Talk:Kuroneko

Kuroneko
Kuroneko also appears as the name of a small, randomly appearing, black cat in the Japanese animation, Trigun.

is there a page for this chracter or a page for List of Trigun characters? It could be added as a link here. Andrzejbanas 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also Kuroneko (singer). I consider that the page "Kuroneko" needs to be disambiguated, for this word is a common noun which indicates general black cats.Nemsirp (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

original story?
According to an interview, this is based on a story called "The Cat's Revenge". I think it is Saga no bakeneko, maybe? Anyone? JoshuSasori (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's that one, because that one has a very specific time period. Can't see it at work but according to what I could read when I searched on Google for "猫の復讐" "藪の中の黒猫", [viva2ch.net/occult/1259823872.html this forum (?)] contains a discussion of something resembling this issue. Apparently there are a lot of stories with "the cat's revenge" as a theme. I believe I read the same interview as you in my Eureka booklet. I wish they had included something more specific, like a Japanese title. When I first read it I still hadn't seen the Ghibli film so I thought the two might both be inspired by the same 猫の恩返し!!
 * Anyway since we have the director himself saying he was at least partly inspired by it, and another source distinctly claims the film was loosely based on it, this would probably go well with the "cultural influences" section. If only we could get some more information (a Japanese source...) on this!!
 * (Also, I supposed it would be OR to include my theory that Tim Burton's Batman Returns and Pitof's Catwoman took the idea of a woman who gains cat-powers from dying and being reborn after being come upon by cats from this movie??)
 * ((Although I do actually believe that, I have no interest in putting it in the article. I wrote it here as a joke.))
 * elvenscout742 (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just asked my grandmother about the cat's revenge story (it's her career to write about the political symbolism of clothes in classic Shinto folklore). She doesn't think it's possible to identify Shindo's inspiration, not unless Shindo cited it, because there are "hundreds" of vengeful-cat variations out there. People heard many of those while growing up. She however says there's no samurai in the original vengeful-cat story, commonly known as "The Cat-like Maiden of Mutsu" (a cat breathes life into a young woman, allowing her to return to life and seek revenge on a wealthy landowner's son who had beaten, raped and killed her). It generated hundreds of variations of the Maiden story since.
 * The original samurai/cat story, a variation of the Maiden story, appeared as part of a grassroots political protest/movement, originating in "farming islands" like Honshu, Kyushu or Shikoku, against the ruling clans that were basically bleeding farmers dry.
 * The original story: a clan terrorises various farming communities by imposing heavy taxes on them to pay their own, using their resources without payment, etc. A farmer takes a stand. They rape his wife and two daughters in front of him as punishment, then kill him and take daughters with them. The wife kills herself in despair. She returns to life that night as a monster cat, to avenge her husband's death and to free her daughters. She enters each of the guilty's homes, and tears each one apart with claws and teeth. This original Samurai/cat story produced many variations in its own right.
 * The Maiden story has roots in what she deems "classic Shinto folklore"; basically an attack on gluttony (power, sex or violence). The Samurai story is an attack on those who abuse their positions of power.
 * Basically, she says, you're out of luck if there is no mention of a location in the "cat's revenge" story anywhere in Shindo's written works. Almost all original variations are identified by geographical mentions, e.g. the Cat of Sado Island, the Ghost Cat of Kamakura, etc. I think you already know this, though.
