Talk:Culture of Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Culture of Japan is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Japan To-do:

Contents

[edit] Archives

In order to make this page more manageable, old discussions have been moved to an archive page. Please visit the appropriate archive page for older discussions:

[edit] Shingeki

What about Shingeki? It's not mentioned in the section theatre at all. Does anybody know more about it? Does it deserve a separate article? Ben T/C 13:20, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request More Information on Cultural Psychology/Nemawashi Concept

I am very interested in this article's mention of the Japanese concept of Nemawashi; I am interested in more information regarding Japanese cultural psychology and social mores. For example, since Japanese culture (and this is a guess on my part, please correct me if I am wrong) generally emphasizes group action rather than individual action, will a Japanese man or woman typically feel stress when entering a situation requiring a great deal of personal initiative or decision-making? Has there been any research done into the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Nemawashi concept? Thank you very much for your time. -- Brasswatchman August 13, 2005. 7:55 PM EST.

[edit] Merge Geinokai?

Someone put the merge suggestion up but didn't explain why, so I'm starting the discussion. Please share your thoughts. --nihon 01:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If it needs to be merged, tarento is a more obvious place to merge it to. --DannyWilde 04:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that tarento is a more appropriate place for it. --nihon 06:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The little summary that this article has is longer that the main article for the subject. That makes very little sense. The "Main Article" is only one sentence long. That seems like a valid reason to merge. 69.241.173.179 03:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mess

This article is a mess of turgidly written trivia. I suggest nominating it for collaboration to try to produce something better. --DannyWilde 08:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] May Sick..?

I removed this, no idea what it is, Google produces a mere 500 results. who put this in? - Zero1328 13:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

For your information, Japanese Wikipedia has an entry ja:五月病 (Gogatsubyō, lit. 'May sick') and has more than 100,000 google hits. --Kusunose 15:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I am the guy who recently hacked this page. Please put about rugby being part of Japan, and I won't hack—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.71 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Kawaii merge

