|
I have understood that ''nori no miya sayako naishinnō denka'''s translation would be: Sayako, female prince (=princess) suo jure of princedom Nori. (As far as anything can be translated fully.) Am I correct in trusting that the abovesaid Japanese wording is in use of her in Japan? (or, why is it mentioned in the text??)<br>Based on this, my proposition for her article heading is [[Sayako, Princess Nori]] [[User:217.140.193.123|217.140.193.123]] 9 July 2005 10:53 (UTC)
===[[Gay Nigger Association of America]]===
This is partly a self nomination. There are no facts in the article that are not referenced, and this is a detailed and comprehensive view of the GNAA.
== Birth rate nonsense ==
'''Please note!''' ''featured articles'' are '''not''' necessarily [[main page]] articles! Objects must be actionable, so if you dislike the GNAA and wish to object solely based on this criteria, your objection will be discounted.
"Sayako has quit her job as an ornithologist in order to focus on her family life and potential motherhood, a decision commonly encouraged in Japanese society due to its falling birth rate." Due to its falling birth rate?? Tradtional values maybe. If this is an official statement from Kuroda or the Imperial family please say so. Otherwise, get rid of "due to its falling birth rate".
[[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 06:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support.''' I have been working with Ta bu on this one, and we took the trolling out and made this article into something special. I do agree that this article '''should not''' appear on the front page. It will be asking for trouble. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 06:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
: Well Japan's shrinking population is a fact, and the idea that Japanese women are encouraged to forgoe professional careers in favour of motherhood is not total conjecture either. This was the article that motivated me to add that, just to be clear: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1115/p06s01-woap.html --[[User:Clngre|Clngre]] 16:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Object.''' This is ''way'' too short for a featured article. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 07:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
**'''This is not a valid, actionable objection.''' Read '''[[Wikipedia:What is a featured article]]''': featured articles need only be comprehensive and '''not too long/detailed''' (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). If you think it is too short, you must specify what has been left out, and it must be something that can actually be added to the article (ie: it has been previously documented). --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:: Speaking as someone who's studied Japanese in Japan, that claim is not total nonsense, but it does not belong in this encyclopedic article. In particular, it oversimplifies Japanese culture. So, I have removed it. --[[User:LostLeviathan|LostLeviathan]] 18:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
***'''This is an entirely actionable objection''' if you had bothered or were capable of reading all of four lines down (''The activities section is a collection of random trivia about a few incidents; I know enough about the GNAA to know that they've been responsible for a lot more than that. Methods, etc - the everyday stuff (which they're a lot more well known for, IMHO) - there really is a lot more that could be said. And that's most of the article. Membership says nothing about numbers in total, active members, where they organise. There is no history section at all. The "background information" section is part history, and the rest should be merged into the lead section. Furthermore, any details of reactions to GNAA are mishmashed in with the random activities, and could well have a detailed section of their own'') [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 00:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
****I was replying to your original objection, which consisted solely of "This is ''way'' too short for a featured article." --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 01:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
::: Ok, good point, I agree. --[[User:Clngre|Clngre]] 18:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
**I think you should specify exactly what information you're missing, or at least I would consider the objection inactionable. /[[User:Karmosin|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Karmosin|Isotalo]]</sup> 07:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
**What information is missing? The length is only a problem if stuff is missing. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
== "left the Imperial Family" ==
***The activities section is a collection of random trivia about a few incidents; I know enough about the GNAA to know that they've been responsible for a lot more than that. Methods, etc - the everyday stuff (which they're a lot more well known for, IMHO) - there really is a lot more that could be said. And that's most of the article. Membership says nothing about numbers in total, active members, where they organise. There is no history section at all. The "background information" section is part history, and the rest should be merged into the lead section. Furthermore, any details of reactions to GNAA are mishmashed in with the random activities, and could well have a detailed section of their own. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 10:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
**I'd add that the article is not that much shorter than [[Heavy metal umlaut]], over half of which is a list of sightings. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 22:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Object'''What Unlikelydoes everit tomean meetthat she "left the stabilityImperial criterionFamily"? - plus all those VfDs!!! [[User:Jguk130.232.65.174|jguk130.232.65.174]] 0716:2812, 3015 JulyNovember 2005 (UTC)
**'''This is not a valid, actionable objection.''' Read '''[[Wikipedia:What is a featured article]]''', where it clearly states that "stability" refers to the edit history (ie: no edit/POV wars), and not petty vandalism or VFDs which do not change the article's contents (plus, there will not be any more VFDs). --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:Because she married a commoner, she is no longer in the line of succession. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 17:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
**The VFD's have been stopped, and plus (surprising enough), the last additions to the article mainly deal with the hoax related to Harry Potter. Though I do agree it is short, there is nothing much we can add that can be considered factual and could borderline on trolling. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 07:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
**Really? Article is very stable. The only thing not stable was a short disputed sentence and the fact that I think the logo is notable enough to include in the article. That's about it really. As for VfDs - well, there will be no more of those. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
:It means that she must forfeit her royal title, forfeit her right to a royal allowance, and leave the royal palace. At this time, women are not permitted to assume the royal throne in Japan and therefore she was never in the line of succession.
