Talk:Japanese School in Bucharest

Founding date
Founding date located here: http://www.jpschool.ro/school_information2011/gakkoyoran2013.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6MVBIWPQe WhisperToMe (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"付属" or "附属"
I don't believe that the expression politically attached is an appropriate translation of the Japanese word 付属 (ふぞく)−also written as 附属—especially as it is being used in the name of this school. The word fuzoku has many different meanings. For example, it can be used to mean accessories such the cords and other things that might come with home electronic equipment, etc. It can also be used more generally to express some kind of connection, affiliation  or attachment  between one thing and another, e.g., the relationship between this school and the embassy. This connection, however, does not have to be political; It can be structural, financial, or physical, etc. Moreover, it can also be of varying degrees. There is indeed probably some connection between the two, but my guess is that this has more to do with the school's choice of curriculum and educational standards than politics. In other words, the school is probably using a curriculum and following standards that are approved by the Japanese Government's Ministry of Education, Culture, Science and Technology (MEXT). That is why I think it's better to use the more neutral sounding affiliated (attached  is also OK, but not as good because it might be misinterpreted as implying some kind of physical attachment) in this case. If others disagree, then please discuss. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how reliable this site is, but it does seem to back-up my assertion about the school's curriculum. "定款または寄付行為にもとづく団体の目的と業務: ブカレストに在留する日本人子女に対し、国内に準じる初等中等普通教育をおこなう事を目的とする." The verb 準じる (じゅんじる) is often used in this context to indicate that certain standards, rules, etc are being applied in principle, i.e., they are not strictly applied, but rather adapted to a certain degree to fit the particular situation. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is links
Hi,

Many of the inline citations used in the article are linked to "archive.is" pages because the original links are no longer active. Linking to archived links is usually an OK thing to do, but linking to "archive.is" is not currently allowed on Wikipedia per both WP:Link rot and this RFC. Removing the "archive.is" links with was correct, but removing the entire citation was not. Re-adding the removed citations with was correct, but the "archive.is" links were accidentally re-added as well. The thing to do, in my opinion, is to remove the "archive.is" links and add dead link templates as needed per WP:Link rot; This keeps the original links, but let's people know there are a problem with them. FWIW, using "archive.is" links is somewhat controversial and there is a currently ongoing RFC which may lead to them being OK to use once again; Until that time, however, they should not be used. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Do these sources really satisfy WP:RS?
I have been looking at the sources used to cite information in this article and I am wondering if the following ones actually satisfy WP:RS. This is a link to the school's homepage which makes it a primary source. Primary sources can be used to cite material as long as they satisfy WP:RS and they are just used to cite particular facts and not offer interpretations. I think this is just being used to show what the name of the school is so it seems to qualify per WP:SELFSOURCE, but I am not sure why an archive link has also been added. If the point of this citation is to show the name of the school and the original link is still active, then there is no need for the archive link. If the point of this citation is to show show something other than the name, perhaps something exceptional about the school, then it is not suitable according to WP:SELFSOURCE. Another problem is that the same link used to cite information in the article is also given as an external link. WP:ELPOINTS #2 says that this is something that should not be normally done. This is actually two citations in one since there is a link to a map showing the location of the school. Not sure if this is appropriate, but I'm pretty sure that this also doesn't need to be archived since the original link is still active. If the actual location is important to the article's understanding then maybe MOS:COORDS should be used to add that information directly to the article instead. This is another primary source that seems to be unnecessarily archived because the original link is still active.
 * 1) ホーム." (Archive) Japanese School in Bucharest. Retrieved on 5 February 2014. "Str.Erou Iancu Nicolae, Nr.91E, Localitatea Voluntari, Judetul Ilfov, ROMANIA"
 * 1) Home page (Archive). Japanese School in Bucharest. 31 March 2001. Retrieved on 9 February 2014. "Str.A.Constantinescu nr.61 sector1 Cod.713261 Bucharest ROMANIA"
 * 1) HPtitle.jpg (Archive). Japanese School in Bucharest. Retrieved on January 20, 2014. "在ルーマニア日本国大使館付属ブカレスト日本人学校" ("Attached to the Japanese Embassy in Romania Bucharest Japanese School") This is another primary source, but this is for a jpeg.file used on the school's official homepage. Again, this seems to be cited to show the school's official name. Why this is necessary I do not now, since that is what Nos. 1 and 2 above are supposed to do and because it is essentially a link to the same official homepage as No. 1. This is also archived for reasons I don't quite understand since the original link still appears to be active. Most importantly, this actually seems like more of an image than a source and, therefore, may be subject to WP:NFC. Is it possible that this could be considered a copyright violation in some way?