 * However, she believes that if you research the primary residence/location of Shindo's formative years, you'll probably find a local version of the vengeful-cat story, which would probably be the one he heard. 0zero9nine (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we've been told in a few places that the film is a "loose adaptation". Does this mean that the time and place have been altered? If that's the case then we really are out of luck. However, the film is set in 10th or possibly early 11th century Kyoto (see my last post below about Wikilinks for my reasoning here). If the setting itself remained intact, then that's a pretty narrow range. Additionally, given how all the English sources make some mention of the folktale, it seems unlikely that Shindo or someone else involved with the film didn't write that down somewhere. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not looking great so far. The problem with the book for our purposes is that it's a collection of general diary entries, and the chapter called Yabu no naka no kuroneko nikki deals exclusively with the period in which the film was being produced (i.e., after the script). I'm going to have to examine the earlier chapters as well, I suspect. Most interesting thing I found in the first couple of pages is that he apparently read Lafcadio Hearn's Kwaidan: Stories and Studies of Strange Things in English and found it quite disturbing. Also, I found that he shot the Rajomon scenes at what is in reality the 山門 of Tōfuku-ji. Not sure if minute details like that latter one belong in an article as short as this when they can only be found in very old sources in Japanese, though. ;-) elvenscout742 (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And he had to get official permission to shoot a National Treasure for his film. Also, I'm not sure if this counts a primary or secondary source in this context: is the film itself the only primary source? elvenscout742 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (Sorry for missing your responses. I didn't realise until now. Sorry.) It depends. I suppose the correct answer would be this question: "What's the purpose of using this film in your research?" If the research is an attempt to trace the origins of a film's basis, e.g. a story, the film can be considered as a secondary source. If the research is an attempt to trace the origins of the film itself (how it came together, its influences and inspirations, and the making of; its cultural impact, themes and influences; an analysis of its narrative and themes, etc.), then the film can be considered as a primary source. The decision is yours, because only you know what's the goal of your research. :)
 * I find your other notes interesting, e.g. the filming location of the Rajomon scenes (Kyoto Prefecture) and Lafcadio Hearn. The filming location was in Kyoto Prefecture, which is in the south. Lafcadio Hearn had collected stories from Kyushu for his book Kwaidan: Stories and Studies of Strange Things. South again. My grandmother had mentioned earlier that the samurai story originated in "farming islands", e.g. the south of Japan. Everything points to the south (samurai story), not the north (maiden story). Is there a way for you to check with a library for an anthology of folklore stories from the south to see if there are any revengeful cat stories? 0zero9nine (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Same here, sorry for late. I actually live in Iwate Prefecture at the moment, but I do have some access to books about southern Japan. However, I think the Kwaidan connection is tangential. The director was reading it on his breaks during the filming, but this was obviously several months after he completed the script. The film's setting certainly is Kyoto, but then, as I said, if it's a "loose" adaptation then the original folktale could have been set just about anywhere and been made into a film about Kyoto. Regarding shooting locations, etc., I'm still not sure about including minor details about the film's production in the article... elvenscout742 (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Source?
This bears a weird resemblance to the story, at least as summarized by Inui. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

in a groovy grove
In case anyone hasn't seen this film, it is actually set in a bamboo grove. The bamboo is a motif of the film. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Akutagawa reference in title
I think a discussion of the title is important enough for the introduction, although a new section ==Title== might be appropriate. I do not have a source that specifically says the filmmakers intended a reference to Akutagawa, but yabu no naka in general usage is already a reference to Akutagawa. I intend to add that reference to the In a Grove article, and a lengthy discussion of the etymology of the words used in the title is indeed inappropriate for this article. If no reliable sources specifically mention Akutagawa's story being linked to this film, then of course we probably shouldn't call it a "reference", but perhaps we could include some reference to it in the article? elvenscout742 (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with WP:SYNTH, but when dictionaries always give the Akutagawa reference as the source for the expression, it still seems encyclopedic to mention it as a guide to English-speaking readers who aren't familiar with the etymologies of Japanese terms. Also, we probably need to clarify why the same phrase is translated as both "in a bamboo grove" and "mysterious/obscure", since English-speaking readers who aren't familiar with Akutagawa are unlikely to think this is intuitive. If we delete one translation, it should be the bamboo grove one, since yabu no naka actually doesn't translate this way except in the title of the Akutagawa story.
 * Also: I clarified my original point, with a dictionary reference for the etymology of the word. Not sure about the formatting, though. -- I don't know how to cite a specific page of Jim Breen (the URL for every entry just redirects to the homepage), but Bober just copies him, so it seems like plagiarism or faulty referencing to not mention Breen. So where should I say the source comes from?
 * elvenscout742 (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you need a reliable source which makes the connection between "Yabu no naka" and the title, otherwise it is WP:SYNTH. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I suspect WWWJDIC and the underlying dictionaries are WP:USERG. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because yabu no naka is already in the title. Translating it is not a violation of NOR; in fact, it is recommended by WP:NCFILM. Also, the translation that was already there was incorrect, since it didn't accurately grasp the meaning of the title (it's meant to be a mystery as to what actually the black cat is).
 * Jim Breen is a widely recognized, reliable source on the Japanese language, and his "user-generated" website is his official home page as a professor of Monash University. Also, see, which is the group actually responsible for the dictionary's content. Nothing about it is WP:USERG. However, if it still bothers you, we can go to 広辞苑 or some other recognized dictionary: they all say the same thing, and no one actually says yabu no naka in Japanese to literally mean "a bamboo grove".
