User talk:Oda Mari

Goryo

Goryo was under Monogol domination for about 100 years out of a 500 year history, and even then, it was not under a direct Mongol rule unlike the Mongol Empire proper. Goryo kept its own King. By defining it as a "Client State of the Mongol Empire and later the Yuan Empire" immediately below its name, this feature gives the mistaken impression that Goryo was not an independent nation when it was in fact. This needs to be corrected. American history is about 400 years, of which 150 years were spent under British rule (this was a DIRECT rule). Do you think it would be fair to put a banner immediately below the name USA, "English colony for 150 years"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.137.227 (talk) 05:32, December 11, 2013

Joseon

I agree with the poster below. Joseon did indeed maintain a tributary relationship with Ming China, then with Qing China, and thus it would be technically accurate to call Joseon a client state of China for much of existence. However, that kind of a statement belongs in the text of the article, not at the top. To display that designation as a banner immediately below the name of the dynasty makes it THE defining feature of the dynasty, would be a serious distortion. Aside from the tributes (which was not in one direction but went both ways in the form of exchange of merchandise) and formalities (such as approval of coronation and of Crown Princes), the Joseon King ruled the country. Except for specific instances, the Chinese had minimal say in what went on in the country on a daily basis. From a practical perspective, entering the tributary system allowed Joseon to avoid damaging wars and concentrate on domestic issues. That it was a sensible strategy is demonstrated by the fact that Korean dynasties were far more stable than the Chinese dynasties.

I see that you are of Japanese nationality, and I request that you approach this without the bias you may have received from the Japanese school system. Japanese historians often disparage and belittle Joseon history, and I sense that you may be inclined to take a similar view. I ask that you achieve a balance: you want to convey the facts, but do not want to exaggerate and distort it, either. It is not whitewashing but striving for accuracy and fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.137.227 (talk) 06:14, December 11, 2013

Hi Oda Mari, This is the part that I was trying to make. Camouflaging Joseon dynasty as a tributary state is a bit too much of stretch, ,especially without a proper explanation about the Chinese imperial diplomacy relations at the time. Im pretty sure you will be able to find more accurate resources about this than portraying the entire dynasty as a puppet nation under the rule of Chinese empire. It is 'strongly] misleading. --Junohk (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Please use article talk page with RS. I think it is helpful to read the past talks. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I thought you asked me to leave it on your talk page. I will do that. Thanks.

Please do not add content or templates pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Joseon, without giving a proper explanation edit summary. Your constant editing does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Please use article talk page with RS. junohk (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joseon, you may be blocked from editing. Please see the talk page, this is misleading Junohk (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I see you mentioned the tributary relations in Goryeo's side bar. This needs a further discussion. for now, i will leave it as is. But this as all together has to be reviewed further. --Junohk (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm studying East Asian history at a local university and it seems like your argument of wrapping up the dynasty is misleading. Remember, tributary was a way in which East Asian nations used to trade with each other for economic and diplomatic peace. In your argument along with the current Japanese nationalists, Tsushima island and Edo Bakufu states are all under Korean Tributaries, which was not the case. Please be careful how you title historical states.--Chadlesch (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

About Joseon

I think this discussion is not finished yet.# So I hope to hear about your thoughts from the last discussion.- JARA7979 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2014 (KTC)

April 18, 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joseon. Please respect others' contributes Junohk (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This user has an issue of camouflaging historical facts, word playing, especially towards Korea-related historical articles.

On Joseon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) OhanaUnited , I think you are quite aware of WP:DTR.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Phoenix7777: Without going any further on WP:DTR being an essay and not a guideline/essay, {{uw-3RR}} is the suggested template on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

OhanaUnited . Yes, you are right. Before citing WP:DTR, I should have cited a policy. WP:EW#Handling of edit-warring behaviors says

A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a {{uw-3rr}} template message on their user talk page. (Emphasis added)

A seven year veteran editor should be deemed aware of WP:3RR. Your practice may not be in line with the Policy.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you miss this instruction on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, which clearly stated If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{uw-3RR}} on their user talk page. Oda Mari made 3RR in 2 hours (11:35, 18 April 2014‎, 12:25, 18 April 2014, 13:31, 18 April 2014‎) which leaves an awful lot of time in the remaining 24 hours that such a violation could potentially happen. This is standard procedure and I did not write this instruction. If you have issues regarding this instruction on the noticeboard, please consider taking it to the noticeboard's talk page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN3 is neither Policies nor guidelines like WP:Essay as you pointed out. WP:AN3 is simply a discussion, request and help venue based on the relevant policies and guidelines. The instruction in the noticeboard is merely a quick summary of the policy. Handling of edit-warring behaviors is described in depth in the policy WP:EW#Handling of edit-warring behaviors. It is clear that the policy take precedence over the instruction. If you continue to insist the instruction backs your behavior, your competence as an administrator is questioned. I suggest you to reread WP:EW again.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

