Talk:Women in Japan

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 16 February 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michan3636.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 22 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hoang1nguyen. Peer reviewers: Devikajhaveri, Hunerwithat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
I have reason to belive that this is plagerized from the libary of congress i.e. the artical Gender Stratification and the Lives of Women under country studies for Japan. This article is currently located at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?cstdy:3:./temp/~frd_2aPD:: but due to the fact that it is a temporary website it is subject to change. Insert31990 12:01, 5 December 2007 (PST)

I definitely think the contents of "Working Women in Japan" should be added to this page. There is not much in the "Working Women in Japan" page and it simply makes sense to add it to this page. Whats up skip 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree Rupa zero 10:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support merge. As long as merged article is Women in Japan. --Knulclunk 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

History
Should this article be renamed to History of women in Japan.

It primarily presents a summary/timeline of female gender in Japanese society through history, with a final summary of the current status. This is a history article.

A modern-day article could be spun off at a later point.--ZayZayEM (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Essay
Oh, and this article reads like an essay. It requires multiple citations to verify points, and needs to be more of a description, and less of a discussion (it can describe discussions on the topic, preferrably multiple and indepndent ones) to be considered encyclopedic.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Section "Education and workforce participation" biased?
Some of the contents of section Education and workforce participation sound quite partial towards the status quo.

In particular, I am referring to Many women find satisfaction in family life and in the accomplishments of their children, gaining a sense of fulfilment from doing good jobs as household managers and mothers.

I suggest to reword this to something like Women are pressured by society to only find their fulfilment and satisfaction in the accomplishments of their children and their job as household managers and mothers. Davide.tassinari (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Probable copyright violation
The earliest version of this page appears to be virtually identical to this content from Country Studies US. The top page of that site is marked "Copyright © 2003 - 2010 Country Studies US," meaning this page is in all likelihood a violation of that site's copyright or that of the the publisher of the associated book. Cnilep (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy on the Library of Congress series of country studies can be found at Library of Congress Country Studies. — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my addition below edit conflicted with your addition. To be clear; our policy is to accept the PD status of the work that this page was based on?  Kuru   (talk)  23:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. Our policy in regard to the Library of Congress Country Studies has been that it is created by the Library of Congress and it is in the public domain. Around 860 pages use the text. However, this page failed to include the required template:loc for proper attribution. I have now added it. — Cactus Writer (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that tag was removed here a few months ago in a large edit which has lead to the confusion here. Glad it is resolved.  Kuru   (talk)  02:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the root page of that site (http://countrystudies.us/), it states "This website contains the on-line versions of books previously published in hard copy by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress as part of the Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998.". The original version of the page (here) has a tag at the end claiming this is public domain.  My understanding was that works created by the federal government are indeed PD, but I must stress this is not my area of expertise.  How is that site claiming copyright?  Kuru   (talk)  23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking at WP:PDR and there's a section that mentions that such articles may not be "in themselves good encyclopedia articles". Although it's not copyvio and it's not plagiarism per se, it is still copypaste. I'm not really comfortable with the idea of a Wikipedia article having whole sections just chopped from articles. And actually, I just found some more interesting tidbits: I don't know how you guys want to handle this page; this is just what I've been able to determine. I'm pretty sure it shouldn't stay in its current form, though... —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The first three paragraphs ("Gender has...", "After WW2...", "Gender inequality...") are straight copies from the Country Studies.
 * The next paragraph ("With deep-rooted...") seems to be a rather close rendition of this book.
 * The paragraph after it ("The percentage of...") seems to be a direct match from Japan labor bulletin: Volume 39.
 * The second paragraph under Working women in Japan ("Japanese women are joining...") is a rip from another Country Studies paper.
 * The entire Japanese Equal Employment Opportunity Law section is pulled from Equal Opportunity for Japanese Women -- What Progress?, written by some guy. The paper is referenced at the bottom, but not inline, and it's a straight copy.


 * Hm, well that's a confusing copyright notice. The Country Studies FAQ says all text is public domain, but the page I noted above has a dated claim of copyright.


 * Whatever the case with copyright, it's tantamount to plagiarism, and the bits noted by HelloAnnyong may be copyright violations or additional plagiarism. In either case, I think that the page should be rewritten. Cnilep (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I should have checked the old history. HelloAnnyong is correct. There was a large amount of copy-pasted text added on August 14 2010. Although the editor attributed it to the source, it is still an improper copy-pasting of copyrighted text from those various sources. I have restored the article to the date prior to that addition.


