Talk:Women in Japan

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 16 February 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michan3636.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 22 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hoang1nguyen. Peer reviewers: Devikajhaveri, Hunerwithat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

I have reason to belive that this is plagerized from the libary of congress i.e. the artical Gender Stratification and the Lives of Women under country studies for Japan. This article is currently located at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?cstdy:3:./temp/~frd_2aPD:: but due to the fact that it is a temporary website it is subject to change. Insert31990 12:01, 5 December 2007 (PST)

I definitely think the contents of "Working Women in Japan" should be added to this page. There is not much in the "Working Women in Japan" page and it simply makes sense to add it to this page. Whats up skip 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Rupa zero 10:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Should this article be renamed to History of women in Japan.

It primarily presents a summary/timeline of female gender in Japanese society through history, with a final summary of the current status. This is a history article.

A modern-day article could be spun off at a later point.--ZayZayEM (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essay[edit]

Oh, and this article reads like an essay. It requires multiple citations to verify points, and needs to be more of a description, and less of a discussion (it can describe discussions on the topic, preferrably multiple and indepndent ones) to be considered encyclopedic.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Section "Education and workforce participation" biased?[edit]

Some of the contents of section Education and workforce participation sound quite partial towards the status quo.

In particular, I am referring to Many women find satisfaction in family life and in the accomplishments of their children, gaining a sense of fulfilment from doing good jobs as household managers and mothers.

I suggest to reword this to something like Women are pressured by society to only find their fulfilment and satisfaction in the accomplishments of their children and their job as household managers and mothers. Davide.tassinari (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probable copyright violation[edit]

The earliest version of this page appears to be virtually identical to this content from Country Studies US. The top page of that site is marked "Copyright © 2003 - 2010 Country Studies US," meaning this page is in all likelihood a violation of that site's copyright or that of the the publisher of the associated book. Cnilep (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy on the Library of Congress series of country studies can be found at Wikipedia:Library of Congress Country Studies. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my addition below edit conflicted with your addition. To be clear; our policy is to accept the PD status of the work that this page was based on? Kuru (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Our policy in regard to the Library of Congress Country Studies has been that it is created by the Library of Congress and it is in the public domain. Around 860 pages use the text. However, this page failed to include the required template:loc for proper attribution. I have now added it. — CactusWriter (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that tag was removed here a few months ago in a large edit which has lead to the confusion here. Glad it is resolved. Kuru (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the root page of that site (http://countrystudies.us/), it states "This website contains the on-line versions of books previously published in hard copy by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress as part of the Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998.". The original version of the page (here) has a tag at the end claiming this is public domain. My understanding was that works created by the federal government are indeed PD, but I must stress this is not my area of expertise. How is that site claiming copyright? Kuru (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at WP:PDR and there's a section that mentions that such articles may not be "in themselves good encyclopedia articles". Although it's not copyvio and it's not plagiarism per se, it is still copypaste. I'm not really comfortable with the idea of a Wikipedia article having whole sections just chopped from articles. And actually, I just found some more interesting tidbits:

  • The first three paragraphs ("Gender has...", "After WW2...", "Gender inequality...") are straight copies from the Country Studies.
  • The next paragraph ("With deep-rooted...") seems to be a rather close rendition of this book.
  • The paragraph after it ("The percentage of...") seems to be a direct match from Japan labor bulletin: Volume 39.
  • The second paragraph under Working women in Japan ("Japanese women are joining...") is a rip from another Country Studies paper.
  • The entire Japanese Equal Employment Opportunity Law section is pulled from Equal Opportunity for Japanese Women -- What Progress?, written by some guy. The paper is referenced at the bottom, but not inline, and it's a straight copy.

