Talk:Alien registration in Japan

Thanks

Thank you for everyone who has helped me with this. I have made some edits, and I still have more to go. As soon as I think I have addressed all your concerns to the best of my ability, I will submit this for a peer review. In the meantime, please leave your criticism and advice here. Be merciless! Also, for other advice, see my talk page under "how-to content" Wiki on! --Mak Allen (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Page created

Several people expressed surprise that this page does not already exist. I have started it to get the ball rolling. Your help is much appreciated.--Mak Allen (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Things to do:

This was copied from the users talk page as something to add to this page:--Mak Allen (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good for a start-off. Lots could be added, about the 'official' name of the card, the fact that it is a substitute for carrying your passport, that you can get one before 90 days it you want, that you have to give it up if you leave the country and get another upon return (even if you pop to Korea for a vsa run, aargh), maybe a bit more about the procedure (photo, fee; wait 2 weeks go back and collect it).

Of course, I don't have any citations for any of this!

Cheers, let me know if I can do any more specifics, and I will try to make time!

--  Chzz  ►  08:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Done! Thanks.--Mak Allen (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Only Japan ?

Out of curiosity, does the term only apply to Japan ? CultureDrone (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard the term used anywhere else. See Identity document--Mak Allen (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

this is also the term used by the US government for their alien registration card, e.g. [1] I expect a similar term is used in many other places also. Perhaps it would be wise to move it to Gaijin card as I believe that term is very common (Mak Allen can correct me if I'm wrong!), even by Japanese. --C S (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Is "Alias" Really the Correct Translation?

Although I have been using a tsūshōmei for some time in Japan, this is the first time I've heard it translated as "alias". I wonder whether this is an inappropriate translation. As mentioned in the article, looking at the characters 通称名 results in an interpretation something along the lines of "regular use name". The English word "alias" however, means (most broadly) "an alternative name" and also carries the connotation of a false name. In fact, many dictionaries, including the Oxford compact, list the "false" aspect -- used to conceal one's identity -- as the one of the key aspects of the word:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alias

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/alias?view=uk

Such connotations are utterly absent from the Japanese word, which, to the contrary, implies a name that is used in passing through daily life, even presumably the primary name by which the person is known.

I suggest that this article be renamed, as the title "Japanese alias" doesn't convey the appropriate nuance nor does it set the scope of the article on first glance. In thorny translation cases like this, perhaps it's best to simply name the article "Tsūshōmei" and explain the details of its English interpretation in the summary.

Let's not contribute more to the already rampant confusion in dealing with these two languages... - JKL 13-Jun-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.254.232.18 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This does seem problematic, and in fact, when I first stumbled on this article it took me a moment to realize what the article was about. Maybe if we want to stick with the English, "Japanese regular use name" would at least be better. --C S (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Alias does have negative connotations much like alien has negative connotations when referring to foreigners. Both are legalistic terms that seem cold when used in everyday context. In English, the same happens with terms referring to sex or defecation: either you are scientific or slang. There is a lack of words in the middle territory. However, this is not the Simple English WP, nor is the point to dumb it down to the extent my dog would get it. The point is to edify readers. "Regular use name" is awkward, and much like any translation, the responsibility is on the translator to make it as close to the target language while still retaining the meaning. Regular use name came into being because it is a non-legal method of preserving the name. I was thinking about calling it "Japanese legal alias", but I wanted to include the non-legal type as well.--Mak Allen (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blog

DAJF: someone specifically asked me to list that blog on here. Is there a rule against listing blogs?--Mak Allen (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mak, and thanks for working so hard on this article. It's come a long way and it's in better shape as a result of your efforts, and those of the community. Regarding blogs, you'll find advice at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided Point 11: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." This is not a rule against it, but it is (as it says) "a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." DAJF, do you have additional comments? Fg2 (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The immediate problem I saw in this case was that a personal blog was being used as a reference source to back up various statements in the article text. Anyone can write a blog about anything, which is why they cannot normally be used as reliable reference sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). If the blog in question is a useful source of information, I suppose it could be added as an external link at the end of the article, but as pointed out above, links to blogs are generally discouraged on Wikipedia unless they are written by an authority on the subject. Was any particular reason given as to why that blog ought to be mentioned here? --DAJF (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I used the blog as a place to put the 'how to' stuff so it would not clutter the WP article. I think it is an in-depth resource for others who want to make an alias. A person who read the blog commented that the blog should be cited on WP, and so I did so. I think the blog, from Japan Review is a useful source for personal experience data. I would like to repost it. Should I have the person who suggest I cite it on WP add it to this article, should I do it, or should I not do it at all? Thanks again.--Mak Allen (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No further comment on this, so I am putting the blog back in. If you think that is unwise, please let me know. Thanks.--Mak Allen (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

