Talk:Special organization (Japan)

Need for context qualifier

An "attached organization" is not a term exclusively used by the Japanese government and this article needs a context qualifier. For instance, the term is used in the American military, as seen here and here. As a final note, please see WP:OWN. hateless 09:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, a context qualifier is not needed in this case. The qualifier is used because sometimes without establishing the context at the very beginning the opening sentence makes little or no sense to non-specialists. For example, if you start an article by saying "a simple group is a group which is not the trivial group and whose only ...." (from simple group), it would be very perplexing if you don't know this is about some math topic. Even though both "simple" and "group" are plain English words, they are technical terms "in mathematics"; hence, the necessity for the context qualifier.

In other words, as I understand, we don't need a context qualifier in the case of this article. Also, I didn't say the term is used exclusively by the Japanese government; I said "mostly". I can image that maybe the article needs to be disambiguated, but is that's your proposal? -- Taku (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:LEDE#Establish context. The guidelines make no mention about using a context qualifier only if the lede sentence makes sense to the reader or not. In fact, it supplies two examples, introduction (essay) and introduction (music), where there is a context qualifier and the lede sentence would make sense if it were omitted. Frankly, I don't know why you are so adverse to having these three words, it immediately clues the reader into the context of the term, and establishes the specificity of the scope of the article. It's good writing in general. hateless 19:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't argue that having the two words ("In Japan") can be significantly detrimental to the overall quality of the article. It's about the style. I don't recall seeing "in Japan" in other similar articles. I just want us to be consistent. Anyway, I'm now less unsure about my position now that you pointed me to the guideline, which obviously I was unaware of. Let me get back to you sometime in the future, meantime, let's putting those words. -- Taku (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Literal translations

The word 特別の in Japanese in the former part of the 20th century corresponds 特別な in the use of the present. They are often translated to special. And the difference between two notations 特別の機関 (or 特別な機関) and 特別機関 is unique problem in Japanese. Therefore, you can't account them by literal translation. For this reason, I removed the reference.--Kirikaxfan (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)