Talk:My Neighbor Totoro/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Totoro and Shinto

I don't believe the section "Totoro and Shinto" is necessary. Totoro has nothing to do with anything religious. Even though there appears shrines and a tree with a shimenawa, it doesn't mean that Totoro has shintoist themes because you can see shinto shrine everywhere in Japan. Regarding appearance of shrine as Shintoism is just a misunderstanding by foreigners who have little knowledge of the Japanese way of religion. Obake has nothing to do with shinto either. No Japanese people regard obake as a part of shinto. If you call Totoro religious, almost all Japanese anime and manga will be religious. Do you call Inuyasha religious just because Kagome lives in a shrine? Or do you call Yu Yu Hakusho religious because Yusuke became a ghost and there're many yokais in the show? Or do you say Shrek has Christian themes just because there's a church? Calling something shintoism just because it is traditional is nonsense. Even if Totoro seems to have shintoist themes to the westerners' eyes, it just means Totoro is a movie set in the Japanese countryside and it is nothing worthy of special mention.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You may believe most Japanese people are shintoist, but it is not necessarily true. They go to shrine on New Year's Day not because they believe in shinto but simply beacuse it is Japanese tradition. The same thing can be said about the appearance of the shrine in Totoro. The appearance of shinto shrine or that of obake cannot be connected to shinto. Believe it or not, it is true that there's no Japanese word for "shintoist" although there is the word for "Buddhist", bukkyouto. In other words, Japanese people don't regard them something like "shintoist". To Japanese, shinto is not something you believe in or you don't blieve in. There's no bible or dogma. Shinto is nothing like Christianity, Islam or Buddhism. It is even doubtful whether it is proper to say that shinto is a religion.

Totoro is nothing religious. Repeat, the appearance of the shrine doesn't mean Totoro has shintoist themes. I must say that to see Totoro religious is only a biased viewpoint. If there're no dissenting opinions, I will erase the section "Totoro and Shinto" on the 24 of April, a week after my first note on the issue.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

True, Totoro is not religious, but there are significant Shinto themes throughout the film. The Totoro are forest/nature spirits, the tree where they live is part of a shrine, and so on. Having Shinto themes does not mean Miyazaki was trying to get across some religious point. Rather, I imagine he was trying to evoke images of a lost past (as it is set in the 1950s) when things were simpler, and trying to get people to remember their roots and not forget their traditions. As you wrote yourself, Shinto is not so much a religion anymore (except to a very few), but more of a set of traditions with some religious elements. Totoro can have Shinto elements without being a religious film. I don't think anyone is arguing the film is religious. You're the only one who's said anything about that. I do find it odd how you reply to yourself above, and appear to be arguing with yourself.···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't talk to myself. I wanted to say some more. That's all.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I reverted the deletion of this section (see following thread), I have no familiarity with this topic and no opinion whether this section belongs in the article or not. Paul August ☎ 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Friedrich. All the spiritual creatures appearing in Totoro (totoro/troll, cat-bus, etc.) have as little resemblance to traditional Japanese/shinto spirits as monsters from Nausicaä in contrast to those from Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away that have more expressly Japanese looks and names.

In either way, unless the author of the section have reliable sources to back up his interpretation of this film in there, it should be removed. A couple of sentence that cite McCarthy's article may stay, but the rest appears to be a product of original research. --Saintjust (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the only reference to religion in Totoro that I ever heard (well, read) seriously discussed is to Buddhism - when Satsuki and Kanta are caught by a storm, they huddle together in a little roadway shrinette to Jizo. I agree with the above posters that the section is somewhat redundant and also based on a view of religion that doesn't quite fit the Japanese' view of Shinto. I wouldn't miss it if it were gone. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On top of Michael Friedrich's arguments above, the entire section smacks of original research to me. I say move the one sourced statement to some other section and delete the rest. -Amake (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've sourced more of the section and removed one paragraph for which I can find nothing in support of it. This was from only 10-15 minutes of searching for online resources. I haven't even cracked open any of the many offline resources I could use. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the section now.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell?!? I've reverted your removal of a very well sourced section. Please do not remove it again. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the section is so short and has very little to do with the film itself until the very last sentence, it is hard to find a reason to keep the section. Perhaps it is better suited in the Hayao Miyazaki article and expanded with examples from his other films as well? Torsodog (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is well-sourced now, and provides an interesting background for the characters. I don't see any reall reason to remove it.MightyAtom (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to keep the section in wikipedia.

"Shinto is the traditional religion of Japan and as such Hayao Miyazaki’s films often have Shintoist themes." <-- This is not the fact but only an opinion of some people.

