests that he is someone who might have actually read primary documents in Japanese. I cannot find any clear sense of his Japanese language ability, but Japan is firmly within his field of study, so that's good. If Google Books' search feature is working, the book does not contain any instances of "Yasuke", but we might be able to use this more broadly.

Deal uses the term "attendants" as well, as you point out. Notably, this does not refer just to yoriki or dōshin, as I mentioned above. Due to the broad meaning of this term, we simply don't have enough information to say that Yasuke was either yoriki or dōshin. He may have simply been a meshitsukai (general servant) who happened to have a few privileges of close access to Nobunaga because Nobunaga happened to find him interesting and non-threatening.

That's far more than I initially intended to write. 😄 Anyway, thanks again for the legwork! This is good stuff, filling in the broader picture. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that Deal was going to be useful for Yasuke precisely. More that Dr. Deal's work might be more useful in terms of the conversation of "what is a Samurai", since @Hexenakte was looking at Anthony J. Bryant for evidence of the samurai being associated with court titles. In Dr. Deal there is a more reliable source, who does say that Under the military rule that ensued from the Kamakura period onward, soldiers holding an official rank designated by the shogun or the imperial court were considered samurai. Since you were both interested in developing a clearer definition between bushi and samurai, I thought Dr. Deal's book might be useful in that regard. As for the rest of the sources, I knew the Ninja book was not precisely going to be a reliable source but it does put a damper on the notion someone raised in the Talk: Yasuke that the idea of Yasuke being a samurai originated from Lockley's Wikipedia editing, since the book predates Lockley's publications by several years. As for the Cooper book, you can borrow it here. I haven't bothered to scour it for references to Yasuke. As for "Images", that is a journal article I do not presently have access to. The best I can find is this blog post which summarizes the section as One famous African was a man from Mozambique to whom Oda Nobunaga gave the name ‘Yasuke.’ Nobunaga was so intrigued by this foreigner that he put him on his payroll. Yasuke fought for his new master until Nobunaga was forced to commit suicide. Akechi Matsuhide (Nobunaga’s vanquisher) spared Yasuke and eventually released him from service;. As for the Fujita, I cannot locate it. Cheers! Brocade River Poems 01:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pinging me, I will read this momentarily; FYI @Eirikr I had a bit of technical issues with my PC for the last 4 days and I just now got it working, so that is why I was quiet for a bit. I will try to catch up on everything soon. Hexenakte (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BrocadeRiverPoems, @Eirikr, I apologize as I am just now getting around to this, but this source from Dr. Deal is incredibly helpful already from the excerpts you have provided, I am going to look through his book a bit more to see if we can find anything else as well as his citations that could prove useful for understanding the social hierarchy system more during the Sengoku period. I do appreciate the patience and I will try to come around and contribute more soon. Hexenakte (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this now, a couple things I want to note as per Dr. Deal's analysis of Samurai status.

On page 136:

Infantry members such as foot soldiers were often recruited from the peasant and farming classes, and while necessary in military encounters, these warriors had few privileges, little income, and low social status, and rarely attained rank among the ruling samurai.

...

Despite the growing superiority of self-made military figures over aristocrats in the early medieval era, noble ancestry could confer some status in the world of the samurai. Warriors that had (or made claims to) elite lineage were often positioned as officers in the loosely organized regional bands that flourished amid chronic warfare in the Muromachi and Azuchi-Momoyama eras.

He goes on to mention how there were soldiers who came from humble backgrounds that became samurai - such as (erroneously) suggesting Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi. He also mentions these both as ashigaru on page 174. Unsure why he included Oda Nobunaga - since he was from the warrior class background, being heir to the Oda clan before his father - as he was never an ashigaru.

Continuing onto page 137:

Notably, neither Nobunaga nor Hideyoshi ever assumed the title shogun—which had acquired negative connotations due to a long history of associations with ineffective rulers representing military aristocracy—perhaps in part due to their lower social rank.

This was an interesting thing that stood out to me, as I was never under the impression that the title shogun had negative connotations behind it; rather, it was the latter part, that a shogun was by de jure lower on the court rank structure than Kampaku, which is what Hideyoshi went for. It is also notable that the position of Kampaku was held by monopoly of the Konoe family - which comes from Fujiwara lineage - and that was the family that Hideyoshi was adopted into, taking on the name of FUJIWARA NO HIDEYOSHI, which gave him that right to hold that position. It might also be worth noting that the title of shogun was held by only those of Minamoto lineage since the establishment of the Kamakura shogunate (Minamoto, Ashikaga, and Tokugawa). To put it in simple terms (but it is a gross simplification of it), those of Fujiwara lineage dominated kuge court affairs while those of Minamoto lineage dominated warrior/shogunal affairs.

It seems like Dr. Deal is aware of these warriors being granted surnames by their masters since the Heian period, as noted on page 133:

Historically significant clans had large percentages of armed retainers who shared no kinship ties. Many warriors serving in the provinces who would never attain court rank were simply assigned to one of the three clans—the Fujiwara, the Taira, and the Minamoto—who dominated warfare of the late Heian and early Kamakura eras. Descendants of these families (or those so assigned) struggled continually for power during the last 100 years of the Heian period.