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvenscout742 (talk • contribs)
 * (Sorry about the unsigned comment. As the colons indicated, I wasn't sure if I should continue or just post, and I decided in favour of the latter but forgot to sign.elvenscout742 (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC))
 * The film is about a black cat in a bamboo grove. It's WP:SYNTH to put the composite title words together to come up with a conclusion about what the title means. Proving that WWWJDIC is not WP:USERG needs more than your say-so. I suggest you take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I may do just that, although it should be pointed out that within Japanese language circles it is probably the best-known and most-widely used J-E dictionaries; it is also more acceptable on English Wikipedia than 広辞苑, 大辞泉, etc. since it uses English.
 * The phrase yabu no naka is so common in Japanese that it appears in all widely-used dictionaries. Translating it according to its actual meaning is perfectly acceptable and cannot be taken to violate any part of WP:NOR. I am willing to have a constructive debate with you over whether we should include any specific reference to the Ryūnosuke Akutagawa or In a Grove articles within this article (although I don't really mind either way), but not over the meaning of the common phrase yabu no naka.
 * elvenscout742 (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinions are not reliable sources. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not my opinion. It's a fact, which is backed up by Japanese common usage and verified by reference to reliable dictionaries. You need a reliable source to say that this film's title is one of the only instances in modern Japanese history when the phrase yabu no naka has been meant only to be taken literally and not to have anything to with common usage. If the filmmakers wanted to simply say it took place within a bamboo grove, they would have used the word takebayashi, which is far more common than yabu. (By the way, I know the black cat is in a bamboo grove: that's why I said the title has two meanings.) elvenscout742 (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, one doesn't need a reliable source to remove things from articles. WP:BURDEN. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware of WP:BURDEN. But I have already provided three reliable sources. You are claiming that this film just happens to use an established phrase that exists in everyday Japanese usage, and doesn't mean what the phrase means. Providing a translation of the title based on what the Japanese title actually means (rather than what one or two Wikipedians think it means) is perfectly acceptable according to WP:NCFILM. In order to prove that the title doesn't mean what it appears to mean, you need Shindo or someone else to have actively said "The film has this title solely because parts of it take place within a bamboo grove; it does not have anything to do with the phrase yabu no naka" or something to that effect. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with this discussion is that you present your opinions as if they are facts. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What opinions? I have only presented objective facts. You have presented your opinion that Shindo and whoever else did not mean to use the phrase yabu no naka the way all other Japanese use it regularly, and the way it is defined in all three dictionaries I have cited. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoth Elvenscout742: What opinions? I have only presented objective facts. - no, you have only presented your opinions. You haven't provided a single shred of convincing evidence which supports the conclusion that "yabu no naka" only or even usually means what you said it does. Further, this flatly contradicts the fairly obvious fact that the film is set in a bamboo grove. Sorry but I am finding this rather humorous. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I never argued that the film isn't set in a bamboo grove. I have presented you with the facts that this phrase exists and means what I say it does; you responded by impugning the reliability of Jim Breen(!) and demanding that I show you a source that links the phrase used in the title of this film to the film itself. Anyway, it looks like this is a difference of opinion and neither of us is going to change our opinion. In order to establish a clearer consensus I have opened a discussion at the OR noticeboard. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A mistaken Japanese native speaker writes on the film
At this page, an external link from the Japanese wikipedia article on this topic, we find an extensive description of the plot of the film, written by a Japanese native. In it we find "yabu no naka" mentioned six times excluding the title: "藪の中の女の屋敷", "藪の中の家", "藪の中の屋敷", "藪の中の屋敷", "藪の中の道", and finally "藪の中の家". In each case, the words "yabu no naka" refer to the house and the pathway. If it is true that Japanese people exclusively use the words "yabu no naka" to refer to a mystery cat, rather than an actual bamboo grove, should someone not urgently inform this misguided native speaker? JoshuSasori (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The ALC page on Yabu No Naka (linked from the WWWJDIC page as [A]) also needs help from Wikipedians. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I found both of those pages too. The first is USERG and can't be accepted; it also does not contradict my interpretation of the title, as it is clearly overusing the name of the Akutagawa story in its description on purpuse. ALC is good most of the time, but in this case it has failed to give any examples that accurately reflect the usage of the phrase yabu no naka. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK you don't seem to be open to discussion, so I'm just going to remove your edits from the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above sarcastic comments are offensive, and their content provides no excuse for shutting me out of editing this article. The two pages you cite, one of which is someone's personal website, do not prove anything. The fact is that Kōjien and Daijisen, the two most widely-used dictionaries in Japan, both give the same definition I have of the phrase yabu no naka. Your having found two pages that use it in a different sense is irrelevant. I can't believe you would contest the definition of a word given in Kōjien based on some guy having used in a slightly different way! It is looking more and more like you are deliberately reverting all my edits to this and other pages solely because I am the one making the edits. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above sarcastic comments are offensive - They conclusively demonstrate that you were talking complete rot in the discussion above. So they do make you do look like a complete fool, I agree. The two pages you cite, one of which is someone's personal website, do not prove anything. - yes, they do. They conclusively prove that the analysis which you have been defending on this page is completely wrong. It is looking more and more like you are deliberately reverting all my edits to this and other pages solely because I am the one making the edits - No, I removed your edits because they were incorrect. I removed your edits on other pages because they were incorrect. And I think you know it. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WHEN HAVE I EVER IMPLIED THAT yabu no naka DOES NOT ALSO MEAN "in a bamboo grove" !? I say both possible translations of the Japanese title need to be included. The identities of the two women are clearly meant to be a mystery to Yorimitsu, Gintoki and so on. That is why the film uses the phrase yabu no naka in its title. The phrase, as defined by the only reliable dictionary specifically cited in this debate (assuming WWWJDIC doesn't count), means "an incidence of not understanding the truth of something, because of people giving conflicting accounts, etc. (from Akutagawa's story In a Grove)" (《芥川竜之介の小説「藪の中」から》関係者の言うことが食い違うなどして、真相がわからないこと.). elvenscout742 (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH. JoshuSasori (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"Black cat in a bamboo grove"
This "English translation" is original research at least as much as the translation I provided is. JoshuSasori has not cited any reliable sources that state that the title of the film only takes the (rarer) literal meaning of yabu no naka. Yabu no naka appears in all reliable Japanese dictionaries as having one meaning, and JoshuSasori has WP:SYNTHesized this with his own interpretation of the film's plot (why is the bamboo grove a theme in the film? and why is that theme different from something being lost/obscured/impossible to determine the truth, as it always is when Japanese speak of yabu no naka?). I have one valid interpretation of the title and JoshuSasori has another one: they are both borne-out by reliable sources (dictionaries). This is why I suggested including both possible translations. JoshuSasori has deleted mine without ever providing a reasonable argument or any source that says the film-makers did not mean to use the phrase yabu no naka as it is always used in Japanese and as it is defined in every Japanese dictionary. He has also constantly shifted his argument from "we shouldn't mention Akutagawa or claim this film is named after an Akutagawa story" (I never actually made this claim) to "we shouldn't make any reference to the idiomatic meaning of the title at all", making it almost impossible to debate constructively. It does seem increasingly that he is trying to force me out of this article by micromanaging/removing all of my recent contributions, as he has also done with Double Suicide of Sonezaki and Tadao Sato''. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider the above retracted. I have found a source written by a cultural researcher at Hosei University that makes the BLOODY OBVIOUS point that Shindo must have deliberately chosen the title Yabu no naka no Kuroneko to create an impression in the audience's mind and that this title reminds the viewer of the Akutagawa story. I hope JoshuSasori will stop hounding me on this point now and just accept this point as the obvious given that it is. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * PROTIP: If someone states that they think something is original research, a fabulous notion is to put a citation onto it, and prove them wrong. Probably the worst thing to do is to barrack at the person on the talk page about how or why you have come to the conclusion, which actually proves them right - it is indeed your original research. If you spent a half the time doing article edits you spend on talk pages, you would be making a lot more useful contributions. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Name of the protagonist
Should we mention that his original name was Hachi and he made up the name "Yabu-no-Gintoki" (藪ノ銀時) to appear more imposing when he was fighting the Emishi in battle? Saying that "Gintoki was a fortuitous soldier who killed the enemy general" isn't entirely accurate in this context, and one of the article's sources sees fit to go into some detail on this matter.

Additionally, I added a macron to the name of the historical figure Minamoto no Raikō and a macron and more accurate spelling for Rajōmon, and wikilinks for both. I don't recall whether they actually pronounced Rajōmon in the film, but it clearly appears written as 羅城門, and this is apparently more accurate to the period. The subtitles of the version I watched also spelled it "Rajomon". But then again, the subtitles of the version I watched read "Raiko Minamoto" when anyone with ears could hear him being named as "Minamoto no Raikō". What a mess! :P

elvenscout742 (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just WP:BEBOLD and do the edits, use the talk page to discuss when there is a disagreement. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I already did. I added the above comment here since the background for my edits was a little too long/complicated to detail in an edit summary. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead rewrite
I agree with the suggestion that this lead needs to be cleaned up. I initially just through down everything I had initially posted about the translation that was backed up directly by Suzumura, but since he doesn't actually say "Yabu no naka no kuroneko=mysterious black cat" simply re-adding my previous translation might have been wrong. Also, I was never actually comfortable with the wording "mysterious black cat" -- can anyone think of a clearer, nicer-sounding translation?