"Miyazaki himself has identified them as nature spirits" <-- Nature spirits doesn't mean the film has something to do with Shinto. It only means that Totoro is a symbol of nature in this sense. I'll say what Totoro is to this film is what a Grim Reaper, which is a symbol of death, is to Children's and Household Tales.

If you truly understand what Japanese people think about Shinto, you can never say that Totoro has something to do with Shinto. Even if Totoro could be said to be a kami (I never call Totoro a kami, although I call Totoro a spirit), that would not mean this film itself has shintoist themes, just like the appearance of the angel in Princess Knight does not mean that the manga, Princess Knight, itself has Christianity themes.

Connecting Totoro to Shinto is a heavily western-biased way of seeing tge Japanese culture. The word, shintoist, is a western-biased word to bigin with since there's no such a word in Japanese.

Repeat, the appearance of a shine or that of a kami does not mean the film itself has shintoist themes. I know some (who I don't believe are familiar with the Japanese culture) see Totoro having shintoist themes, but that's only their opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and there should not be opinions in it without special reasons. The section must be removed.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks like it is going to turn into an edit war. The information is sourced, so that is taken care of. From there it is just a matter of if it is relevant to the article. It should probably be left as it is until a group decision is reached.MightyAtom (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how this is relevant to the article if the section only refers to the movie in ONE sentence out of the whole five sentences the section is comprised of (not to mention it is the last sentence). Furthermore, this section is so vague that if I changed around the whole ONE example this section gives cites, I could add it to almost any movie made by Miyazaki. Like I said before, if this section has a place, it is in the Miyazaki article and not in this article.Torsodog (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The revised section is better, and has lost the most blatant examples of what Michael was talking about. However, I'm still not sure whether it really should be there in the first place - somebody above pitched the idea of transplanting this to the Miyazaki article and to expand it to include all his works. I think that might be a better, more coherent solution, and in that case, we could just briefly mention Shinto on this page, possibly with a wikilink to the corresponding section of the Miyazaki article. Although, on the other hand, a "Shinto" section in the Miyazaki article would clash somewhat with the "Environmentalism & Anti-war" section...

Oh, since we're reviewing parts of this article, I noticed that the "cultural references" section seems to be a direct copy-paste of some other work, to the point that the footnote numbers of the original remain in the text, now completely useless. The text displays a greater deal of whoever-wrote-it's ideas about Japanese society then it does of the actual portrayal of Japanese society in the movie. I also find the inclusion of "passive cultural references" (huh?) to be a bit redundant - it seems like it just lists points that prove this is a film made by some foureeners. I'm baffled it doesn't include the most obvious giveaway - them strange foureeners speak some weird Moonspeak, don't they? How's that for a "passive cultural reference"? TomorrowTime (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it might make sense to remove the section and merge it into "Environmentalism and Anti-War" section on the Hayao Miyazaki page. But as long as connecting Miyazaki's films with Shinto is an opinion, not the fact that everyone admits, the sentences must be polished and such a sentence as "Hayao Miyazaki’s films often have Shintoist themes" cannot remain as it is. "Some critics believe Hayao Miyazaki's films have Shintoist themes" is better.--59.141.42.53 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't believe we need the section on the page.

"Totoro's home is in a sacred tree, demarcated by a shimenawa rope, on the grounds of a shinto shrine with a torii at the entrance to the shrine grounds." <-- This sentence is not something that needs a sepecified section. It only refers to where Totoro lives. It should be in the "Characters" section. In the first place, that Totoro lives in a sacred tree doesn't mean that Totoro has something to do with shinto. Then do you say squirrels living in the sacred tree of a shrine are shintoists? Totoro may live in the sacred tree just because it is big enough for them to live in. Connecting Totoro and Shinto just because of where they live. It's too simplistic an interpretation.

"Shinto is the traditional religion of Japan and some consider many of Hayao Miyazaki’s films—including Totoro—to have Shintoist themes, even though he denies this and the themes are likely not deliberate" <-- This is not about Totoro but the films by Miyazaki. This sentence should not be here, but on Miyazaki's page. I don't believe we need this sentence, though.

"Many people interpret Totoro as a kami spirit of the Shinto religion. Miyazaki himself has identified them as nature spirits." <-- This is the only part that has something to do with the film but is still so short that it doesn't need a specified section. It should be merged into Miyazaki's page along with the previous sentence.