The article Kawaii has some issues. For those who don't know, "kawaii" is simply a Japanese adjective meaning "cute". The article therefore is essentially a dictionary definition and accumulation of trivia which is turning into original research. Quite frankly it reeks of otaku fancruft. I was about to AfD it, then I thought maybe it can be salvaged. After all, it is undisputed that the Japanese have an obsession with cuteness, and it merits mention somewhere. The Crow 16:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Couldn't agree more. Kawaii isn't a lifestyle or fashion (or as someone wrote, a way of standing(??), so the whole article seems nothing more than an elongated dictionary definition. Some trivia can probably be used elsewhere, but the majority of it pretty worthless. Barryvalder 01:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I oppose the move. Any AfD will be greeted with great displeasure and perhaps even hostility.
Article will not be salvaged as it will stay where it is as after all it is an article matured beyond being a stub. All those merges will create a 32kb article hence will have to be broken apart again. That is exactly why Kawaii exists.
Article is not "original research" as hello kitty's fame is well known for example.
Kawaii does not simply mean "cute". Any reasoning starting with "this is cruft" requries no further discussion. Please delete norse mythology and religion articles first which are all cruft to me.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool Cat's tone may be a little militant for my taste, but I agree that Kawaii is a standalone concept that is notable in and of itself. In a wired article, the author states that "The Japanese word for cute is kawaii. You often hear it spoken alone, a sentence and a sentiment unto itself.". There are many websites and books devoted to the concept of kawaii, vouching for its independent notability. I do agree that the kawaii article has far too many pictures though. --DDG 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It has 3 pictures... :P. Wikipedia is not b&w :). And no I am not millitant. I just dont like the deletionist attiudes with primary reasoning "cruft"... --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. But anyone is free to nominate an article for merging or vfd- you have to trust that notable topics will be recognized as such by the community as a whole. Often times that people suggest merges or renames because they are unfamiliar with niche topics or the context provided by the article confuses them. I know I've certainly mistakenly nominated a few articles for renaming/moving/merging. Assume Good Faith, and there's no need to meet them with "displeasure or hostility". Cheers. --DDG 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes but the nominator shouldnt remove information from the article like this: [1].
I do not like bad faith discussions when one side delcares "article is cruft" which is rude to everyone contributing to the article and enrages people (such as myself).
The point is one mans cruft is anothers art. Mona Lisa is cruft right? Try telling that to the artist ;)
--Cool CatTalk|@ 19:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The passage you're referring to was questioned by another editor on Talk:Kawaii, and no one responded in the passage's defense for 4 days. I hardly fault Crow for seeing that as a tacit consensus for removal; the adoption of "kawaii" as a general loanword is certainly debateable. By calling the discussion "bad faith", I believe you are circumventing the possibility of "assuming good faith". There is no need to be "enraged" by any of this. Discussions like this are a vital part of Wikipedia, and are how consensus is reached. --DDG 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I can watch the talk page of every article care about. That would mean I look over thousands of talk pages.
You don't remove peices from the article (spesificaly what links kawaii craze to the west) and then debate its notability. That was bad on crows part.
I am not suggesting the "nominator is evil". I do not like the deletionist attitude. On topics one is not familiar one should not be making edits removing material. People should not edit with deadlines. Give 4 days and delete sections at whim is not nice.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • user:DannyWilde was blocked indefinately for "harrasment and vandalsim" indefinately. Not all comments on talk pages are with the intention of creating a better encyclopedia. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Cool Cat on this one. The article is fine as it is, it doesn't need to be merged or deleted or redirected. Of course this is my opinion, but if an AfD (not VfD) came around I would vote to keep the article. — FireFox • T • 19:50, 2 February 2006
I just want to mention something here... first, the spurious throwing around of "deletionist" is silly on its face since I proposed a merge and not a deletion. Second, I didn't delete an entire article, I deleted a one-sentence section where a piece of celebrity trivia was (is being) used to make a sweeping novel judgement on a linguistic matter. Further, what if I do consider it "cruft"? We are entitled to opinions. I stated valid reasons and also shared a matter of opinion. Lastly, if an editor cannot handle challenges to a beloved subject without becoming "enraged", I question whether that kind of person is really even suitable to edit an encyclopedia. Clearly the priority of such a person lies in using Wikipedia to support/document/promote their hobby culture. I do recognize that such people are present here in large numbers, likely have much more free time than I do, and thus I will not swim upstream on this matter. The Crow 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You are not entitled to restructuring article based on you views (I dont like it merge/I think its cruft hence merge) with the primary argument "this is cruft" aka "not article worthy" you will only infuriate people writing it. I am more that sutible to edit wikipedia and no I do not have that much free time. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I've already pointed out numerous times that my main objection is that the kawaii article is a dictionary definition, and that the defense of it is original research in trying to portray "kawaii" as having a greater meaning and significance than it actually possesses. You and I may differ in our personal taste, but dicdefs and original research are both objectively in violation of Wikipedia norms for editorial content. The Crow 21:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Kawaii is able to and should stand on its own. I also think that anyone who gets "enraged" over another editors opinion is taking things far too personally. If that happens, the "enraged" editor likely needs to take a break. --nihon 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I stand with The Crow on this one. While kawaii is deserving of a mention within the Culture of Japan, I really don't believe it any stronger a concept than that. Cuteness isn't something which the whole of Japan buys into by any means, and that alone makes it questionable to have a dedicated article. Something telling is that the Japanese article on the same topic is merely a description of what the word means and when people use it. The use of such sentences as "The two largest manufacturers of Kawaii character merchandise are Sanrio (manufacturers of "Hello Kitty") and San-X" implies that kawaii is a concept more than a mere adjective. For a start, that's a clear value judgement as many Japanese people don't think Kitty is even remotely cute. As for being a concept rather than a adjective, it's not, and it seems like it's the meaning which people are giving it themselves which is being reported on this article. Barryvalder 11:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    Cuteness is something parts of Japanese economy revolves around. If I get this correctly, are you suggesting many japaneese people buy "Hello Kitty" merchendise etc for a reason other than its cuteness? What people views as cute defers with taste. Cute is "Kawaii" as article explains is a concept. Also if someting is worthy to appear on wikipedia, it is worth enough to have its own article. Your argument is hence flawed. Merges happen if there are lots of tiny articles that can be unified in one article in a reasonable manner. Neither this article (Culture of Japan) or other one (Kawaii) are stubs. Both are rather decent in size. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I had a little trouble deciphering your response, and also your interpretation of what I wrote. I'm not attempting to explain why people buy Kitty mechandise, I'm explaining that while the adjective kawaii may be used described to describe Kitty, it doesn't mean that Kitty Is Cute. Kitty has a red bow. She doesn't have a cute bow. You might think it's cute, but I might not. The fact of the matter is, cuteness is subjective. It's a value judgement. What is suggested by the article is that kawaii is a specific style of clothing, a specific type of personality or a specific type of handwriting. It isn't. Kawaii is an adjective which can be used to describe any style of fashion, any any type of personality or any style of handwriting. Regardless of if you agree or not, I wouldn't be wrong if said Prime Minister Koizumi was kawaii (I've heard it said!). The word is not a stand-alone concept. It's an subjective adjective, and as such the entire article's existence in Wikipedia is flawed. Japan's facination with things considered by many to be cute is worthy of a mention in the Culture of Japan. The word's definition should be part of the Wiktionary. You also wrote "...if someting is worthy to appear on wikipedia, it is worth enough to have its own article" but then go on to explain when and how merges happen; something which, by your own logic, shouldn't actually happen. Please stop me if my use of logic is confusing you.Barryvalder 10:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My #1 main objection as to why the article shouldn't stand on its own is that it is a dictionary definition of the word "cute". Kawaii is the Japanese word for "cute" or "adorable". The article is fluffed in size, owing roughly a third of the content to definition, etymology, and usage (standard stuff for a dictionary definition). There's then some content listing things in Japan that are cute, which aren't terribly different from cuteness found in other cultures. Large eyes? Pink frilly clothes? Loopy girlish handwriting? Cutesy stuffed animals? All found in Japan; but none specific to Japan. And then the author claims that "Kawaii" is becoming an English loanword, hanging it all on a quote from a Gwen Stefani video. Yes, the fascination with cuteness in Japan is notable, but a fluffed-up dictionary definition of the word "cute" and an accumulation of trivia is not the way to represent it. The Crow 17:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you do not explain the meaning of the word you can't begin to explain the concept (Kawaii does not litteraly translate to Cute and the history of the word is relevant to this concept). You are basicaly suggesting there is too much information. If you think representation of the article is flawed go ahead and expand it "properly". Deleting/censoring sections is definately not better. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
If kawaii doesn't literally translate as cute, please enlighten us to what it's actual literal translation is. Having just checked two different dictionary definitions, I've come back with such English adjectives as "pretty/cute/lovely/charming/dear/darling/." Is it something other than any of these? Barryvalder 11:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I think your method is flawed... If you look up a word in a dictionary, of course you will get a dictionary definition. Kawaii does not literally translate as "cute" because the word has a greater weight in Japanese culture than that. Many people here are arguing that the term should not have an article as it is subjective. I find two problems with this:
  1. The point made by the mentioning of the Time Asia and Wired articles is that "kawaii" is not just a subjective term, there is a universal style known as "kawaii" (the earmarks of which are specific to certain genres). Whether or not you find anime cartoon characters with big-eyes cute, the movement is described as "kawaii". Whether or not you find frill and mismatched socks charming, it is described by fashion designers universally as part of a "kawaii" style.
  2. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on concepts/topics that are subjective by nature. Check out cool (aesthetic) or even Cuteness.
However, a lot of the same points are being hashed over and over, and extensive hyperbole and ridiculous analogies are being made on both sides. If you are convinced that the Kawaii article is unencylopedic by its very nature and incapable of being more than a dictionary definition, you should nominate it for deletion or put up an official poll for the merger. --DDG 22:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That there is a univeral style called kawaii is false, plain and simple. There isn't. I have never seen a manga store in Japan with a section entitled 'kawaii'. Do you know why? Becuase no such genre exists. I have never seen a section in a clothes store in Japan called 'kawaii'. Do you know why? Becuase no such section exists. I could go on. I doubt I can make this any clearer, but there is NO UNIVERSAL STYLE CALLED KAWAII. It simply does not exist. How fashion designers desceribe their clothes is up to them, but there is no fashion in Japan called kawaii. Please explain exactly what special weight kawaii holds in Japanese culture becuase I'm sruggling with such vague responses as those given. By was of some original research I will take a sraw poll of the next ten people I speak to today and ask them what kawaii means and if it has any special meaning or great weight to them as Japanese people.
Whatever information I come back with will, of course, as original research, be pretty worthless for this article, but then it the lack of evidence to support the view that there is a defined, specific movemevnt in Japanese fashion / animation / manga etc called kawaii which helps make this article pretty worthless beyond a dictionary definition. I agree the discussion is going round and round in circles, so the article will have to put up to the vote. Barryvalder 23:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Universal fashion is called uniforms :). So ya it cant exist. But fasion with primary intention of "Kawaii-ness" is what we are trying to emphacise I think. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ethics in Japan