PDF document on the Liceo Mexicano Japones

Oda Mari,

I received a PDF file of a document related to the Liceo Mexicano Japones. It may be an academic journal article or a page from a book. Is it okay if I e-mail the document to you, and then are you willing to post your analysis of the document on Wikipedia itself? (It can be on this talk page, a Wikipedia project page, or the location of your choice)

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it's OK. E-mail me the pdf file. Oda Mari (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I sent a Wikipedia e-mail. Please respond to it so I can send the PDF WhisperToMe (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Check your e-mail. Oda Mari (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the analysis! Unfortunately it doesn't sound like that page will help prove the notability of the article. I'm keeping you posted in case I run into anything else. I really appreciate what you've done WhisperToMe (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

Barnstar of Seven Year Diligence For your 7th anniversary of diligent work in Wikipedia ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a bit early, but I may forget to send this barnstar next month.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about Yokohama City College page on LMJ

Sorry to bother you again!

I found a page http://www.yokohama-cu.ac.jp/campuslife/mexico_fieldwork.html from the Yokohama City University which talks about "Mexico Fieldwork". What is the page about?

Also what is this page about? http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/kaidan/g_aso/me_csa_07/mxc_hm.html WhisperToMe (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please wait. I think I can answer...maybe tomorrow. Oda Mari (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for waiting.
Multi-cultual society studies majors' visited Mexico and they stayed/spent a night at home of the Liceo Mexicano Japones students' on the second day in Mexico. Next day, they taught Japanese culture to elementary to high school students at the school. The second link is about The Foreign Minister, Taro Aso's second, after 27 years, visit to the school in August, 2007. He donated manga on world history, Japanese history, science, and math. After watching Mexican dance by high school students, he talked with both Japanese and Mexican course students. Oda Mari (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mari! These links seem interesting, but I'm not sure if they can further prove notability. I'll look around and see what else I can find WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about book source

Mari,

I found on Google Books: 石附実, 鈴木正幸. 現代日本の教育と国際化. 福村出版, 1988. The results from inside the book say (See also the Search page):

• p. 5: "帰国子女の教育^人学校\「国内化」と「国際化」のパランス\「開かれた」日本人学校授業校と併存する日本人学校\一一ュョークでの調査/ ' - 1 ュー.ョーク日本「国際学級」をもった日本人学校の登場\国際学校,日本メキシコ学院/補習\「国内化」と「国際化」の間で\「 [...]"
• p. 110: "日本メキシコ学院設立に関する共同声明がこのことをよく日本メキシコ学院は、東南アジアの訪問で経済ア- 1 マルとして手きびしい出迎えをうけた田中元首幸雄「日墨学院の成立基盤とその問題点」『国際教育研究』〕 0 九五名、中学校一九五名、高校一〇八"
• p. 112: "また、音楽、図工、体育といった教科で合同授業もおこシドー一 I 日本人学校の場合も、日本メキシコ学院の場合も、その国際学級では五時間におよぶ日本人他の一つは現地人子弟を受け入れた「国際学級」における日本語および日本文化学習の重視である。"

What is the book saying about the school? Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

They are fragmentary phrases, and I cannot tell what they are. Only 日墨学院の成立基盤とその問題点 is understandable and it means "The foundation of the school and its problems". Oda Mari (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I see. Do you think there may be a possibility it has significant coverage of the subject, or is too little to tell? I wish I could see more of the book so I have a definite answer. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Some more fragmentary phrases (now searching with "日墨学院"):

Page 110 (Same one as the one above)

• 日本メキシコ学院設立に関する共同声明がこのことをよく日本メキシコ学院は、東南アジアの訪問で経済ア- 1 マルとして手きびしい出迎えをうけた田中元首幸雄「日墨学院の成立基盤とその問題点」『国際教育研究』〕 0 九五名、中学校一九五名、高校一〇八 ...

Page 111

• 別途設けられている日本文化コ—スが両者を橋渡しする役割をにな; :来、体育や音楽で、一部、合同授業もおこなわれているし、七九年には、必要に応じて図工でも合同て交流の場をもっていることである(「日墨学院.メキシコ日本人学校」「海外子女教育』)。

Page 283

• 竹多幸雄「日墨学院の成立基盤とその問題点」『国際教育研究』第 4 号,昭和 59 年 2 月, 5 - 6 ページ.「ナイロビ日本人学校」『海外子女教育』昭和 50 年 7 月号.「日墨学院'メキシコ日本人学校」『海外子女教育』昭和 53 年.二ユーヨーク日本クラプ教育委員会「

Is there anything you can tell from these? Is there a possibility that this source has significant coverage of the subject? I'll see if I can manipulate Google Books to complete the phrases (there may be tricks that work...) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I found a link with more of 111 (it also has some of 112)!