it seems harmless as an external link. If indeed you found it useful when writing the article, it would seem a disservice not to link to it. --C S (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

transliterated Japanese words

If you have a good reason to use a transliterated Japanese word, please use it. The fact that a lot of people use that word is not a good reason. For instance, if people used 'me' when they should use 'I', we would not change the usage. Also, trying to impress others with the fact that you know a Japanese word is not a good reason. In contrast, sushi sounds a lot more appetizing than 'raw fish', kimono is a particular piece of clothing, etc. However, Jūminhyō is more accurately translated as residency registration, koseki as family register, and tsushomei as alias.--Mak Allen (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning was that the Japanese terms kanji and jūminhyō were likely to be more widely understood and thus clearer than arbitrary translated English counterparts (i.e. "Japanese ideographs" and "residency registration"). I actually had to click on the "Japanese ideographs" link the first time I saw it to check that it did indeed mean "kanji", as it didn't make immediate sense to me. The fact that the Wiki articles for Kanji, Jūminhyō, and Koseki use the Japanese terms also tells me that this is because they are the recognized terms. If you think otherwise, fair enough, I'm not going to revert them. --DAJF (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Japanese ideographs" vs "Kanji"

It's me again. The more I think about it, the more I think the choice of "ideographs" in this article for "kanji" is bordering on the bizarre. A Google search for "Japanese ideograph" produces 499 hits [2] , and a search for "Japanese ideogram" gives 1,330 hits [3]. Compare this with 80,000 for "kanji character" [4], and 1.7 million for "Chinese character" [5] (although this obviously includes hanzi as well as Japanese kanji). Is "Japanese ideogram" really the best we can do here? I remain to be convinced. --DAJF (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Kanji is certainly the most debatable, but the problem I find is the transliterated word usage is a slippery slope. Juminhyo and Koseki are way wrong. Your point that Kanji has more hits only addresses my point that just because a lot of people are using the wrong word is not a reason to use it. (See the issue about citing bloggers we discussed above.) I have added the word kanji to the article to address the problem you stated. However, if we truly want to 'educate' people, we ought to translate the terms, not just transliterate. Dumbing it down to make it appear multicultural is admittedly a pet peeve of mine, but a valid one.--Mak Allen (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a slippery slope. We should use the common English word used for the concept per Wikipedia guidelines. That word is in fact "kanji". Check any reasonable English dictionary, e.g. Merriam-Webster. Now take the same dictionary and look up "ideograph". It's clear the common English word for the topic of kanji is in fact "kanji"; that is the reason for the Google hits. So "kanji" should be used rather than the much vaguer and less applicable "ideograph". As for "koseki" and "juminhyo", they do not seem to appear in standard English dictionaries. --C S (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard for me to tell if interest has died down or everyone now agrees. So I went ahead and made the substitution of kanji. Personally, I don't expect there will be any objection. The only objection I see is related to a transliteration argument which is seemingly relevant to the koseki and juminhyo terms. I don't believe there can be any good argument against following common English usage for kanji. --C S (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Print dictionaries would seem to be the best standard. Do you think the Family register and Residency registration articles should be renamed?--Mak Allen (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think it ought to be seriously discussed. Your point about jargon and transliteration is very good. AFAIK, koseki is not in any English dictionary. The term "Japanese family registry" would seemingly describe it perfectly. So one could argue persuasively that "koseki" is obfuscatory. On the other hand, if everyone writing articles keeps linking or referring to "koseki" it may prove controversial and problematic to move the article on koseki to something else.