This would be a welcome section. Chris 01:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural Essentialism

This is a terrible article at present. To start off by referencing such an outdated and archaic work as Ruth Benedict's "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword" is shocking. This article needs a thorough reworking to remove the racism embedded in such depictions that seek to essentialize Japanese culture as the "other" against which western society is to be measured. Despite the strength of critiques by such scholars as Edward Said, in his book "Orientalism," the fact that such articles as this, which contribute to an outdated Nihonjinron, or theory of Japanese uniqueness, is ridiculous. The fact that such depictions continue to persist says more about the contributors fetishism than anything meaningful about Japanese history and culture.

[edit] Export vs. Insider cultures

A rather important distinction and illumination should be made regarding Japan's export culture versus their insider culture, aka tatemae (建前) versus honne (本音) respectively. 71.162.255.58 07:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Ball picture

There is a picture of Dragon Ball in this article, but it is not seen in the text of the article itself. Images should not be information on their own, but should rather illustrate the subject matter. Someone should probably write about Dragon Ball in the text if it is notable enough; otherwise, the picture doesn't really deserve to be up either. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 16:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] very incomplete

Am I incorrect in feeling this is a very incomplete article? I see no sections on...

  • Traditional art forms,
  • Humour (beyond a cursory mention),
  • Martial Arts, and
  • Religion (!!!!!)

just to name a few giant areas. There's not much at all about cultural history either. From this article it more or less seems like Japan has no culture beyond its language and pop culture. Take a look at Russian culture for a random example of the kind of stuff I would think is standard in a culture article. I am by far not an expert on Japanese culture and really don't want to add too much, as I know I will make a lot of errors and have few sources to call on. However, I will see about sketching some very rough sections on these vital and hideously underrepresented sections of the Culture of Japan. I am not even sure how this article can warrant a B-class rating in its present state... the opening paragraph was a quote from a 61-year-old reactionary secondary ethnology, presented as though it was the authority on the subject of Japanese cultural value structures!!!

PS: why is there a section on "kawaii" and not a section on "religion"?! Yargh. I honestly don't see why there is a special section on "cute". It is stylish here, but not a fundamental part of the culture. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 15:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Evolution of Japense Fashion" was also put forward by user:24.19.45.254 :-) Mr. Anonymous, it's generally kosher to add more info as a comment rather than edit another member's post. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 04:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kawaii

Why is this section here? The entire thing is characteristed with "seems to be" and cultural comparisons, and cuteness is hardly a central aspect of Japanese culture. There is a page about it already, all it needs is a "see also". Having a big paragraph about the comparitive Western otaku-central importance of Kawaii puts a lot of systemic bias into the article, and way too much weight on something that is not all that important to Japan. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 03:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It really doesn't deserve that much focus in this page. A "see also" link, at most. — Gwalla | Talk 00:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Though I don't have any articles to back this up on hand, the religion section could really use some fleshing out. For example, most people in Japan don't care at all about religion, and are actually atheist. Additionally there is a wide generational gap concerning religion, but no mention of this in the article.

[edit] Japanese people

I am wondering if I can interest anyone who works with this page with helping to expand the summary of Japanese culture at Japanese people. It is currently so small that some of the sections suggested by the ethnic groups WikiProject are still hidden in comment tags. Any help that you can give would be appreciated. Dekimasu 21:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

How about this correction?


To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this section may require cleanup.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page, and/or replace this tag with a more specific message. Editing help is available.
This section has been tagged since November 2007.

Some of those seem rather specific for such a general overview. I mean, are Zoids really so important to Japanese culture that they should be a top-level link? Also, why are anime and manga not under entertainment? How is mecha a subculture? Also, according to the Guide to Layout links already present in the article should ideally not be repeated in the see also section. And if we link an overview (like Japanese cinema), we don't need to link more specific articles that it already covers (like Takusatsu)—people who want more detail can simply follow links further. — Gwalla | Talk 20:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/u/l/Talk%7ECulture_of_Japan_b56c.html"