"Shinto kami are often guardian spirits of the land, concerned with natural phenomena like wind and thunder and natural objects like the sun, mountains, rivers, trees, and rocks." <-- This sentence is out of question. It doesn't have anything to do with the film at all.

It seems that it only Mr. Nihonjoe who wants to keep the section. Most of the people here think the section is irrelevant to the film and that we don't need it, don't they? Why don't we make the decision?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on what you wrote, it seems like this is personal for you,Michael Friedrich. Maybe your personal and emotional opinions are too strong to see this objectively? It is a small section, well sourced, and adds something to the overall article. I vote that it stays, and indeed could be improved. Perhaps re-named "Totoro and Japanese religion/mythology", and include the bits about Jizo? I also agree with TomorrowTime that the whole cultural section is out of whack. Realistically, this whole article needs some serious revision. MightyAtom (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the existence of the section irritates me and I hate to be called shintoist just because I go to shrine. But it is also true that the section has very little to do with the film, as I said many times. You can find Jizo everywhere in Japan and the apperence of the one does not mean the film has something to do with the religion. It only means that the film is set in the country of Japan. And Jizo is not a shintoist thing but something buddhist, which means that referring to Jizo and referring to shinto are not coherent. This fact also proves that this film doesn't have shintoist themes.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I think Michael Friedrich's breakdown of the section is right on. The section has so little to do with the film as it stands, it should not be in this article. Now, if someone was to add to it to make it about religion and mythology in general and added more than one weak example, then I might be more OK with it. Furthermore, if someone was to move it to the Hayao Miyazaki article and drew from his ENTIRE body of work to provide examples, I would be much more ok with it. In this article, however, it seems like the section itself proves how little the movie has to do with Shinto and why there shouldn't be an entire section devoted to it. Torsodog (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that most people here agree to remove the section. If there're no dissenting opinions by the 30th, I will remove it. --Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Summup:

• Michael Friedrich - strong delete
• Nihonjoe - strong keep)
• Saintjust - delete per Michael Friedrich but could be kept if the section is well sourced
• Paul August - no comment
• TomorrowTime - delete
• Amake - merge
• Torsodog - merge into other section or article
• MightyAtom - keep, no reason to delete it
• 59.141.42.53(dion.ne.jp) -merge
• Torsodog - delete per Michael Friedrich.

By far, here are the tally for delete 3, merge 3 keep 2.

Well, in my opinion, I don't see any reason for the section to be deleted. It is well sourced now and has an interesting feature for whom do not know about Japanese culture. It could go under "cultural references". The movie is much more than family and a rural place of the 1950s Japan. Although the nature spirit is made up by the creator, it could be associated with Japanese folklores which also are strongly linked to shintoism. Besides, why does Michael Friedrich declare he "will" delete the section on the date? Who bestows such the privilege to Michael Friedrich? (sarcasm). Given the above discussion, the matter of deletion is not up for him, but by consensus and neural editor should deal with this (is the small section so significant to dispute?) So, I would say "keep" it. --Appletrees (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in Japanese culture, just read Japanese culture. It is completely irrelavent whether the section is interesting or not. Though Totoro can be a symbol of the nature, it does not mean the film itself has something to do with shinto. How many times do I need to say this?

"it could be associated with Japanese folklores which also are strongly linked to shintoism." <-- Which folklore are you referring to? This is only your opinion. Nothing worth mentioning in the article.

"why does Michael Friedrich declare he "will" delete the section on the date?" Who bestows such the privilege to Michael Friedrich?" <-- Anybody can edit wikipedia and you don't need anybody to bestow the previlege to edit it on you. It is me who started this discussion and who is the eagerest that the section be deleted. Is is strange for me to remove the section? As for the date, I chose the 30th because it will have been a week since Nihonjoe, who strongly insist on keeping the section, posted his last comment. MightyAtom also agrees that that the whole cultural section is out of whack. He also says that the whole article needs some serious revision. Revising the whole article, I wanted to start it with removing the section, which has nothing to do with the film at all. You can add the information to Miyazaki's page even after the section is removed.

You insist on keeping it because "it is well sourced now", but as MightyAtom already said, it is just a matter of if it is relevant to the article. It does not matter whether it is well sourced or not. Did you read the discussion?