*'''Object.''' '''24''' foot notes for a ''very'' short article. I know we all like referencing and notes, but this is going overboard. It's disruptive to any reader that isn't used to notes (the overwhelming majority) and will annoy anyone who's used footnotes enough to know that an average of one note per sentence is nothing short of disruptive (most academics). Keep the objective in mind here, everyone; it's an encyclopedia article, not a paper. /[[User:Karmosin|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Karmosin|Isotalo]]</sup> 07:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
**'''This is not a valid, actionable objection.''' Read '''[[Wikipedia:What is a featured article]]''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Is she still allowed contact with the Imperial Family, and perhaps attending the occasional Imperial event? --[[User:Madchester|Madchester]] 18:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
***'''This is entirely actionable.''' A featured article must follow the style standards of the rest of the encyclopedia, and having seven references in a not particularly disputed paragraph is just not done on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of academic papers. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
**Unactionable objection. The objection is also contrary to [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]. I must say, this is the first time I've every heard anyone complain of too ''many'' references. However, if you don't like notes, then may I suggest that you check out how to hide them by going to [[Template talk:Ref]]? - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
:As far as I know, she will not "openly" contact the Imperial Family but occasionally may attend events when invited. This contact issue is a result of the current constitution that basically forbids the Imperial Family from taking a political position. Suppose her husband (or herself) runs for a seat in congress (unlikely but possible) and reveals his political view a day (or week, month, year, decade, even century) after she met with the Imperial Family. It will be impossible to argue that there was no discussion of politics. Japanese will then be inclined to support his view out of respect for the Imperial Family (compare with how a Catholic in general would support Pope's view) and arguing against would be impossibly hard. Anyway, except for occasional events when a chance encounter is possible, she will not have contact that we will know of. -- [[User:Revth|Revth]] 03:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
***It is ''not'' contrary to [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]. It's not being argued that there shouldn't be references, but instead that this is an insane number, even for an academic paper. Thus it is very actionable. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 09:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
****Sorry?! Every fact has been disputed at some point, so every fact has been referenced. Ambi, this is ''not'' an actionable objection! For the record, however, which of the sources would ''you'' remove? - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 10:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Hm. If she has a son, will he be considered outside the royal line of succession? --[[User:Brasswatchman|Brasswatchman]] 21:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
*****As an example, why on earth do we need ''seven'' references to illustrate one small incident about releasing Apple screenshots? This is excessive. Not to mention that I think it's pretty damned rude to go around declaring every objection unactionable before making any attempt to fix it. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 10:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
******Rude huh? Sorry you feel that way. However, what's wrong with the 7 references? If you've been paying attention, everything about this article ''was'' controversial and ''all'' activities were disputed, so this is why there are so many references. This was demanded, and so this was provided. As for "fixing" what I consider ''unactionable'' - just exactly how did you think I was going to do ''that''?!? - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 10:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, current laws will keep anyone who does not retain the title to be outside succession. -- [[User:Revth|Revth]] 03:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
*******Perhaps if you'd actually thought about the objection before denouncing it as unactionable. I know the article was controversial, but don't you think ''seven'' references for one small incident is a bit of overkill? [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 11:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
********This is just as actionable as saying there are too many pictures in an article. Any reference that exists solely because of dispute on the talkpage should be looked over for example. /[[User:Karmosin|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Karmosin|Isotalo]]</sup> 15:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
== "the Imperial Family" ==
**I removed some redundant references already from the article. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 07:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
***I would say this is not so much "unactionable" as "shouldn't be acted on". Would that more of our articles were so strongly referenced. This actually has the apparatus to let someone verify it. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 21:08, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Was she to marry within the Imperial Family, or is there more than one Imperial Family in Japan? This does not seem fair to me. We all are people of God, what right is it that some demand to be imperial to others. Like bush.