I initially also added in Suzumura's speculating on the title being an Akutagawa reference, but this statement is clearly more at home in the new section I started below.

For the record, the precise wording of the relevant passage in Suzumura is:
 * "It appears that Shindo deliberately chose for his title the phrase yabu no naka, which hints at 'a mysterious affair' and the 'bizarreness of the black cat'. Furthermore, it is possible that the phrase yabu no naka would remind the film's audience of how Akira Kurosawa's film Rashomon was based on Ryūnosuke Akutagawa's short story In a Grove (Yabu no Naka in Japanese). Therefore, we can say that Shindo made clever use of the meanings the phrase yabu no naka possesses in the area of film."
 * そこで、新藤は「ミステリアスな様子」や「黒猫の怪奇さ」を暗示する「藪の中」という言葉を選んだと思われる. しかも、「藪の中」という言葉によって、映画の観客は芥川龍之介の短編小説『藪の中』から黒澤の映画『羅生門』が生れたという経緯を連想することが可能である. 従って、新藤は言外に「藪の中」という言葉が映画の分野で持つ意味を巧みに利用したと言える.
 * Soko de, Shindō wa "misuteriasuna yōsu" ya "kuroneko no kaikisa" o anji suru "yabu no naka" to iu kotoba o eranda to omowareru. Shikamo, "yabu no naka" to iu kotoba ni yotte, eiga no kankyaku wa Akutagawa Ryūnosuke no tanpen-shōsetsu "Yabu no Naka" kara Kurosawa Akira no eiga "Rashōmon" ga umareta to iu keii o rensō suru koto ga kanō dearu. Shitagatte, Shindō wa gengai ni "yabu no naka" to iu kotoba ga eiga no bun'ya de motsu imi o takumi ni riyō shita to ieru.

elvenscout742 (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Also, I was never actually comfortable with the wording "mysterious black cat" -- can anyone think of a clearer, nicer-sounding translation?" --> Suggestion: "enigmatic black cat".
 * I have to say, I was somewhat surprised to find you both here on Talk. Small world. Seriously though, I came here to register my issue with the leading summary, via feedback, as it's failed to fulfil the classic W+H rule ('what, where, when, who, why and how' in a paragraph or two).
 * Suggestion for the leading summary with the W+H rule: "Kuroneko (藪の中の黒猫, Yabu no Naka no Kuroneko, A Black Cat in a Bamboo Grove) is a 1968 black-and-white Japanese horror film, directed by Kaneto Shindo, and an adaptation of a supernatural folktale. Set during Japan's Heian-era civil war, a woman and her daughter seek revenge after losing their lives to a brutal incident." Rough, but it essentially meets the W+H rule. So, it would be great if you could rewrite the leading summary with that rule in mind.
 * The topic about the title shouldn't be in the leading summary, though, because it seems a speculation, not a fact. Someone will need to back up this statement "the phrase yabu no naka in Japanese is usually meant idiomatically to refer to a "mystery" or something "strange"" with a citation because your interpretation is different from my family's. They say it usually refers to 'seeing things that aren't there'.
