Talk:Sankebetsu brown bear incident/Archive 1

Seriously? Seriously?
"As the animal advanced she pled for her life and that of her unborn child, but it was in vain. She too was attacked, killed, and eaten." Why do I get an image of Susan Atkins dressed up as a bear? 66.26.95.207 (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

my edits for today
Tokyo Watcher provided a lot of information in this interesting article, but it needs to polished by people with fluent English ability (among other things).

Today I rewrote sentences from the beginning up to (and including) "a search party". As you can see, I also changed the title. I hope someone can follow op on this. Thanks. Astarica 15:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Ramiel 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Not sure what the sentence "Then they thought the bear should have recognized the fear of the human being." means; that the bear ought now to be afraid of the humans, or that the bear realized that the humans were afraid?

Ramiel 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Proposed changes; I feel a bit pretentious correcting this page, but there are some passages which are not very understandable. Just posting this here before I make and major changes to the main article...

-- I'd be more inclined to use the passive tense when referring to past events, and to describe the bear as "it, the bear" rather than "he, etc.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyo Watcher (talk • contribs) 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't make sense
Apart of poor English writing there are too much contradictions and unclear events in the current version of the article. Just to name a few:

- Who named the bear "Kesagake"? Village people. When? In Meiji era.
 * Unknown. It is from Yamamoto's memory about the incident "killed and eaten three women".

Why I can't found anything related to it if I search Kesagake on Google? You must Search it in Japanese. Kesagake was written as ｢袈裟懸け」 in Japanese. Searching that does turn up this article in Japanese.
 * 

- How many sons had the Miyoke family? Miyoke couple loved each other, then many child was born. Probability, two or three.... ("loved each other"....is that akin to the biblical, "to know each other?")  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC) By thew way, is it Miyoke or Miyake? What were the names of the sons? Who was carried by the mother when she was attacked by the bear?
 * Miyoke family had at least 5 children. 長男(1st elder boy)・力蔵(Rikizo)、次男(2nd boy)・勇次郎(Yujiro)、長女(1st elder girl)・ヒサノ(Hisno)、三男(3rd boy)・金蔵(Kinzo)、四男(4th boy)・梅吉(Umekichi). There are no records whether family had younger children or not.
 * 明景=Miyoke.
 * ヤヨは勇次郎と梅吉を連れて脱出し=Yayo carried 勇次郎(Yujiro) and 梅吉(Umekichi)

- How many people was at the Miyoke familiar house when it was attacked by the bear?
 * オド(Odo),ヤヨ(Yayo Miyoke)and 5 children, タケ(Take Saito) and 2 children三男(3rd boy)・巌(Iwao) 四男(4th boy)・春義(Haruyoshi). 10 people was there.
 * Saito family had other 3 children(2 boy and 1 girl) who was apart from village to go to school. They were in Onishika (鬼鹿) at that time.

- What age had Mayu when the bear killed her? Why is she described as "ilegimate daughter"? Did the author mean "adoptive" or something like that?
 * age=Unknown. "ilegimate"→内縁の妻"The unregistered marriage"

- All that "Odo"-s mentioned again and again are the same person? As like as not.
 * Yes.

- Were Saito and Miyoke leading the 30 men party or were them just normal members of it?
 * Saito and Miyoke joined as nomal members. The party was led by 谷喜八(Kihachi Tani?-Leader of Matagi) and 松田定一(Sadakazu Matsuda?-The reserve duty who was in Sankebetsu).

- Where is exactly Sankebetsu? Is it still inhabited? Yes, bears are living in amity now. They symbiose with the human being at present.
 * . At least when I visited there in 2001 Sankebetsu was inhabited but there was no resident in Rokusensawa.