It seems that you insist on keeping the section just because you are angry at me. Isn't that right? I don't find in the comment you posted any other good reasons why you want to keep the section.---Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny, you're speaking like someone whom I've known but you have a hot temper. It seems that you insist on keeping the section just because you are angry at me. Isn't that right? I don't find in the comment you posted any other good reasons why you want to keep the section. --> Why would I be angry at you? That comment is very childish and irrational. We have not even met before and I don't know you. I like this animation, so it has been on my watchlist. My input here is not to show how much I hate(!?) you or to rescue Nihonjoe being on the corner. Besides, saying "stay away from the article" is a unwise comment of yours. I have an interest in the way of how it conveys several aspects of Japanese unique culture. That could be a motivation for someone to create the article and read the content to get to know Japanese culture. And your irritation has nothing to do with its existence of the section and makes you very subjective. As for Japanese folklore, mythical creatures like notably crow and monkey, fox in Japanese folklore are related to shintoism. You seem to be Japanese, so know well how to pick good examples. The fact that you initiate the discussion doesn't mean that you can decide the period of time for discussion and delete the section as you want. As I said somebody neutral would be in a better position to do so. Moreover, I did not insist on keeping it as it is, but suggest it to be under "cultural references". My mention of the section being well sourced is based on the assumption that the section is relevant to the movie. If you remove the section, how could you explain the characters come from? Just imagination of the animator? I do not know why you're so upset at the section being here. Shintoism is not mere a religion but a part of daily life in Japan and is illustrated in the movie in a warm tone. --Appletrees (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your speech sounded like you were upset at me because I decided the data without discussion. I'm sorry if I made you feel bad. But I don't understand at all why you feel like you're talking with someone you know, though.
"Shintoism is not mere religion but a part of day life in Japan" <-- This is true. But I don't think that it "is illustrated in the movie in a warm tone." No Japanese people would consider Totoro as shintoist. Even if people from other countries consider it as shintoist, that only means it is something Japanese. Many Westers easily consider something Japanese as something shintoist but this idea is not necessarily the case. I don't even believe it is proper to call shinto "a religion". I suggest that it be called "belief" or "feeling" (this is not my idea but one developed by a famous scholar whose name I don't remember). It is very hard to explain it and also very hard for people outside Japan to understand it. If I start to explain it, it will be as long as a dissertation... But I still say the appearance of Totoro, a spirit, cannot be connected to shinto that easily.
I do not oppose creating a new section "cultural referances". But I suggest that only simple information should be there. I do not want the section to include the idea that the film has shintoist themes, which is not a fact but only an opinion.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If my first statement sounded unnecesserily unfriendly to you, I apologze for that, but your declarition of deleting the section in the given time assigned by yourself appears to be more than a strong notification. In my understading of Shintoism is right, it is not only associated with totemism and animism but also embraces several features from various religions which has localized into Japanese thinking. So the coexistence of Buddhistic elements and seemingly Shintoistic supernatural beings is very natural for Japanese people but not for non-Japanese. You said that different and unfamiliar features to people outside of Japan is just because that is a part of Japanese culture, so saying the people to acknowledge and accept it as it is and as Japanese do is not easily understandable. So there needs to be some explanation on where the characters come from and why they come around the little girls. You said other Disney or American animations do not convey any religious feature in its movies but they do acknowledge that the country is based on Christianity with various forms (well even violent TV animation series show main characters going to church), or avoid the matter from bringing up hot issues on religions. So they don't need to explain to themself much about it in "English Wikipedia" if a subject of an animation is significantly related to a religion. That goes the same as to Japanese Wikipedia, therefore, Japanese readers do not need to explain the creatures' existence. However, since here is English Wikipedia primarily for English speakers, not everybody of which are akin to Japanese culture. Some interpretations by reliable newspapers or analysis by critcs on what makes the movie characters of Japan are much appreciated if this article needs its expanion. You perceive the Shinto section as an original research, but I've heard that Japan has many critics specializing in the animation genre unlike any other country, so I think someone (Nihonjoe?) can easily find needed documents on the feature. Of course, certain elements of the movie have resemblences of Alice in Wonderland and Wizard of Oz which are easily indentified by viewers but what about the bearlike Totoro and dustlike creatures? Or Buddhist status? The movie is not religious but certainly has the Shintoistic themes, so what worthy to delete the section? Rather expand it with other interesting elements such as Buddhism in Japan, and contrast with Alice and Dorothy and folklores? --Appletrees (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't do things by vote, so the "count" is irrelevant. The information in the section is perfectly acceptable, is referenced well, and we are reporting that there are people out there who see Shinto themes in the film. Whether you (Michael Friedrich) disagree with them is irrelevant. The sources show that there are people who see those themes, regardless of the intention of Miyazaki. As there are people who would likely be interested in this, and because there are reliable sources which back it up, there is no legitimate reason to remove the section or move it to another article (though I do support a similar section in the Miyazaki article if someone wants to do the research to populate it). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume Nihonjoe's brusque comment on "count" seems to aim at me. Well, Michael Friedrich claimed that there is the only one (Nihonjoe) insisting on keep the section, so the "count" is needed for me to figure out people's opinion here. I already said pretty much of the subject, so I only point out on the count. Unfortunately we "do" rely on "count" by vote in many cases per my Wiki experience, and for some people the "count" is a good ground for their claim.--Appletrees (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