111: "メキシコ日本人学校」「海外子女教育』)。また、七七年以しメキシコ^コ I スと日本コ I スの協力関係をみると、「学校行事、通学パス、昼食など」をとおし界能力別クラス編成方式がとられている。メキシコ理解学習は月一回、年八回の時間をあてている。な中学"

112 (same as above 112): "また、音楽、図工、体育といった教科で合同授業もおこシドー一 I 日本人学校の場合も、日本メキシコ学院の場合も、その国際学級では五時間におよぶ日本人他の一つは現地人子弟を受け入れた「国際学級」における日本語および日本文化学習の重視である。"

So if you put 111 together:

• "別途設けられている日本文化コ—スが両者を橋渡しする役割をにな; :来、体育や音楽で、一部、合同授業もおこなわれているし、七九年には、必要に応じて図工でも合同て交流の場をもっていることである(「日墨学院.メキシコ日本人学校」「海外子女教育』)。また、七七年以しメキシコ^コ I スと日本コ I スの協力関係をみると、「学校行事、通学パス、昼食など」をとおし界能力別クラス編成方式がとられている。メキシコ理解学習は月一回、年八回の時間をあてている。な中学"

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I can "complete" 110 too:

• "教育研究』〕 0 九五名、中学校一九五名、高校一〇八名、日本コース、小学部二七二名、中学部五七名である(竹多三年)には、一二七五名に達している。その内訳は、メキシコ,コース、幼稚園一四八名、小学校四合わせて六六〇名の学院としてスター卜した。"

"Completed" 110:

• 日本メキシコ学院設立に関する共同声明がこのことをよく日本メキシコ学院は、東南アジアの訪問で経済ア- 1 マルとして手きびしい出迎えをうけた田中元首幸雄「日墨学院の成立基盤とその問題点」『国際教育研究』〕 0 九五名、中学校一九五名、高校一〇八名、日本コース、小学部二七二名、中学部五七名である(竹多三年)には、一二七五名に達している。その内訳は、メキシコ,コース、幼稚園一四八名、小学校四合わせて六六〇名の学院としてスター卜した。"

Based on the "completed" 110 and 111 are you able to get anything? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

As for page 110, I cannot tell anything. Page 111, it says "Some classes like physical education and music, both Japanese and Mexican course students, not always but sometimes, learn them together". Page 283 seems to be a list of ref., probably magazines. I don't think the book can be a helpful ref. of the school, but it depends on what kind of information you want to use. No, they are not "Completed". Still fragmental. Oda Mari (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to find if there is significant coverage in the book in order to prove notability. I found more fragments of 111.

• p. 111 also states: "な中学部では週一時間となっている。中学部は英会話に週二時間をあてている。スペイン語の指導にはのスベイン語教育およびメキシコ理解学習の機会が設けられている。スペイン語は小学部では週二"
• And another view of p. 111: "な中学部では週一時間となっている。中学部は英会話に週二時間をあてている。スペイン語の指導にはのスベイン語教育およびメキシコ理解学習の機会が設けられている。スペイン語は小学部では週二時間、本日本コースは日本の学習指導要領に ..."
• This view of p. 111: "な中学部では週一時間となっている。中学部は英会話に週二時間をあてている。スペイン語の指導にはのスペイン語教育およびメキシコ理解学習の機会が設けられている。スペイン語は小学部では週二時間、本日本コースは日本の学習指導要領にもとづき、"

So p. 111 together: * "別途設けられている日本文化コ—スが両者を橋渡しする役割をにな; :来、体育や音楽で、一部、合同授業もおこなわれているし、七九年には、必要に応じて図工でも合同て交流の場をもっていることである(「日墨学院.メキシコ日本人学校」「海外子女教育』)。また、七七年以しメキシコ^コ I スと日本コ I スの協力関係をみると、「学校行事、通学パス、昼食など」をとおし界能力別クラス編成方式がとられている。メキシコ理解学習は月一回、年八回の時間をあてている。な中学部では週一時間となっている。中学部は英会話に週二時間をあてている。スペイン語の指導にはのスベイン語教育およびメキシコ理解学習の機会が設けられている。スペイン語は小学部では週二時間、本日本コースは日本の学習指導要領にもとづき、" - Does that make things better?