 * As far as the original article goes -- it was created properly -- with the initial copypaste of PD text here and correctly attributed in both the edit summary and with the loc template. That fulfills our requirements for copying public domain. However, it is suggested that the PD text then be edited to meet our other guidelines -- that is, to make it more encyclopedic. (There is a better explanation at Plagiarism.) — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I dumped the Library of Congress text in 2005. At that time, Wikipedia had significant gaps in all areas concerning Japan. Pretty much every piece from there was a new article, all in all about 300. It was a quick way to provide WP with properly researched, if partly outdated material. All these articles now had 5 years to mature. If an article still contains original text from that source, it means that in 5 years nobody came up with a better version. I take that as an indicator of quality. --Mkill (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Navbox removal
FYI, I removed Women in society as the thrust of the navbox is sociological where this article appears to be more geographically / anthopologically oriented.  Claret Ash  11:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of 'Career woman'
I am removing the line about 'career woman' being the equivalent of salaryman. It is not. Career woman carries with it far different ideas. She is successful, and not necessarily getting a salary (she may be self-employed or own a company). A salaryman means a man working for a company and has a strong overtone of not being particularly successful. 91.125.55.128 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Family problem
Anyone familiar with this problem:

In Japan, a woman takes her husband's family when she marries. This means (as an example) that when Jane (whose mother is Elizabeth) marries John (whose mother is Ellen,) Ellen becomes the mother of both Jane and John. I always thought that this rule of defining one's family was traditionally proper in Japan (although it never was in the United States,) but I don't know if any Wikipedia article mentions this (this statement relates to improving Wikipedia mentioning info related to the above statement, so it doesn't violate NOTAFORUM.) Does any Wikipedia article mention a statement similar to the above?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Some suggested sections
It seems that this article is disproportionately Westernized, and also sort of fetishized, with its unusual heavy focus on Geisha, sex work, and beauty standards. While these aren't irrelevant, I would like to expand this article to incorporate aspects such as divorce, child-rearing, education, and social roles. I just want to flag that I'd like to work to take this article in that direction. Owlsmcgee (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you entirely. Rewriting the articles relating to marriage in Japan is on my "to do" list, so hopefully those articles will tie in together with this one. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just added some marriage and divorce sections, maybe you can pull from them for your articles as well! Owlsmcgee (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I love what you've done and I promise I will hold up my end of the bargain... one day. But for now, I'm going to be bold and remove the "sex industry" section from this article for the simple reason that, despite the attempt in the first sentence to link it to women, the section is about the sex industry. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Beauty section
There's a lot of research about Japanese beauty standards, and I suspect it could form the basis of its own article. The references I'm including in this section are just the tip of the iceberg in academic research. Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What does "Resilient traditional expectations" mean?
What does "Resilient traditional expectations" mean? -- I don't understand this sentence. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
 * Expectations on women from traditional times that are still around today, ie, persistent, or enduring. It would seem to refer to the roles of women such as raising children, domestic duties, and not working, etc. I'll change it to clairfy, assuming no objections. Owlsmcgee (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Women in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.belsona-strategic.com/hisandhers_subway.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-115159347/commuting-gazes-schoolgirls-salarymen-and-electric

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Women in Japan
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Women in Japan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Mainichi": From Beate Sirota Gordon:  From Constitution of Japan:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Add information in "Family life"
Add "support their husbands to work without any worries about family" in the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyi.zhu (talk • contribs) 06:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Add information in "Education"
Add "With the development of society, more and more girls go to colleges to receive higher education". at the beginning of the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyi.zhu (talk • contribs) 06:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Women in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722094028/http://www.iwdc.org/resources/timeline.htm to http://www.iwdc.org/resources/timeline.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/35/11500
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531195353/http://www.jiwe.or.jp/english/law/law1_1_1.html to http://www.jiwe.or.jp/english/law/law1_1_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing for "Three submissions"
In this revert the claim is made that the term "three submissions" does not appear anywhere in the source. That exact phrase does appear in Cooper (2013). I don't know why you were unable to find it. It is on page 6: "There is a teaching in Japan that women should obey the “three submissions” rule". -- Whpq (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been 2 weeks with no response. I will restore the edit. -- Whpq (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

MOS:SANDWICH
Some images should be removed or relocated to abide by this policy. I'm hesitant to remove any because some of them are quite nice images, but letting others know this issue exists. toobigtokale (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)