>> But I still say the appearance of Totoro, a spirit, cannot be connected to shinto that easily.<< Maybe, but it also can be dis-connected that easily. Also, in response to "No Japanese people would consider Totoro as shintoist." Well...I just asked my wife, and she disagrees with you. She said Totoro lives in a sacred tree, they are nature spirits, and so they are kami, and so they are connected to shinto...so please don't make such strong subjective statements. You do not speak for all Japanese people, anymore than I speak for all American people. And I still think the whole section should be kept and updated into an overall mythology section, so that is where my opinion officially lies.MightyAtom (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be possible to interpret Totoro as a kami, but it is an interpretation. Not the truth. Miyazaki himself denies that the film has anything to do with shinto. Even I would say it could be possible to interpret Totoro as a kami if you asked me, but when people watch the film I'm sure they never find shintoistic themes in it deliberately. I don't think your wife had ever come up with an idea of interpretating Totoro as a kami before you asked her the question. I think what she meant was that it is possible to interpret Totoro as a kami, not that Totoro is a kami.

The film is open to interpretation since there's no explicit explanation for what Totoro is. But the section "Totoro and Shinto" sounds like it is true that Totoro has shintoistic themes although it is only an interpretation.

I think one of the reasons why English-sipeaking people think Totoro has shintoistic themes is the translation. The father calls Totoro as "a spirit of the forest" in the English version, but he calls him "nushi" in the Japanese version. Nushi means master or owner. The one who lives in one place for a very long time will be called nushi. Fishers call the biggest fish in a lake or in a pond "nushi". Satsuki also calls Totoro a spirit in English but she calls him obake in Japanese. Obake means Yōkai in this case. Some yokai are related to shinto and called kami for sure, but not all of them are so. It seems to me that the English translator conciously emphasized shinto in order to make the film exotic and attractive to American audience.

You may think it is characteristic to shinto to consider things beyond human knowledge as god or kami, but it is not necessarily the case. For example, Ainu also consider animals as kamuy (god). The brown bear is kimunkamuy (mountain god), the owl is kotan kor kamuy (village god) and the northern pika is kutoronkamuy (rock mountain god). It is also able to interpret Totoro as a kamuy instead of kami if you ask me since Miyazaki once said he was interested in Ainy. Consider Totoro as a kami of shinto is only an interpretation.

I don't want to allow the section as it is. But I don't think I can remove it either. I'm thinking about changing the section like this.

<no wiki>==Cultural Referances==<no wiki>

• Policeman: When they are driving towards their new home, Satsuki takes a man in uniforms for a police officer and hide. This is because it is illegal to ride on the carrier of a truck in Japan.
• Shoes: Satsuki keeps kneeling when she moves around the room to find acorns. People in Japan never go into their houses with their shoes on.
• Ohagi: Kanta brings race cakes his grand mother made. They are called ohagi, also know as botamochi.
• Bento: Satsuki bring a box lunch with her to school. A box lunch is calle bento in Japanese. An umeboshi is often on the center of the rice as is the case with the film. It is called "hinomaru-bento" because it looks like the Japanese flag.
• Totoro's home: Totoro lives in a tree demarcated by a shimenawa (braided straw rope for shinto). The tree is called shinboku (sacred tree). Shinto is the traditional religion of Japan and some consider many of Hayao Miyazaki’s films—including Totoro—to have Shintoist themes and interpret Totoro as a kami spirit of the Shinto religion. But Miyazaki says "this movie [Totoro] has nothing to do with that [Shinto] or any other religion."
• Nushi: Father calls Totoro "Mori no nushi", meaning "the owner of the forest." It is translated as "the spirit of the forest" in Disney's dub and as "the king of the forest" in Disney's sub. Animals, ghosts or whatever lives the longest in one place is called "nushi," as fishers call the biggest fish in a lake "nushi".
• Obake: Satsuki calls Totoro "obake" in her letter to her mother. Obake means both ghost and yokai. Whatever posseses a power beyond human knowledge can be called obake.
• Crab: Satsuki says "Mei is wating for the acorns to sprout, and it's starting to make her crabby." This comes from a Japanese folktale called "Sarukani-gassen" (Monkey-Crab War), where a crab gets a seed of Persimmon from a monkey and watches it everyday waiting for it to sprout.
• Pray: The Nanny repeatedly says "nanmaidabu" when Mei is missing. "nanmaidabu" is a corruption of "namu-amida-butsu", which Japanese people say when you pray for Buddha. "namu" means to embrace, and amida-butsu means Amitābha.
• Jizo: The statues standing behind Mei when she was found are called Jizo.
• Yakiimo: In the ending credit, when Satsuki is burnig leaves Kanta is holding sweet potatoes. People in Japan often do this when they make a bonfire of fallen leaves in autumn.