****That other articles are poorly referenced doesn't excuse the fact that this article is over-referenced. If an article is over-referenced it makes it harder to actually concentrate on the information that is relevant. And I really don't like this suggestion that eventhough the objection is actionable, it should be ignored; that's just bad manners as well as a bad precedent. /[[User:Karmosin|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Karmosin|Isotalo]]</sup> 10:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Is she still allowed to go to family functions and holidays? I guess some people (her husband) are not allowed to move up in the world.
*****The thing Ta bu is trying to say is that whatever event or thing the GNAA pulled off, we have to reference it or people will consider the page is just being used for trolling. Of course, we could send some references to the external links section of the article. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 23:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
:And of course someone has to pull the "People of God" crap. She probably left on her own accord, seeing as how the article doesn't mention any hoopla being thrown by her family. I think they normally marry members of government, diplomats or people higher on the social ladder.--[[User:Kross|Kross]] | [[User talk:Kross|Talk]] 18:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
******Why? The Apple incident needs one reference. It doesn't need seven for people to realise that it happened. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
*<s>'''Object'''. The image [[:Image:Gnaa.png]] is used under "fair use". As such, the current copyright owner needs to be listed on the description page, and a rationale as to why it can be used under "fair use" needs to be provided for each page that the image is used on.</s> --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 08:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
:One other possibility that occured to me reading this article: is it possible that this is just the way that the Imperial Family works? That daughters are considered to "marry out" of the household, while sons stay in the same household? That would fit with what I know of some traditional Asian cultures. I would appreciate it if someone who knew more about traditional Japanese culture would weigh in. --[[User:Brasswatchman|Brasswatchman]] 21:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
:Fixed. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 08:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
::You're right, according to [[Japanese_Imperial_Family#Living_former_members_of_the_imperial_family|this]], they lose their titles as soon as they get hitched.--[[User:Kross|Kross]] | [[User talk:Kross|Talk]] 22:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Meets all the criteria for a FA, is well written, appears stable from the history... just because I don't like the GNAA don't mean I can't support an article about them on Wikipedia. (Vote by [[User:WegianWarrior]] on 03:54, 30 July 2005).