Yes, I wish there was a way to see more of it...

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Better. But there are unfinished sentences. It is a detailed description about their education/classes. Junior high students learn en conversation twice a week. In es class, students are taught both the language and "understanding Mexico". Elementary school children learn es twice a week. Please wait for the rest of the translation. I've got to go. Oda Mari (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mari! I'll see if I can get any more of the book WhisperToMe (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can go the opposite direction:

• This view of 111: "石附実, 鈴木正幸 っている(竹多幸雄、同書)。授業をおこなうことにしている。別途設けられている日本文化コ—スが両者を橋渡しする"
• Also: p. 111:
• "また、七七年以しメキシコ^コ I スと日本コ I スの協力関係をみると、「学校行事、通学パス、昼食など」をとおし界能力別クラス編成方式が [...] コースは、シド一一 I 日本人学校の国際学級と同じように、メキシコの教育課程に従い、田幸雎「日墨学院,メキシコ日本人 [...]"

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Search view of p. 111: "コースは、シド一一 I 日本人学校の国際学級と同じように、メキシコの教育課程に従い、田幸雎「日墨学院,メキシコ日本人学校」『海外子女教育』〕 0 るメキシコ人になってください 0 また、メキシコのこともよくわかる日本人になってください」(竹開校式での小林理事 [...]" WhisperToMe (discusión) 02:57 3 may 2014 (UTC)

Total p. 111: "石附実, 鈴木正幸 っている(竹多幸雄、同書)。授業をおこなうことにしている。別途設けられている日本文化コ—スが両者を橋渡しする役割をにな; :来、体育や音楽で、一部、合同授業もおこなわれているし、七九年には、必要に応じて図工でも合同て交流の場をもっていることである(「日墨学院.メキシコ日本人学校」「海外子女教育』)。また、七七年以しメキシコ^コ I スと日本コ I スの協力関係をみると、「学校行事、通学パス、昼食など」をとおし界能力別クラス編成方式がとられている。メキシコ理解学習は月一回、年八回の時間をあてている。な中学部では週一時間となっている。中学部は英会話に週二時間をあてている。スペイン語の指導にはのスベイン語教育およびメキシコ理解学習の機会が設けられている。スペイン語は小学部では週二時間、本日本コースは日本の学習指導要領にもとづき、[...]コースは、シド一一 I 日本人学校の国際学級と同じように、メキシコの教育課程に従い、田幸雎「日墨学院,メキシコ日本人学校」『海外子女教育』〕 0 るメキシコ人になってください 0 また、メキシコのこともよくわかる日本人になってください」(竹開校式での小林理事[...]"

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I found more info about the book:

• Ishizuki, Minoru (石附実) and Masayuki Suzuki (鈴木正幸). Gendai Nihon no kyōiku to kokusaika (現代日本の教育と国際化). Fukumura Shuppan (福村出版), 1988. ISBN 457110538X. http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/208138 - Do you know if the authors are connected to the school in any way?
  • Someone concluded that there's no evidence Minoru Ishizuki had any connection to the school, citing his profile: http://educa.lit.osaka-cu.ac.jp/~soeda/nakami/papers_pdf/hikaku_kyouiku_fuzoku10_ishizuki_sensei.pdf

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional translation. Students share art class when needed. Students of two courses share school events, ride the same school bus/buses, and share the lunch hour (eat in the same hall?). Newly added ja sentences at 17:50 are the same fragmentary text you provided before. As the book was published in 1988, things mentioned in the book could have changed and they might be outdated information. As for Masayuki Suzuki, the name is too common and I couldn't prove his identity. Oda Mari (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I posted those notes to the Spanish AFD page. Anyway, when I write about Japanese schools on the English Wikipedia I do include information, but make sure to post dates it take the issue into account (for instance, I say, "As of 1998, the school ABCD" or "In February 1992, teacher John Smith said ABCD" - Many of the sources on the English Wikipedia that prove WP:GNG of nihonjin gakko in the USA date from the 1980s and 1990s, so much of the info is outdated WhisperToMe (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Busan(1592)

Please do not edit the inevitable fact anymore. Withdrawal of Japanese navy from their ships is fact and mentioning that item in the text is not a wrong thing. We claim victory but in fact it is an Korean victory. So, do not edit it anymore. Please respect other's contribution. Oda mari.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichrio Nazuki (talk • contribs) 03:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 

Battle's Win and Lose depend on Withdrawal of forces.

Then the battle of busan(1592) may be the lose of Japanese troop but it then have to be change as 'inconclusive'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichrio Nazuki (talk • contribs) 10:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)