What do you think of this?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Turning it into a list is not good. If you can rewrite it as prose, and then source everything you have listed above, I'd support it as long as the Totoro and Shinto information remains as is. That information is sourced, and while it is an opinion that Totoro is a kami or nature spirit, it is an opinion that many people share, and articles have been written about it, academic papers have commented on it, and the original creator identifies them as the latter. And all of the material there is sourced with multiple reliable sources. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get why you do not think turning it into a list is good. I think it is because it is easier to read and you can easily scan information you want. If you rewrite the list I made above as a prose, it will be too long and it is hard to read. The information about shinto sure is on the list. I don't think there's any better ways we can agree to. --Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Because lists should be avoided wherever possible. There are some things which lend themselves to lists, but this is not one of them. This information could very easily be prose-ified. Also, this looks more like a trivia list, and those are not recommended, either. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why do you think lists should be avoided? Is there such a rule?
How do you think you can change the information into prose? Please let me show it.I meant "Please show it to me." Sorry.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
All the information above is related to the film and the culture of Japan. I don't think it is only a trivia list. If you don't think my idea is good, you have to give us an alternative idea.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You can read more here . ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. But you still need to show us your idea. How do you intend to change the section? Please don't tell me you are thinking of just leaving it as it is.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible bad revert on my part

While tracking down what I took to be vandalism by the IP 67.161.32.117, I reverted to a previous version. In doing so I may have inadvertently reverted some good edits as well. I will review all the other edits I reverted for possible good ones. SInce I have no familiarity of this topic, a review of my revert by other editors would be most welcome. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Okay, since people are just removing ALL of the tags, here is the breakdown of WHY this article was tagged with each. Please do NOT remove the tags again without fixing these issues or engaging in a discussion where consensus agrees that the issue is not an issue.

• Refimprove - I would think this would be pretty obvious. We have 11 sources with the bulk of the article being completely unsourced
• List to prose - Per consensus in the film project - credit lists do not belong in articles. Per the anime and manga project, relevant staff should be noted in prose in the production section. Per both projects - the table of reception is useless and adds no value to the article.
• Plot - the plot is 712 words long; per the film MoS - it should be 400 to 700 and for a film this length, it should be closer to 400 as the plot is not that complicated
• Original research - the plot contains unsourced personal opinions about allusions to the film and interprative statements; much of the cultural references section also appears to be personal opinion
• Clean up - again, I would think this is obvious; the article needs clean up, restructuring, etc to comply with either the Film MoS or the anime and manga MoS; and with the general Wikipedia MoS
• Too short - this was a mis-tag and should have been lead rewrite (fixed it); it does not comply with the film MoS nor WP:LEAD.

Hopefully this will help folks understand why the article was tagged as such. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't agree with a single item here. And now, please demonstrate there was ever a consensus to add the tags. At the moment, 2:1 editors want the lead rewrite tag gone, and 1:1 editors want the rest of them gone. beefman (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, consensus is NOT required to tag an article for issues. Second, you already admitted you only removed the tags because you don't like their visual appearance, which is your own issue. And no 2:1 editors do not want to rewrite tag gone. Only you want any of them gone. The other editor disagreed with too short, which I noted was an incorrect tag and changed it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please point to where I said I only removed them because of their visual appearance. If consensus is not needed to tag an article, is it needed to remove them? As for the lead issue, did you miss

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Neighbor_Totoro&curid=20669&diff=241688252&oldid=241598247