I think the debate over List of English words of Japanese origin is particularly instructive. There are a number of things on that list that I would wager most English speakers have never run across (and this is supported by lack of mention in English dictionaries, see talk page of the list). Nonetheless, some people feel strongly that these words are used commonly in English. As someone with some interest in Japan but not particularly a great deal of knowledge of Japan, this kind of position seems bizarre to me. It appears to me there is indeed a culture of people who are very knowledgable about aspects of Japanese (despite not being originally from Japan) and they often assume that terms like "koseki" or "karoshi" or "hikikomori" have been assimilated into the English language. The last two at least have the distinction of having made it into some dictionary (although as I pointed out on the list talk page, that dictionary seems the least reliable) and they are terms coined by psychologists (I think) so may in fact be used in technical journals written in English. --C S (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going from bad to worse. Someone wrote: "People of East Asian descent who enter Japan from a country that does not use [[kanji]" No country in the world uses Kanji except the Japanese, so the sentence is nonsense. Also, someone used the word nikkei in the article, which is not a WP article, where as Japanese diaspora is. ENGLISH! WRITE IN ENGLISH! Even Kanji does not appear in the spell checker, and that might be the most international standard we have. I think we need to appeal to a higher authority about this. WP ought to have a policy of loan words, I would think. Does anyone know how we go about this ask for an administrator or something?--Mak Allen (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mak Allen, I'm not very impressed by your spell checker. Standard dictionaries all list "kanji". It is English (your spell checker not withstanding). WP policy is clear: if it is in standard English dictionaries, that is what we use. By the way I'm confused as you agreed with me print dictionaries are the way to go, but now you claim your spell checker trumps that. I see no consensus at all for your actions, so I have reverted you for the time being. Please argue persuasively here first why we ought to not use English dictionaries to determine what is proper English and also explain why "nikkei" is bad. I'm not necessarily against replacing "nikkei" but since in your mind the rationale for replacing it seems related to replacing "kanji" (which is clearly mistaken), I'm suspicious that your rationale is valid. --C S (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

CS, I was saying that even Kanji is not in the spell checker, which is the standard spell checker in Firefox. I agreed we should use the WP standard of print dictionaries, which means use Kanji. However, Nikkei and Koseki are not in the print dictionaries. Nikkei is not even the article name in WP, although Koseki mistakenly is. As you wrote: "WP policy is clear: if it is in standard English dictionaries, that is what we use. " There is clearly a consensus here, and that is the standard WP practice of print dictionaries, so why would you revert Nikkei and Koseki? I have reverted your reversions, and let's stick with the WP policy. Wiki on.--Mak Allen (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

<--(unindent) DAJF pointed out elsewhere the relevant policy page. The consensus is that recognized references like dictionaries are a good way to determine established usage. But there are cases (as pointed out to you by DAJF) where there is no established usage. So the consensus does not say we can't use Nikkei or Koseki. But it does say that if "Nikkei", for example, were recognized standard terms in the dictionaries, then we should use it in that case. Since it doesn't, that makes the whole matter more difficult. In other words, occurrence in dictionaries is a sufficient but not necessary condition. I am in fact going to revert you back. It doesn't appear to me that your actions have been thoroughly thought out with respect to current Wikipedia practice. --C S (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

moved from My talk page

This was cut and pasted here since it applies to this article.--Mak Allen (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme|internal link}} Could someone please tell me where to post the information I have put in the Japanese alias article? That wording for the notice about Wikibooks: "Please help improve this article by removing or rewriting the how-to content, which may qualify for a move to Wikibooks." is confusing. If I remove the how-to nature of this article, I can move it to Wikibooks? I want to leave the how-to nature, and post this somewhere. My apologies for inappropriately posting it there.--Mak Allen (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Can you tell us which article you want to edit, and what kind of thing you want to add? --  Chzz  ►  02:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Sorry, I should have internal linked that. I want to edit the article Japanese alias. I have posted the need for sources myself. However, the other two warnings at the top of the page, in addition to a "This article or section is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup." warning appear to have come-up automatically. I would like to resolve these issues.Cheers.--Mak Allen (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Rewrite the article to have a more neutral tone. Phrases like "The best way to determine an alias is to take several months..." read more like a how-to than an article. See WP:BETTER for more information as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(my own opinion on this) - I hope you don't decide to take it elsewhere; it has the beginnings of a good wiki article. Don't be dismayed by the boxes at the top. Most people here want to make the encyclopedia better, and are posting their thoughts on that basis. Ok, there will always be a few that disparage anything, but...ride with it.