*'''Object'''. Too short for a FA and too many references (yes, this is an actionable objection, because it makes the article hard to read). Also violates the third rule of what a featured article is: (''"Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy, and not have ongoing edit wars (see [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]])."'') In all honesty, this reads lke an advertisment for a troll organization rather than an featurable article. The fact that it's been nominated as an FAC could be looked at as an act of trolling itself. --[[User:FuriousFreddy|FuriousFreddy]] 18:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
:.........I smell a Disney movie plot. All it needs is a talking animal played by a black comedian and it'll be perfect. [[User:Keaton|Keaton]] | [[User talk: Keaton|Keaton]] 7:32PM 11/15/05
**'''This is not a valid, actionable objection.''' Read '''[[Wikipedia:What is a featured article]]''': featured articles need only be comprehensive and '''not too long/detailed''' (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). If you think it is too short, you must specify what has been left out, and it must be something that can actually be added to the article (ie: it has been previously documented). Also read '''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources]]'''.--{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
***'''This::So istrue, an actionable objection'''Keaton, perso whattrue... I saidLOL! above. [[Dismas]]|[[User talk:AmbiDismas|Ambi<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 0009:5743, 116 AugustNovember 2005 (UTC)
**'''Object to objection''' as I asked Ambi, the length of this article will only be a problem if information is missing. Also object to being called a troll, when I am clearly ''not''. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 23:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
**The article is not that much shorter than [[Heavy metal umlaut]], over half of which is a list of sightings. Circeus 22:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
==So it's because he's a commoner or not?==
***[[Heavy metal umlaut]] would not hold up to current FAC requirements: it's short, almost all lists, and has no references or citations. It became featured during a period when FAC requirements were dirfferent.--[[User:FuriousFreddy|FuriousFreddy]] 22:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The sentence "These changes in her status are demanded by a 1947 law that requires female members of the Imperial Family to relinquish their birth position, official membership in the royal family, and allowance upon their marriage." makes it sound like '''any''' marriage would mean that the women would have to leave the Imperial Family. So just to make sure I understand this, is it because she married a "commoner" or is it because she simply married anyone that she has to leave the Family? [[Dismas]]|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 09:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Most, if not all of these objections are objectionable. —[[user:Radman1|'''RaD Man''']] ([[User_talk:Radman1|''talk'']]) 18:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Object'''. While I don't agree at all with the constant calls for deletion of this page, I don't think it's Wikipedia's best work. I agree with Ambi's objections above (which '''are''' actionable). It would be interesting to note whether GNAA has objections to file-sharing/blogging/internet forums (as one source seems to indicate) or whether they're just having fun. [[User:harry491|Dave]] [[User_talk:harry491|(talk)]] 20:27, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
The 1947 Imperial Household Law states that if a female member of the imperial family (a naishinnō or an nyoō) marries anyone other than the emperor or another male member of the imperial family, she will automatically lose her status as a member of the imperial family. The issue of princess marrying within the imperial family has not arisen since the 1947 law went into effect because the membership of the imperial family was effectively limited to the male line descendants of Emperor Taishō. Only two of that emperor's four sons, Emperor Shōwa and Prince Mikasa, had children and grandchildren. There simply is no pool of potential husbands among the current imperial family members (22 people).
**This objection is actionable in part (wrt file-sharing/blogging/internet forums), provided that such information does indeed exist, which is unlikely. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
***This objection is entirely actionable. I laid out problems with most of the article which still haven't been fixed, and I think information on their motivations is kind of crucial. I'd be very surprised if there isn't any information about it around, considering the amount of GNAA material around. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Chapter III, Article 14 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan states, "Peers and peerage shall not be recognized." There are only two classes of Japanese recognized by this constitution: (1) the members of the imperial family, and (2) all other Japanese citizens. Therefore, even the descendants of the Meiji era kazuko (peerage) and the miyake (imperial collateral lines) are legally commoners. [[User: Jeff]] 07:25, 16 November 2005
*'''Object'''. It's too short, and I would like to read about the life of members of the GNAA - this tells us all about what it does, but how do its members decide what it does in the first place? [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 22:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
:So wouldn't it be rather incestuous for her to marry one of the Imperial Family? [[Dismas]]|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 20:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
**'''This is not a valid, actionable objection'''. Read '''[[Wikipedia:What is a featured article]]''': featured articles need only be comprehensive and '''not too long/detailed''' (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). If you think it is too short, you must specify what has been left out, and it must be something that can actually be added to the article (ie: it has been previously documented). As stated below, these people are anonymous and any speculation about who they are or what their motives are would be [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
::The imperial family is huge. All royal families have long traditions of marrying distant (and not-so-distant) cousins. When you have a single imperial family tree that has lasted for two millennia, you have a lot of branches. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 21:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