? beefman (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, here is your nice lovely remark on my talk page where you call tagging crap and "litter"[1],, along with fling out some personal insults that I was nice enough not to request a warning against you for. You also fully acknowledge you have no experience with fictional topics, yet you then claim the tags are "are selectively applied by deletionists to articles about fictional works" (never mind that I'm a very active editor in the anime and manga projects, and film, and actually know what I'm talking about). As for that summary, it applies to the tooshort, not to lead rewrite. Nor has Robert K S had a chance to respond to the explanation, which he asked to be posted here. He has not been online since then so he has not had a chance to respond to the explanations to see if he agrees or disagrees. And yes, consensus is needed to remove validly applied tags that have been explained if the issues have not actually been addressed or fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You misinterpreted my comments regarding 'visual appearance'. Please don't be nice, issue the warning. I'll wait for Robert to check in. beefman (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I also oppose the actions of AnmaFinotera for the reasons given above, and smack of the recent abuses I saw him commit on the DBZ merge issues, and which I am grateful others stepped in to oppose. I do the same here, for the reasons they did, because he is ignoring the rules about consensus.JJJ999 (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think I recall AnmaFinotera being a she. Let me know if my memory is faulty. Anyway, AnmaFinotera's explanations are insufficient. Where they are not entirely invalid (700 words vs. 712 words? please), they are merely re-iterations of the content of the tags. AnmaFinotera should say, for example, how or why the lead is not in conformity with guidelines. (By the time AnmaFinotera does all this, AnmaFinotera probably would have saved time by making the change AnmaFinotera's self.) It's my personal opinion that overly large tags that essentially supplant the lead with a new, non-article-subject-oriented lead that is negative in tone is unacceptable on this very flawed but still immensely useful encyclopedia, but I realize that debate is not germane on this talk page. AnmaFinotera could serve his/her purposes just as well, and with less adversity wherever he/she has met it, by placing such tags at the top of talk pages rather than at the top of articles and then donning battle armor. Robert K S (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't care what gender the editor is, I'm sick of this sort of bullying and dual standard of "I don't need consensus to do x, but you do need consensus to undo x". The tags are probably intended viciously, seem to disregard consensus, are inherently negative (the user doesn't care to search for references or improve it themselves), these tags are to deface the article and to create a papertrail for future deletion. I don't even believe AnmaFinotera read the references or the article fully before adding the tags to be honest. I certainly don't think they sought consensus.JJJ999 (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's vicious to point out that there are issues with the article that the tagging editor (presumably) has an wish to see ironed out. Assumption of good faith is in order. When uninvolved editors tag an article, this can be considered indicative of problems that a general readership may also notice. Therefore, instead of wasting a long time arguing on the talk page, and engaging in unproductive edit wars regarding the tag itself (rather than edits resulting from its recommendations), the editors should be sitting down and discussing particulars of the article, what may need work, why, and progress from there. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For those who care to weigh in on the tag issue in general policy terms, I've elaborated my thoughts here, expanding on the post I made to AnmaFinotera's talk page. Robert K S (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

where is AnmaFinotera's attempt to improve the article or ask for discussion? I've seen no interest in any of that from him, either here or in the DBZ issue on which s/he was recently censured by independent admins in good standing. I can't accept most of those tags are valid, and I think their conduct to date is bullying and shows no interest in consensus.JJJ999 (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Bullying? That's rather defensive for simply receiving some article comments. Once again, where is the AGF? There is no requirement that tagging editors also maintain the articles they tag, although it should be encouraged. Pointing out issues is just as important, because oftentimes the primary editors may not have outside perspective. (Consider it a pre-emptive peer review!) Now, I see that he's discussed his points above. Please, discuss the points, and not the tagging. You will find consensus if you all make the effort, I promise you. Being defensive benefits no one and more importantly, does the article a disservice. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am personally happy to help discuss this and move towards consensus. But can you please not add the tags again? They haven't been justified yet, and the consensus so far is opposed to them.JJJ999 (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the burden on OR and V issues (including tags for them) is on the editors wishing to include the material, not the other way around. When a consensus exists that these issues are no longer extant - a consensus that cannot possibly exist yet since there has been no discussion on these matters - then tags can be removed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

On edit warring

As an editor who in general strongly agrees with tagging, and the multiple issues tag in particular, I still agree that edit warring to keep the thing on is counterproductive. The general state of the article has been raised here; the issues have been elaborated on. The next stage is discussion of how the article should be edited. Ultimately, the aim of both sides is not to have tags on the article.

For now, I think that the tags should stay off, but that the article's state should be brought to the attention of the appropriate WikiProjects. This often brings in new blood and helps to get the article fixed faster. (Update: I see AnmaFinotera has already done this.)