I don't know how you guys want to handle this page; this is just what I've been able to determine. I'm pretty sure it shouldn't stay in its current form, though... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well that's a confusing copyright notice. The Country Studies FAQ says all text is public domain, but the page I noted above has a dated claim of copyright.
Whatever the case with copyright, it's tantamount to plagiarism, and the bits noted by HelloAnnyong may be copyright violations or additional plagiarism. In either case, I think that the page should be rewritten. Cnilep (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I should have checked the old history. HelloAnnyong is correct. There was a large amount of copy-pasted text added on August 14 2010. Although the editor attributed it to the source, it is still an improper copy-pasting of copyrighted text from those various sources. I have restored the article to the date prior to that addition.
As far as the original article goes -- it was created properly -- with the initial copypaste of PD text here and correctly attributed in both the edit summary and with the loc template. That fulfills our requirements for copying public domain. However, it is suggested that the PD text then be edited to meet our other guidelines -- that is, to make it more encyclopedic. (There is a better explanation at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public domain sources.) — CactusWriter (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dumped the Library of Congress text in 2005. At that time, Wikipedia had significant gaps in all areas concerning Japan. Pretty much every piece from there was a new article, all in all about 300. It was a quick way to provide WP with properly researched, if partly outdated material. All these articles now had 5 years to mature. If an article still contains original text from that source, it means that in 5 years nobody came up with a better version. I take that as an indicator of quality. --Mkill (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox removal[edit]

FYI, I removed {{Women in society}} as the thrust of the navbox is sociological where this article appears to be more geographically / anthopologically oriented. ClaretAsh 11:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 'Career woman'[edit]

I am removing the line about 'career woman' being the equivalent of salaryman. It is not. Career woman carries with it far different ideas. She is successful, and not necessarily getting a salary (she may be self-employed or own a company). A salaryman means a man working for a company and has a strong overtone of not being particularly successful. 91.125.55.128 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Family problem[edit]

Anyone familiar with this problem:

In Japan, a woman takes her husband's family when she marries. This means (as an example) that when Jane (whose mother is Elizabeth) marries John (whose mother is Ellen,) Ellen becomes the mother of both Jane and John. I always thought that this rule of defining one's family was traditionally proper in Japan (although it never was in the United States,) but I don't know if any Wikipedia article mentions this (this statement relates to improving Wikipedia mentioning info related to the above statement, so it doesn't violate NOTAFORUM.) Does any Wikipedia article mention a statement similar to the above?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggested sections[edit]

It seems that this article is disproportionately Westernized, and also sort of fetishized, with its unusual heavy focus on Geisha, sex work, and beauty standards. While these aren't irrelevant, I would like to expand this article to incorporate aspects such as divorce, child-rearing, education, and social roles. I just want to flag that I'd like to work to take this article in that direction. Owlsmcgee (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you entirely. Rewriting the articles relating to marriage in Japan is on my "to do" list, so hopefully those articles will tie in together with this one. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added some marriage and divorce sections, maybe you can pull from them for your articles as well! Owlsmcgee (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I love what you've done and I promise I will hold up my end of the bargain... one day. But for now, I'm going to be bold and remove the "sex industry" section from this article for the simple reason that, despite the attempt in the first sentence to link it to women, the section is about the sex industry. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty section[edit]

There's a lot of research about Japanese beauty standards, and I suspect it could form the basis of its own article. The references I'm including in this section are just the tip of the iceberg in academic research. Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Resilient traditional expectations" mean?[edit]

What does "Resilient traditional expectations" mean? -- I don't understand this sentence. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Expectations on women from traditional times that are still around today, ie, persistent, or enduring. It would seem to refer to the roles of women such as raising children, domestic duties, and not working, etc. I'll change it to clairfy, assuming no objections. Owlsmcgee (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Women in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Women in Japan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 21:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will take this review. I am sorry for how long you've had to wait. I've reviewed 60+ other articles, including some long and complex ones, and will review this article against the 6 good article criteria. I'll read over this article and have a think, then start the review in 2-3 days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I am on hand to make adjustments! --Owlsmcgee (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Comments[edit]

Comments[edit]

Broadness

Firstly, thanks for your edits to this article and for your efforts at improving the gender balance of articles covered on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there are not yet any "Women in country [x]" articles that I can use as templates to review this article against. I say this because it's difficult to review an article like this for "broadness" without formulating an idea about what a "broad" article would be. Some things an article should cover would include:

  • A historical perspective about the views of and roles of women
  • A regional perspective, taking into account the regional variation in the roles and treatment of women
  • Information about health, including relating to conditions solely or primarily affecting women and relating to childbearing - including age of childbearing and number of children
  • A good, diplomatic and well-worded lead (I think Women of India comes close)
  • Information about the business lives of women, their pay, professions, pay gaps and what leadership roles they play
  • Information about the role women play in politics and political leadership, their rights to vote, and feminist movements
  • Information about the legal rights of women to participate in society, including hold property, drink alcohol, vote, marry, divorce, and be protected from harrassment and abuse from others
  • Information about crimes against women and significant issues that women face in society
  • Information about the roles of women in education, including participation in education, role in teaching, types of education studied
  • Information about any particularly notable women in the historical or modern development of the country
  • Women in media (news, television) and portrayal of women in media and movies

This is not an exhaustive list, but my thoughts on some factors that would constitute a "broad" article. This article contains a lot of relevant information, but I think it is missing a fair bit of the above. Some areas that it is missing include:

  • a historical perspective between the 12th and 17th centuries, and before the 12th century;
  • a regional perspective (eg north/south japan, urban/rural, and okinawa)
  • a greater portrayal about health
  • some more information about the type of professions that women work in
  • more information about feminist movements, if any
  • information about notable women from japan
  • some more information about the legal rights of women, such as rights to inherit, hold property, etc.

I also have some concerns about the "Beauty" section, which I think may need some attention in terms of the structure and wording.

Lead

I do not think the lead adequately summarises this article's content. I think a relatively good lead to emulate would be Women in India's lead, which somehow summarises this huge topic quite well.

Neutrality

This is not one I was expecting to comment on, but I do have concerns this article isn't covering the topic neutrally. My main concern is that a lot of the content analyses women's role in an economic or epidemiological sense without adequately covering the humanities side of the picture, eg the beauty section or the current lead ("economic conditions for women remain unbalanced.[3] Modern policy initiatives to encourage motherhood and workplace participation have had mixed results.[4] While a high percentage of Japanese women are college graduates,[5] and many hold jobs, they typically earn 40% less than their male counterparts, and make up 77% of the part-time work force.[6] Traditional expectations for married women and mothers is cited as a barrier to full economic equality"

Summary

I've asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red to help out. I'm sorry to flag all these issues to you, but if this article improves, it has the potential not only to play a role in addressing WP's gender gap, but also create a template article for how the many other "Women in [x]" articles can get to GA. I'm happy to discuss any of the above issues with you, and hope you don't feel too disheartened! Yours, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Not disheartened at all - you've given me some direction. Now it's time to get going on it! --Owlsmcgee (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great :). I will mark the review as "failed" for the time being because I think it may take some time to nut out these changes. Please don't take this as discouraging, great articles often take some time to write. I look forward to a renomination in the future :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Women in Japan[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Women in Japan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Mainichi":

  • From Beate Sirota Gordon: "Beate Gordon, a drafter of Japan's Constitution, dies at 89". The Mainichi. January 01, 2013 (Mainichi Japan). Archived from the original on 2013-02-18. Retrieved 1 January 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • From Constitution of Japan: "Beate Gordon, a drafter of Japan's Constitution, dies at 89". The Mainichi. January 1, 2013. Retrieved January 1, 2013.[permanent dead link]

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add information in "Family life"[edit]

Add "support their husbands to work without any worries about family" in the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyi.zhu (talk • contribs) 06:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add information in "Education"[edit]

Add "With the development of society, more and more girls go to colleges to receive higher education". at the beginning of the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyi.zhu (talk • contribs) 06:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Women in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for "Three submissions"[edit]

@RFenergy: In this revert the claim is made that the term "three submissions" does not appear anywhere in the source. That exact phrase does appear in Cooper (2013). I don't know why you were unable to find it. It is on page 6: "There is a teaching in Japan that women should obey the “three submissions” rule". -- Whpq (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 2 weeks with no response. I will restore the edit. -- Whpq (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SANDWICH[edit]

Some images should be removed or relocated to abide by this policy. I'm hesitant to remove any because some of them are quite nice images, but letting others know this issue exists. toobigtokale (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women_in_Japan&oldid=1216426399"