Talk:Good Luck Flag

Effort to Return Flags to Japanese Families
I am concerned about the efforts of IP 114.31.218.104 to remove the sourced content regarding the return of flags to bereaved families, which IP 114.31.218.104 has replaced with unsourced content that puts the work of OBON 2015 in a negative light that I feel is unjustified. Without any citations, these changes appear to me to be opinion rather than fact.

Because I feel that the removal of sourced content isn't appropriate, I've replaced the unsourced content with the sourced content whenever IP 114.31.218.104 has edited it. I am not very experienced as a Wikipedia editor, and a more experienced editor has now pointed out to me that both IP 114.31.218.104 and I have violated the "three-revert rule" and that we have been engaging in an "edit war." I definitely don't want to violate Wikipedia policy! That editor suggested to me that I follow the advice in the article "Wikipedia: Reverting" to "try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor." I have now done that, leaving IP 114.31.218.104's content untouched except to note where citations are needed, then adding the sourced content at the end of the paragraph. I hope this will solve the problem, at least temporarily. In the long run, I hope that if IP 114.31.218.104 cannot provide citations, the unsourced content can be removed permanently. June 25th 2014 --Koshihikari (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

After I opened this discussion, IP 114.31.218.104 again reverted to the same unsourced content I had hoped could be avoided. Here is the content IP 114.31.218.104 changed, which I wrote in an attempt to promote consensus:

[OBON 2015 [5][6] is an organization with the mission to return all Yosegaki Hinomaru to their families in Japan by August (OBON) of 2015, which marks the 70th anniversary of the end of the war. To date they have returned ten flags and have many other flags they're currently working on returning. The more religiously inclined may see the flag as an unclean object with bad luck attached to it[citation needed]. A returned flag can actually cause a family a financial burden in some instances as they will have to pay for a Shinto ritual cleansing of their home[citation needed]. This cleaning is called harae (祓) and is the general term for rituals of purification in Shinto. Thus returned flags may end up thrown away or sold to collectors[citation needed]. Responsible parties should contact the family in private to see if they want the flag returned. If the family prefers not to have the flag returned or cannot be contacted then donating it to Yasukuni Shrine or the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare would make the best alternative. While some hold the opinion that returning these flags to family members of the soldiers has negative consequences, published news stories and interviews indicate that the effort to return these flags is seen as a humanitarian act which can provide closure for the family members.[7][8][9][10]]

I hope that this dispute can be resolved quickly, because it distresses me to see this negative, unsourced content remain in the article. June 26th 2014--Koshihikari (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have done some copy editing on this article and have been watching the edit war between IP 114.31.218.104 and Koshihikari. I believe that Koshihikari's sourced content is correct and should be reintroduced without any of the unsourced content from IP 114.31.218.104. That unsourced content does not seem to me to be verifiable, since it depends on vague words like "may " and "can". I applaud Koshihikari's attempt at a compromise version, but in the long run it would be better to remove the unsourced content completely. Ailemadrah (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As of 2021, the section about the OBON Society reads like an advertisement for that organization. I get that many people respect and value the work that they do, but the wording is over the top. May I suggest someone rewrite this? BigBureaucracy (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * - I didn't feel the wording was especially over the top, but I have trimmed down some of the more extraneous details, reworked the ordering of some of it - I just think it hadn't had a decent reshuffle in a while - and given the article a once-over for proper tags and proper  usage. I hope that's resolved the issue. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)