***'''Once again, this is perfectly actionable if Brian reads past ''it's too short'''''. What about ''I would like to read about the life of members of the GNAA - this tells us all about what it does, but how do its members decide what it does in the first place'' don't you understand, Brian? It is pertinent information - we have virtually nothing in this article about how they work. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
**How:::Okay, exactlyone doof you wantsays usthat tothe doImp. thisFam. whenis they22 aremembers allstrong, (verythe deliberately)other anonymous?says Ifit's I"huge" ''did''with writelots something,of itbranches. would beI'm originalstill researchconfused.... - [[Dismas]]|[[User:Ta bu shi da yutalk:Dismas|Ta bu shi da yu<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 2319:4532, 3117 JulyNovember 2005 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. <s>'''Neutral'''. In the lead, it says the name was chosen because people are still uncomfortable talking about gays, and because "nigger" is a slur, but then it later says the name was derived from the movie ''Gayniggers from Outer Space''. If this is sufficiently clarified in the article, assume I support.</s> It's an informative look at trolling techniques and the internet's methods for stopping them. For those opposed to it's supposed shortness, read '''[[Wikipedia:What is a featured article]]''': featured articles need only be comprehensive and '''not too long/detailed''' (the policy says nothing about an article being too short, just too long/detailed). --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 05:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Maybe I'm wrong. Shrug. Ask them. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 20:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
*'''Object''' - The article does not discuss the motivations of the group. Without this information, reading the article is unsatisfying. [[User:Cedars|Cedars]] 12:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
**IIRC, it does say their motivations are unknown, which, unless someone on Wikipedia is able to find one of them and have a sit-down interview, I think it will remain true that their motivations are unknown. If this is correct, then there is no more information that can be added, so it would be complete. In other words, your objection is not valid/actionable. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 16:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::Golbez, the Japanese Royal Family ''did'' have collateral branches. If you'd read Jeff's earlier post, you'd know that these lines lost their royal status after 1947, as well as the former peerage (nobles like dukes, counts, barons, etc.). A woman traditionally takes the status of her husband upon marriage, which would mean that an Imperial princess must marry of equal rank to keep her title.
***What makes you so sure that there is no information around? The GNAA has been on the internet for years, and I'd be very surprised if they hadn't talked about their motivations ''somewhere''. Just because you're too lazy to research an objection does not make it unactionable. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
*<s>Symbolic object</s> on the grounds that I feel this should not be an article at all, although I am aware that is an invalid grounds for objection. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 23:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::Unless she marries into one of the other royal families of East Asia, which would require adopting a whole new culture and language, it is easier for an Imperial princess to marry commoners and lose their status. There is no nobility in Japan and there are no other Imperial princes to marry short of commiting incest. In short, unless a person is a legitimate male-line descendant of Emperor Taisho (and unmarried for women), they are a commoner. -- [[User:65.92.149.147|65.92.149.147]] 04:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
**Then you'll be fine with me crossing it out :) {{User:Brian0918/sig}} 23:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
*'''Objection''' - The article is about a small group of Internet trolls: it is barely worthy of an entry separate from [[Slashdot]] in the Wikipedia, let alone featured article status. A number of the external links that either broken seem to be broken at the moment or go to advertising messages or "register with our site" text rather than good credible sources. The article doesn't appear to represent Wikipedia's best work. --[[User:Mysidia|Mysidia]] 00:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
== A japanese princess has married a commoner ==
*#[http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2005-January/030506.html]
*#[http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=724028]
Hooray! -Patrick Beverley
**'''This is not a valid, actionable objection''' for obvious reasons. At most it could be a weak/minor objection with respect to the external link problems, but two bad external links does not a featured article not make... or something like that.... --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 00:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
***I think that this is the worst behaviour from article nominators that I have ''ever'' seen on FAC. The whole idea of objections is to see that they're fixed so the article can become a better FA, not to try and find reasons for discounting them (which here amounts all too often to "I can't be bothered fixing them"). If you want the objection to be dealt with, '''fix the external links issue'''. It would take you all of two minutes. But then again, you'd rather declare it inactionable because you can't be bothered, like you have with all of the rest of these. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 01:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
| 