I am now going to read the article more fully, and post further comments when I have. I sincerely hope that will help you develop the article. I will post them in about 10 mins from now. --  Chzz  ►  03:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and your encouragement. Are those warnings appearing automatically, or is that someone's judgment? If the latter, I would be glad to consult them for advice too. If that is possible, please let me know how. Wiki on!--Mak Allen (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. warnings, who - I'll check into them and get back to you shortly. In the meantime, here's some hastily-written scribbles;

Lead - that is, the first bit, before the 'purpose' section starts: Explain what is meant by an alias, use synonymns for 'alias', don't repeat it. Remember the 'lead' should not contain any info that is not in the body of the article - it's a summary. Which is why I suggest leaving it until last - write the whole thing, THEN make the lead to summarise the content.

The wikihelp says to use the article title in the first bit, but I have edited it some. Thanks.--Mak Allen (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. Alien ID - from a quick search, I can't find an article about alien registration cards - I'm very suprised. Maybe there is one. There should be. You shouldn't need an external link;

If not, I'd be very tempted to create one! Even if just a stub saying what they are, where to get one (ku office etc), why it's a good idea (not need passport etc)

But search thoroughly first - no point re=inventing the wheel!

Yea, this surprised me as well. I will let you write it!--Mak Allen (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs to explain more about kanji, katakana for foreign names. Link to WP articles on japanese alphabet etc.

Those are linked to WP, aren't they?--Mak Allen (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Explain about hanku for foreigners - required for some banks, etc.

Again, I have an internal link to "seal". I want to keep the topic narrow.--Mak Allen (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Make it sound more 'fact-based' - e.g. "It is necessary for foreigners who stay in Japan for more than 3 months to register as an alien. People staying for a shorter duration can, if they wish, register.' and citation to jp immigration dept.

Good point. However, I thought you need to have be in Japan for at least 3 months to get an ARC. What is your source for that info?--Mak Allen (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Section titles need to be short and punchy. Not "Considerations for selection of a Japanese alias". Perhaps "Considerations"

Good point. --Mak Allen (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Never say "The best way..." - as per Tenpoundhammers comments. Nor "Give more weight to the opinions " - this is not 'encyclopaedic' style information. Stick to facts. You'll have to find articles to cite to back up your facts - but that shouldn't be hard. A bit of googling, I'm sure you'd find some newspaper editorial on the topic that gives you a 'justification' for saying "Taking advice from Japanese people on name selection helps foreigners to integrate with the society" - or somesuch.

That is what got me started on this. For some reason, this is a very well kept secret among Westerners. I think starting the article, and slapping up some "citations needed" might get some sources created, or I will come across them in my travels. For right now, there is very little source info available.--Mak Allen (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing about single-kanji names is interesting; expand more about Japanese names in general (unless it's covered in other articles - check).

Covered. See the see also at the bottom.--Mak Allen (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs more facts, not opinions. e.g. "Registrants are best advised to always sign their name using kanji." - with a bit of digging around, you could prob say e.g. "Many baks require foreigners to sign their names using kanji." - and a ref to a bank policy. Even if the policy is written in Nihongo.

Unfortunately, they don't require this. You can sign whatever you want, just like in the West.--Mak Allen (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Last para - delete "The major drawback of an alias is now". So, it reads "The registrant must decide which name to use where". Then, perhaps, "Many foreigners use their japanese name for japan-related issues, but their foreign name for everything else".

good point--Mak Allen (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is constructive, and I really hope you can develop this article into something good.

yes, it was great. Thanks again.

Please let me know if I can help further.

will do.--Mak Allen (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Gambatte!

よっし！頑張ります！--Mak Allen (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

-

OK, about those boxes at the top;

If you edit the page, you'll see at the top;

{{Refimprove|date=May 2008}}

{{howto|date=May 2008}}

{{Nofootnotes|date=May 2008}}

Those are the 'codes' that cause those boxes to appear. These are 'templates', and there's lots of them. For example, if I type {{stub}} here, it produces this;

Anyone can add tags. This is a wiki; anyone can edit anything.

If you look in the "history" of the article, you can see who added the tags.

In this case, it was User:DAJF who added the 'howto' and 'nofootnotes' tags, 14:23, 14 May 2008.