- The animal is often described as big... was it bigger than the average brown bear? If so, how many? Yes, he was one of the biggest bears in bear's history. - Why is the bear deicted of black color if the attacks were carried out by a brown bear? Are Hokkaido's brown bears of black color? Oh, please ask it for painter. --Menah the Great 00:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the photo was taken by poor camera and poor cameraman.
 * from 北海道苫前郡羆害事件 菜根道場.Sorry I am poor English Speaker.--Babi Hijau 16:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not fit for an encyclopedia
This reads more like fiction than an article in an encyclopedia. Here we get to hear about not only what many different individuals were thinking, we're even told what the bear is thinking. I'm not sure that this article is even notable. If it is to remain here, the language should be corrected and it should be written like a proper article and not a fictional story. JdeJ 13:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's important to take the bear's perspective into account. 130.64.137.22 13:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree 130.64.137.22' claim .--Tokyo Watcher 23:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but how do you presume to know what a bear is, or can be, thinking of? This article is linked to other [|man-eaters], similar, but devoid of fiction, like good encyclopedia articles should be. 76.239.46.229 19:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This article seems like it was written as a synopsis of a terrible anime. What's worse is that none of the claims are sourced and it is absurdly detailed. Keep in mind you're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia entry. --72.65.199.168 (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And what the heck is this all about: Curiously, it seemed abnormally interested in the pillow which the woman used. Except for Yamamoto nobody could understand why the bear showed such a fetishistic interest. But only Yamamoto knew the bear's extraordinary proclivity, he was convinced that the bear in this case was "Kesagake". The bear had damaged at least eight houses, but so far no one could find it. This is completely unfit for a reference article and doesn't make sense. Kesagake? --72.65.199.168 (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

reply It is given an explanation in Japanese as 「女が使っていた枕などに異様な程の執着を示しており、これを知った山本は、件のヒグマがやはり「袈裟懸け」だとの確信を強く持った｣. More likely it was real things, Please see reference books, 「三毛別羆事件｣ and read reference books 木村盛武1961「獣害史最大の惨劇苫前羆事件」,木村盛武1994『慟哭の谷 The Devil's Valley』（共同文化社),吉村昭「羆嵐」,1983『エゾヒグマ百科』...etc..Sorry it was written in Japanese. 14:17 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ピノキオ (talk • contribs)

That's fine, except this is an English encyclopedia. The bear's pillow fetish makes no sense in it's current state. I would recommend removing it all together as it seems like conjecture and hearsay, but the entire article suffers from those issues. What we have here is not an encyclopedia entry, period. --72.65.199.168 (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the animal doesn't show an interest to the sex with different kind. However, Konrad Zacharias Lorenz said the animal which was raised by the human being feels a lust to the human being. By such a reason I think such a note make sence.--ピノキオ (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Engrish
This may be the most inadvertently amusing article in all of Wikipedia. (I do not mean to suggest that this is a good thing). It will take someone far more ambitious than I to try and begin to wikify and translate from the Engrish.Orphic (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I can handle that. This sort of thing is something of an obsession of mine. Bearerofthecup (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

get ... real ...
the mere presence of this article in Wikipedia, never mind even considering it for any appropriate merit whatsoever does nothing to contribute to the positive, progressive efforts of the Wikipedia project as a collective of learning (my definition, admittedly) at all.

in fact, i can only envision how it could damage Wikipedia's reputation and lower the fragile opinions of precious newcomers to the Wikipedia concept, and almost certainly contribute to their viewing it as a foolish and unreliable joke, or prank, most likely followed by their tragically abandoning it, and worst of all, spreading that opinion.

the results of the discussion were to 'keep' ?!!

open a window and give your heads a shake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.25.90 (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude, The incident had enough impact in Japan to be dramatized in film, radio, and novels. The problem with the article is the writing and the lack of references. Sure the incident is rather obscure for those outside Japan, but compare that with Kelly Keen coyote attack. I think this kind of content is a step above the need to include every porn star or pop song in Wikipedia.imars (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tag issues?
Just wondering, is there a reason that this article is still tagged after three years? And if so, how could it be improved? Thanks. 98.87.55.106 (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Needs to be Rewritten
This article is appallingly written and doesn't cite a majority of its information. The tone of the article's writing style is written more like a dramatized plot of a film or story (a poorly written one) and does not reflect by any means Wikipedia's guidelines on having articles being written in an encyclopedic tone. The whole article is written in this incorrect style and needs to be rewritten entirely to reflect Wikipedia's article guidelines so that it's more encyclopedic in tone. Most of the article's information is unsourced and either needs to be given proper citations or removed after the article is rewritten. The article should be organized into the following sections:

History Sub sections: Attacks, and Aftermath

Theories (Theories on the reason for the attacks)

Legacy Sub-sections: Impact, and Popular culture

All of these changes and additions need to occur in order for this article to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well developed and properly sourced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)