 * But, it still doesn't mean your interpretation is wrong. It just means there's more than one interpretation, so you'll need to find a good citation - in English, please; to allow Wikipedia non-Japanese readers to follow up - to explain why your interpretation is definitive. Until then, perhaps the title info could be relocated to the 'Cultural Influences' sub-section? Thank you. 0zero9nine (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, I don't think we can get away with only using English-language sources for this article. There seems to be one interview and a couple of plot-synopses/reviews written in English. Am I missing some kind of large body of material that has been written about this film in English that will allow us to improve this article beyond its current parameters? I know we should prioritize English sources when they are available, but it doesn't look like they are. Additionally, the current literal translation of the title that appears in the opening sentence is not what is in the English sources, and it is better for it. The English sources say "Black Cat from the Grove" which seems to completely ignore the naka in the Japanese title; it's not wrong, but I don't think we should use it -- it's possible the film critics who wrote these sources couldn't speak Japanese. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with the point about the idiomatic translation of the title not belonging in the opening. The literal translation is not something I emphasized in the debate above, but it really belongs more in the opening paragraph. Since Suzumura's speculations on the cultural influences of the film mention the idiomatic meaning of yabu no naka, that discussion can probably be moved completely down there. We also hardly even need to refer to the dictionary definition of the phrase, since Suzumura spells its relevance to the film out for us clearly. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you're saying, but this is an entry about the film itself. So unless there's a citable source of the director, producer or scriptwriter explaining the significance of the film's title--all citable general information, theories, speculations and interpretations about the film (and its title) belong to a sub-section, which should clearly show that its contents aren't officially endorsed by those directly involved with the film. With all due respect, Suzumura isn't the director, producer or scriptwriter of this film, so his speculation on what the title may represent is just that; a speculation. Likewise with his interpretation of yabu no naka. That's his job, actually - offering theories, citations and interpretations, but those shouldn't be considered as part of the film's official canon as he was never directly involved with the production of the film. 0zero9nine (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with 0zero9nine. Adding to this, the scriptwriter and director are one and the same Kaneto Shindo. He wrote very extensive diaries of each film's production for most of his films after about 1960. According to this page, the diary for Kuroneko was published in "新藤兼人著『新藤兼人の映画著作集 4　本能日記・映画創造の実際』（ポーリエ企画/1970）". This is in Japanese of course, but if the editor wants to reference the claim for the title, this is where to start looking. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think there has been another misunderstanding, and it's probably my fault. What I meant to say in the above post was: "I agree that the opening needs to be streamlined and improved, and I also agree that speculation about the idiomatic meaning of yabu no naka belongs in a sub-section. I have already created this sub-section. Please feel free to move it down." The last sentence of my comment was not meant to imply that I thought Suzumura's ideas deserve a place in the opening: it was meant for JoshuSasori in reference to an earlier dispute about dictionary definitions (we no longer need to cite the dictionary, since the Suzumura source gives all that information anyway). Sorry again for the confusion. I hope it's cleared up now. elvenscout742 (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you JS for the book tip. If I knew about that book I would have bought it years ago. It's in the mail from Amazon now, and I'll be sure to check if Shindo wrote anything about his specifically choosing the phrase yabu no naka for the title. Also, here's to hoping that there are some more concrete details on the folk-tale "The Cat's Revenge" we were discussing above. Collecting old Japanese folk-tales is a hobby of mine, and once I have something more concrete than an English title it shouldn't be too difficult to track the specifics down. elvenscout742 (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually had quite a time of it looking for the Buddhist legend featured in Onibaba (film) so I never got around to hunting down the cat story here. I hope you enjoy the book. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The enemy Hachi is fighting at the start of the film
I forget whether the film actually names them. They are obviously meant to be Emishi/Ainu, and their leader's name is specifically mentioned. Is it OR to mention this point in the article based only on what's in the film and an external study of Japanese history of the period, though? elvenscout742 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is classic WP:SYNTH. For the plot summary, it's OK to watch it and write what you see, but it's not OK to write analysis. If you want to put the analysis in, find a source for it. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinks to Minamoto no Yorimitsu and Rashōmon
My addition of links for these two names has now been reverted twice. I am not sure why they are inappropriate, since JoshuSasori has only said they are "inappropriate" without any reference to Wikipedia policy. Not sure if he was simply enforcing a guideline on plot summaries from WP:MOSFILM I went and checked there. There is no specific rule against including links to the articles on real-world historical figures and settings in works of historical fiction like this. In fact, several film articles include these such links and have FA status (Borat and 300 (film) being obvious examples). What gives? elvenscout742 (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusion in historical details