The way its worded here though implies that these are not noble families, but as you know stated above in the 2nd quote, these are the noble ancestry ties that Dr. Deal is referring to, the Gen-pei-to-kitsu clans (excluding the Tachibana, which while they were part of the four major imperial families, they had the least presence and this is understandable). I think this was worded badly on his part (which I assume he did not mean) and should be kept in mind.

Overall, Dr. Deal has a sufficient grasp on the subject, even with a few mistakes here and there, where it shows a clear distinction between the samurai and non-samurai warriors, showing that samurai did indeed come from or was put into noble background. It is indeed complicated, and I feel like he could've gone in more indepth with the Court Rank system and how it ties the Samurai into it, but this is definitely one of the higher quality academic books that were presented thus far.

Later on I will go and delve into the sources used to see if there is anything else, but this is just what I wanted to note. Cheers! Hexenakte (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just wanted to add, the Blog Post is apparently by this scholar Brocade River Poems 08:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to say that you are arguing in bad faith or attempting to ataunchly defend a position without regard for actual truth or objectiveness.

However your latest comment in the Yasuke talk page has left quite a bad taste in my mouth. It no longer seems like youre trying to find the truth in history but make the history what you think is the truth.

Most of your statements about sources being deemed objectively unusable aren't true and the RSN never came to that conclusion you state, then you go further and even say that the definition of Samurai meaning that almost everyone who wielded a sword and were a warrior for their lord isn't real or is something that simply doesn't exist. Yet- if we just take a look at the Samurai article it's backed by multiple sources that such a view is blatantly how the Sengoku period works by japanese sources/historians galore in regards to the general warriors being deemed as Samurai.

Adding to this you attempt to discredit a Japanese historian by stating an economist disagrees with him even though said historian himself has said that the economist does not know a whit of history and is wrong about most the things he states! Which is weird because you are over here also discrediting sources based on them not being historians specifically as their weight holds more worth.

Furthermore I find it strange how you use wording almost politically to state things and seemingly try to convince others that such a concensus or truth has been found on all this when it hasnt. Such as again when you state

> As has already been pointed out multiple times, it is a logical fallacy to insist that authors will have made explicit statements in the negative, and that the positive statement must be true if there is a lack of such explicit negative statements.

Yet, that's never a conclusion that was made in the majority in any of the discussions thus far and had been a specific point of contention between the two sides of the topic.

then you follow up with

> Once we pare down the list of sources to those that have done actual research on the historical texts, we find that it is not the majority view that Yasuke was a samurai.

Yet again thats only based on a few peoples opinions and not the majority and its mostly your perceived authority and double speak that most of the sources arent accurate (yet again one must mention that you discredit a historian because of an economist despite valuing the study and research on the texts which doesnt make sense with your recent comments on your talk page here or in the past.)

Also to note you say twitter isnt a valid source but you partook in a specific discussion that showcased *it is* as long as the subject is of a verified expert. So your continued attempts to say it isnt beggar one to think you are attempting to deceive others or force your view on that subject rather than have a discussion to find the truth.

This has been simmering a bit ever since you mentioned the sayameki poster but didnt mention their sources or their follow up that showcased it doesnt fully agree with what you continued to say about sayameki's on the yasuke talk page.

I'm hoping that I'm just misunderstanding your position or your just having a bad couple of days but I'm beginning to think it might be necessary to review the initial report on your conduct by Gitz in this regard. 66.226.103.77 (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless anonymous post stirring up trouble. I fully disagree with every word you've said here, Eirikr is the only one actually trying to correct the inappropriate record without ideology. Nocomputersintexas (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, there is recently the article of Japanese historian Yūichi Goza, Assistant Prof. on the International Research Center for Japanese Studies in Kyoto, https://www.nichibun.ac.jp/en/research/staff/s377/ and apparently specialist about samurai in history.

Please note, that Yuichi Goza wrote in his book 戦国武将、虚像と実像 https://search.worldcat.org/de/title/1345700805 about the problematic modern changes of historic figures in the Senguku era on the example of famous warlords.

In his article about Yasuke https://www.sankei.com/article/20240805-2RDCMCMKMNFYFOGXMRGPCIT2NI/ 信長のボディーガード兼芸人というのが実態だったのではないかと思います」(I think the reality was that he was Nobunaga's bodyguard and performer.)「敵を次から次へと斬り倒す、欧米の人がイメージする『サムライ・ウォリアー』のような存在ではなかったはずで、〝伝説の侍〟といった扱われ方には違和感を覚えます。(He was not the Samurai Warrior that Westerners imagine him to be, slaying one enemy after another, and I feel uncomfortable with the way he is treated as a 'legendary samurai'.)--ErikWar19 (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. New information has been brought to us regarding Lockley's article. I've sent the same information to a few people in case they haven't noticed. Please check the contents if you wish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Lockley 153.248.52.69 (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been added as a party to a recently opened arbitration case by the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 10, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 12:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eirikr, in the open Backlash to diversity and inclusion arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke (formerly titled Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Yasuke is designated as a contentious topic. Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years.
• The article Yasuke is subject to a 1RR restriction for a period of one year.
• Eirikr is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Symphony Regalia is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• J2UDY7r00CRjH is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Yvan Part is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Gitz6666 is warned that disruptive behavior will lead to increasing sanctions if they continue.
• Elinruby is subject to a one-way interaction ban with Gitz6666, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke closed

Cite error: There are <ref group=注> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=注}} template (see the help page).