I'll leave it to you to find the other!

Of course, you can go to his talk page, make a new section called 'Japanese alias', and ask him why he did it.

Hope this all helps,

otsukare sama deshita

--  Chzz  ►  03:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If I were you, I would delete those tags, and in the edit summary put 'See talk'. Then I'd click on 'discussion', create a 'new section' called 'criticism', and write in there that I'd removed the tags because I was currently working on the development of the article, and all comments would be welcome below.

thanks, done.--Mak Allen (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

After attempting to improve the article, I would then ask for a peer review. To see how to do that, see WP:PR. Then others will help you improve it further.

that is a good idea. Once I have done as much as I can using yours and other's ideas, I will do so.--Mak Allen (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's me done on this one; but I will keep an eye on the article, and maybe chip in with ideas.

Ki o tsukette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs) 03:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed abolishment from July 2012

So what's this all about then? I'm interested to know.

Bear in mind this is a Encyclopedia about present day stuff. Certainly this is a noteworthy proposal, but wikipedia is not meant to be a crystal ball.ZayZayEM (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Google translation of relevent section of NihongoWikipedia

"The transition to a new residence management system
One a basic grasp and understanding of information and the Ministry of Justice Immigration Bureau had done on the basis of the Refugee Recognition Act (Immigration Control Act), the information city had done on the basis of the Alien Registration Law and Immigration was for purposes such as promoting the establishment of systems that together, on an ongoing basis to understand information needed to manage the Minister of Justice of residence, such as part of the immigration Control Act amendment Act was enacted on July 8, 2009, 15 was promulgated on the day. As a result, "the date specified by a Cabinet Order, until the day on which expires the three years from the date of promulgation" (deadline is July 15, 2012) migrated to management system residents a new, system alien registration has been discontinued had to file.
Ministry of Justice, for medium-and long-term residents decided to issue a new mandate that the residence card, residence card to carry. For special permanent resident was supposed to issue a certificate of special permanent resident. Was that in addition to, the obligation to abolish mobile alien registration card was imposed prior to a special permanent resident.
Foreign nationals who are lawfully staying, such as medium-and long-term residents and special permanent resident, have a place of residence in Japan for more than three months, will be registered in the basic resident register to create a new resident [1]. It should be noted that currently, which had been obliged alien registration for illegal immigrants, under the new system is exempt from the Basic Resident Register Law, and outside of the registration system.
In addition, the current alien registration card will be sent to the Minister of Justice, do not qualify for a new residence management system, shall be returned, alien registration certificate to the Minister of Justice within three months after the enforcement of this system not.

ZayZayEM (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than trying to decipher machine translations of Japanese Wikipedia articles, the information in English on the Immigration Bureau site is likely to be more meaningful. The "Update" tag I added to the top of the article was intended to alert readers and editors that the article did not include up-to-date information regarding this rather important change. Now that the tag has been removed, casual readers will not be aware of this. --DAJF (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Foreign residents' registration system

The Japanese Wikipedia version of this Alien registration article has information about the new system in a section down the bottom. It seems wise to structure the English version the same way -- at least until enough new information becomes available to justify creating a separate article about the new system. The new system of registration for foreigners is not called Juminhyo. Registration of non-Japanese in the Japanese citizens' Juminhyo system is only one part of it.

The Japanese Wikipedia article says that information about visa overstayers and the like who had alien registration has been sent by City Offices to the Immigration Department, and such people have three months (starting from July 9) to return their alien registration cards　—　but I haven't yet searched and found a reference to verify this. LittleBen (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fingerprinting debate section

This section reads in a (to me) slanted manner, as though the page is trying to convince me that the people who don't like it are unrealistic complainers and the system is all perfectly fine. I don't want to throw out the entire section though 104.229.138.240 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought Aliases were abolished?

Hasn't it been several years since they got rid of aliases? Also, the "gaijin card" is no longer in use...184.155.130.147 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alien registration 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/20080410153615/http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/visa/13.html to http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/visa/13.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030223252/http://www.seikatubunka.metro.tokyo.jp/hebon/index.html to http://www.seikatubunka.metro.tokyo.jp/hebon/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401225743/http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090226a5.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090226a5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120706031917/http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120703a8.html to http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120703a8.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)