The lead states that the movie takes place in the Heian period, but the first line of the plot states the Sengoku period. There's a bit of a difference between the two. At the mention of the Emishi, I'm inclined to think Heian period, but if so, should the references to samurai be removed? I didn't think the samurai were established as a class until after the Heian period. If other editors concur, I suggest substitution of the word "warrior" for "samurai". Boneyard90 (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on history, but the word used in the film is "samurai". See, for example, here. I don't see why Wikipedia should "correct" historical inaccuracies in film plots, so I would rather leave it as "samurai". As for the period of the film, I didn't write either Sengoku or Heian. This review of the film seems to suggest it is set in the Heian period, and this one also. Elvenscout747 has a book about the film so maybe he can check it. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the Japanese term used in the movie is not "samurai" (侍), but rather wakamusha (若武者), a more accurate translation of which would be "young warrior". So we would not be correcting the plot, but rather the poorly translated sub-titles, which were probably translated thus for better recognition. But you're right, we shouldn't necessarily "correct" a reliable source; however, if you are so inclined, it is permissible to point out the inconsistency with history, or even the inconsistency between the Japanese script and the English sub-title, for the benefit of Japanophile readers who might also notice and think it's an error on the part of Wikipedia editors, when the text is actually an accurate reflection of some translator's error from 40+ years ago. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are in error. Please click on the link to the youtube video in my previous post above. It should start at 43 seconds in to the trailer. You can hear the lead actress, Nobuko Otowa, very clearly say the word "samurai" twice. I did not notice the word "wakamusha" in the trailer, although that term may be used elsewhere in the film. This is not based on the subtitles of the film. If you cannot understand spoken Japanese and need visual confirmation, the DVD version contains subtitles in Japanese as well as English and you could check it using the Japanese subtitles. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, in case the trailer is not enough, I spot-checked against the film itself. The dialogue from 15:00 to 21:00 uses the word "samurai" repeatedly: 19:10:これからはさむらいだ / 19:15:いくさはそのさむらいをへんかするぞ / 19:45:さむらいはなんでもとりほうだいやの. In the dialogue with Raiko: 30:15 and 30:45: Raiko is called さむらいのとうりょう. Also, the Japanese-language subtitles are on the Kindai Eiga Kyokai version of the DVD in Japan, but they don't seem to be on the Criterion Collection version. I am putting these in kana rather than kanji, because they are my transcriptions. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right. I didn't have sound available, I was looking at the casting role, at 1:38 in the trailer. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More examples: at 42:00: こじきさえやぶのぎんときさまはつよいさむらいじゃとゆっておるぞ. At 42:23: さむらいののどもとをくいている. At 1:17:20:　ようかいはさむらいにむごいころされかた / さむらいにうらみ / さむらいのいきち, and several more examples from both Raiko and Gintoki. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, so "samurai" stays, but what is to be done about the Heian/Sengoku disparity? Boneyard90 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "sengoku" is just speculation, skipping through the film I cannot see where it says that the film is set in any era at all. The Heian period seems to be a conclusion drawn from the presence of a character called "Minamoto no Raiko", so would it not need to be sourced from somewhere to avoid being seen as WP:SYNTH? This is also my complaint about linking the gate "rashomon"/"rajomon", it is not necessarily a historically-based film, don't we need sources to put in links like that? JoshuSasori (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see a problem linking Rashomon, as it may help the reader to place the period. If "rashomon" is mentioned in the film, and there's a "rashomon" in Japan, then the article should be linked. The only time the link should be avoided is when it is obviously the wrong article; if for example, the only "rashomon" article was about a 20th century African princess (or whatever). In this case, in absence of any direct reference to period in the movie, it is not "obvious" whether or not the movie "rashomon" refers to the "rashomon" in the Wikipedia article. Therefore, it is safe to link to the article, and the let the reader draw his own conclusions. Boneyard90 (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Minamoto no Yorimitsu is a character in the film. The only scene of warfare in the film is between imperial troops and Emishi in Tohoku. Therefore, the film is set in the Heian period. Additionally, I can see someone complaining that the film mentions "Rajomon" but the link is to "Rashomon": they are the exact same thing, and the director's diary comments on how the place they shot was not the real Rajomon but they shot it as that. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then, given the director's comments, I would say leave it un-linked in the plot, maybe call it "in a place called Rajomon" (no link), and in a production section, it should say, "was shot on location in Rashomon (linked)". For the period, you don't have to say "it took place in ~ period", but you CAN say, the "battle between X and the Emishi, an ethnic group active in the Heian period" (links and reference). Same thing with Minamoto: "The movie portrays Minamoto X (Born-Died), a noble/warrior/rocket-man who lived during the X period"(reference). Boneyard90 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The film's subtitles (at 32:27) say that the scene of warfare is in "Ezo" which is not Tohoku, it is the old name of Hokkaido. There is absolutely no mention of Emishi or Tohoku anywhere in the film. JoshuSasori (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Self-correction, at 48:03 Gintoki mentions "Tohoku": "さんねんまえにとうほくのいてきをうつにいくさにくわえられていった". However, he does not say that the battle took place in Tohoku, and the subtitle at the scene of the battle says "Ezo". Either way, I don't agree with adding these links into a plot summary. The plot summary should not contain these kinds of tit-bits. If there is a source on historical accuracy then that would be OK to add in the reception section. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ezo is the name of the place where the people called Ezo/Emishi live. In the Edo period this meant Hokkaido, but this would be anachronistic given the period of the film. There is no record of any Yamato troops having gone as far as Hokkaido before the middle ages. In the Nara and Heian periods, Ezo referred principally to the provinces of Dewa and Michinoku, i.e., Tōhoku. I know this doesn't necessarily mean we have to specifically mention the location of the battle as "Tohoku" in the plot summary, but it would help readers not familiar with Japanese history and geography to understand where the events take place. I would say the same of Rajōmon. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I really do not care what Ezo means or what you think it means or what it might have meant or will mean in the future. The very fact that including these kinds of details leads to exactly these kinds of ridiculous nitpicking arguments is exactly why I don't agree with including them in the plot. The plot summary should be a simple summary of the film's events, not a "helpful historical guide" full of silly easter-egg wikilinks to all kinds of historical whatnots to "help the reader". Please stop "helping the reader" like that and just write a plot summary which summarizes the plot of the film. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you are making straw-man arguments -- I never added a single Easter egg link to any of the articles that you have started disputes with me on. I added I think three useful Wikilinks to this article's plot summary, in accordance with the MOS, and you have accused me of OR in response. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Issues now resolved
Ok, I'm pretty much out at this point. Someone deleted the "Sengoku" mention, and that means that the second of the two points I brought up have been resolved. You all can continue. To ES: I recommend you try not to overshoot the point of the article, it's about a movie, not a historical mystery that needs to be unraveled; and despite whatever you know or have read, everything needs a reference. Remember, you can not draw conclusions for the reader, no matter how obvious the connection between two points might be. To JS: Seriously think about working on those diplomacy skills. Carry on. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it's fair that JS can write an entire plot summary without citing any sources, but to include a couple of Wikilinks I need to find reliable secondary sources that specifically use modern Japanese terminology to describe a period film. (E.g., no Japanese needs to be told that the battle takes place in "Tohoku", when any Japanese who are interested know that that is what "Ezo" means, so sources that say "Tohoku" are difficult to find.) This article doesn't "belong" to JS anymore than it does to me or Boneyard. Anyway, I found two apparently independent sources that specifically state that the film takes place in the mid-Heian period, near Rajōmon gate. Additionally, another article JS has edited but seems to dislike me editing contains a map of Japan with the province in which the film is principally based marked in red but no one seems to be complaining about that? elvenscout742 (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * About a week ago I also found this, which appears to be a spontaneous film review by a lawyer: I wasn't sure if it counted as WP:USERG or if the source was concerned "learned" in the field, though, so I didn't cite it. It does, however, specifically mention Tōhoku-chihō as the setting of the battle. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I once asked about plot summaries at WP:Film. Their policy is that as long as no information exceeds what is in the film (and they shouldn't), then plot summaries generally do not have in-line citations. There are guidelines on length & detail, grammar, etc, but that's about it. Many film articles then have a section like "Historical inaccuracies" or "Production" which includes something about the location or why the director deviated from historical accuracy. As for "Ezo", personally, I have rarely to never heard it used outside the context of Hokkaido, and have only recently read that it could mean islands further north of Hokkaido. That doesn't mean it also wasn't once used for Tohoku. As for "modern Japanese", they, like most people, can have short memories, and I would say that events following the Meiji restoration have a clearer impact on national consciousness then frontier conflicts 1000 years ago. Japanese I have asked associate "Ezo" with Hokkaido. If Elvenscout has a map of "Ezo", and all the historical uses for "Ezo", from Tokyo to the Kuriles, and it comes from a reputable source, I say put it in. If you are explaining something, like "it takes place in Ezo, which is known as the land of Puff the Magic Dragon" (whatever), then yes, you need sources. If they're difficult to find, we know it's on the contributor. If there are sources that back up the historical Rashomon-spelled-Rajomon, then I say let the links stay in the plot summary. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a reason Rajōmon redirects to Rashōmon on English Wikipedia, and on Japanese Wikipedia the article on the gate is called Rajōmon and Rashōmon is a disambiguation page. I'm sure there are millions of reliable sources that back this reason up. As for "Ezo", the early-modern/modern Japanese usage is pretty irrelevant here, since Shindo apparently did his homework on the issue and the historically accurate definition for the Heian period (again, if Minamoto no Yorimitsu is in the film, it is set in the Heian period) is "anywhere where the people called Ezo live", and it would be anachronistic to show Yamato troops in Hokkaido at this time. If the battle took place in what is now Iwate Prefecture, it would be equally anachronistic to call it Iwate, and his choices would have been either Mutsu Province or Ezo. Additionally, while they're not reliable sources, apparently some Japanese people have also done their homework on this issue, and while it's only peripherally linked, the character 夷 appears to denote Eastern Barbarians in particular, while 狄 denotes Northern Barbarians. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)