Of the above three the one I am concerned about the most is No. 3. It doesn't seem to do anything but show the Japanese name of the school which is more that adequately done by both Nos. 1 and 2. Moreover, the fact that it is a link to a jpeg file makes me concerned about possible copyright violations. Nos. 1 and 2 are primary sources which seem to be OK, but I am not sure why they are being archived, unless they are trying to cite something more than simple facts such as the school's name or location. If they are, then they might not satisfy WP:SELFSOURCE. Furthermore, it doesn't seem appropriate to list them as references and then relist them again as external links. One time either way should be sufficient.

One final thing I like to point out is the format be used to cite these. Some of these links are to non-English sites which is perfectly OK. I think, however, it is easier to do this if templates are used. It makes it easier to keep date formats, etc. consistent. It also makes it easier to add translations for webpage or article titles, etc. Just a suggestion.

Anyway, I am interested in hearing what others might have to say. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Source No. 3
Based upon this discussion at the Wikipedia Reliable sources/Noticeboard it does not appear the No. 3 (the jpeg source) satisfies the criteria for reliable sources. Even if the jpeg does show the school's name, it is impossible to verify this because no context is provided. I can read Japanese and tell you what that jpeg says, but I can't say that it verifies anything at all about the school. Moreover, the same information can be gotten from the other references, so the jpeg is unnecessary. WP:PSTS says the following about primary sources "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." There is pretty much no way any educated person who does not speak Japanese (i.e., does not possess "specialized knowledge") could look at this jpeg and verify anything other than it is not written in English. Therefore, I have removed it for being unreliable. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read the following and I will give my reply:
 * 1. The time to archive links is before they go dead because there is always the possibility that web.archive.org somehow doesn't pick them up. I had a discussion similar to this at Talk:Edward_Snowden/Archive_6 and it's clear the best practice is to archive (see Link_rot). If they are not necessary to display on the actual article citations they should be documented on the talk page.
 * 2. "Moreover, the fact that it is a link to a jpeg file makes me concerned about possible copyright violations." - In order for there to be a copyright violation, the content has to actually be hosted on another website. Simply linking to it is not violating their copyright.
 * 3. I'm perfectly fine with the use of citation templates. I don't personally use them, but I'm okay if citation templates replace the manual text that I use.
 * As for whether it is appropriate to use a JPEG in this manner, it appears there was further discussion in the thread Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_175 - User:Zero0000 said: "A link directly to a jpeg containing text is not a reliable source because it doesn't establish the reliability of its publication process. On the other hand, a jpeg containing text that appears displayed on a web page is just as reliable as the other text on the web page. Lots of websites use images to display text in fancy fonts or colors, that doesn't make the text unreliable. But the citation should point at the web page, not directly at the image, and an argument for reliability should be based on the nature of the web page." - So the solution could be to cite the page itself and not only the image that has the name in it.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding sooner. Using archive links is fine as you say, but if you are going to do so then I think you should also supply the original link, even if it is no longer active, as well as the "archivedate" and "accessdate", etc. per WP:PLRT and WP:DEADREF. So for reference No. 2, I think the original link ( http://www.jpschool.ew.ro/) should also be mentioned in the citation along with the "accessdate" and the "archivedate".
 * Regarding the jpeg file, I agree with what wrote, but I also agree with  who wrote If the banner only says the school's name, then no it doesn't support the text in question any more than the name itself does. earlier in the same discussion. In my opinion, using the jpeg or even the name as given on the school's official web page to cite the school's name and it's connection with the Embassy of Japan in Bucharest seems a bit of a stretch per WP:PSTS. I think another source which refers to the connection between the school and the Japanese Government is needed and preferred instead. This is just my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean with reference #2. The archive page is what I originally consulted, and based on the web.archive.org archive URL one can find the original URL. However if you want to use a new citation template which shows the original URL along with the archive one I'm perfectly fine with that! WhisperToMe (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You can add the "archivedate", "accessdate", "archiveurl" or any other of the parameters found in citation templates without actually using a template if you prefer. Templates just make sure the format is the same for each citation, but that can be done manually if you want. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One clarification: I objected to the .jpeg solely because it contained only one line of text (the school's name) and that line did not support the Wikipedia article text that was then in question, not because it isn't in English. Per WP:TRANSCRIPTION and WP:NONENG, non-English sources are allowed, and reading in Japanese would not be considered specialist knowledge. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification . I apologize if I misrepresented what you wrote. My issue is no longer with the Japanese, rather it's simply that I'm not sure whether the name of the school needs to be separately cited at all. The school's association with the embassy is implied in its "official" name so I'm not sure anything else needs to be done. If, however, a citation is to be added to support this association than I think it would be preferable to use another source which actually refers to this association, if such a source can be found, rather than simply using the name of the school to cite itself. Something like the "Tuitions and financing from the Ministry of Education, Japan" written here or "How it is financed: From Japanese government and fees." from here might be better. Again, this is just my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Old website
http://web.archive.org/web/20010722070418/http://www.jpschool.ew.ro/ is an old website of the school but it's blocked by robots.txt :( WhisperToMe (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)