That said, tagging as policy is expressly condoned by the project as a whole, and the onus is on editors who disagree with this policy to get it changed properly (such as by following User:Robert K S's example and bringing the topic up for wider discussion) rather than simply ripping the things off of pages on their respective watchlists (which disrupts the workflows of those who use the cleanup categories). If there's really no consensus amongst editors here that the issues in the tags actually don't exist, then their removal is sensible, but removing them because they are "ugly" isn't appropriate and editors who do so should re-think whether they are acting in the best interests of the community by fighting an established and condoned workflow. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to abide by that ruling, and when I get time I'll look at making some edits. Personally I feel I know little about the subject matter, so I'm sure robert and beef will be better placed to edit this thing, not to mention the project in question.JJJ999 (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to the actual article text

• Referencing - has issues, starting towards the end of the lead. Yes, some citations exist, but many more statements are devoid of them
• Trivia and OR issues, especially wrt lists.
• Plot length - I really don't find this an issue, myself
• Cleanup - a healthy perusal of WP:MOSFILM certainly could do a world of good
• Intro re-write - perhaps a bit harsh - but some moderate expansion to focus more on the film and less (if at all) on the release history would certainly be in order.

Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

More tagging discussion

I see perhaps some merit in a clean up tag in principle, but since several editors here seem happy to do that clean up, and since it has been referred to groups, is that necessary? At any rate, the rest of the tags are basically wrong. Plot length and rewrite are flat out wrong as far as I can tell, and trivia pages are not unacceptable, there is simply a stream of thought on wikipedia against them (many of the proponents like Alkivar lead me to disagree with this stream of thought given his mass violations and ban). I don't think there is OR, there is simply a need for general clean up and tidy up, but not of a scale that necessarily requires a tag. this thing will continue to improve itself with time.

PS- the ruling/call was to keep the tags off till after.JJJ999 (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What "ruling"? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry, thought it was an admin ruling. It appears to be a suggestion. Nonetheless, it is 4-2 in favour of removing the tags till after a discussion. That is plenty for a decision of this scope.JJJ999 (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A link, please. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is me, beef, Robert K and Cunningham in favour of no tags, and just you and AnmaFinotera in favour. The discussion has largely been on this page, though some have spoken more than others like Robert, I am supportive both of his reasons, and because of the lack of consultation. Since the 4 of us want the tags removed till post discussion, I feel they should be until you guys reach consensus here.JJJ999 (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not a decision, a ruling, or anything else of such stature, and frankly, I'm walking out of this in disgust. My views have been clear, and apparently unlike every other editor in this discussion - bar AnmaFinotera - I have actually addressed the tags at hand. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the tags should remain as the issues appear legitimate and your actions in constantly tearing them off should be heavily looked at.--Crossmr (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Errr, this isn't a vote, and there wasn't a "ruling" - I gave my opinion, but I'm certainly not open to having it be used as a bludgeon. I don't expect it to be used as such again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

3 others have "torn them off" too...JJJ999 (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and its improper to do so until the tags have been properly addressed. More than one editor sees a problem here, and hence the tags are appropriate. If you can't stand to see the tags on the article then you might want to take a step back because you're far too personally involved. Tags are not a personal attack and should be seen as an opportunity to discuss things and make the article better. If you're more worried about getting the tags off the article than actually improving it, thats a clear sign that you need to re-evaluate.--Crossmr (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll recuse myself from the discussion then from now on.JJJ999 (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Robert K S above. The article page is for content while this talk page is the place for comment, criticism and related discussion. I have placed a tag at the head of this page which lists links to numerous sources for this topic such as these books. I suppose that no-one will object to this tag because it is productive and does not deface the article itself. The objection is not to tags in general but to tags which do not improve the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  Regardless, this isn't the place to take that stand, and I'm distinctly unimpressed by the edit warring here (on both sides) in order to seemingly make a point about whether tags are appropriate or not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  Please suggest a good place to discuss the general issue of intrusive drive-by tag bombing as I have much to say on the subject. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup#Reviving discussion on tagging guidelines (or, "tags as nags and tags as drags"). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

First, as a general note, I have left a note with an admin about JJJ999's personal attacks and outright false accusations here as this is stemming purely from his disagreeing with my closing of some merger discussions at List of Dragon Ball characters and apparently has decided to attack me rather than the issues at hand. For the rest, I have made some initial clean up efforts on the article, which I hope will not just be blindly reverted since those who opposed the tags demanded I "do the work myself." Colonel Warden, thanks for posting the convenience link to the Google books. I, of course, already knew this film would have plenty of sources. I have some at home myself for it. It is a highly rated film and one of the few anime films to hit "mainstream" thanks to Disney being its licensor. It is one reason the article was tagged for refimprove in the first place. The appalling lack of quality references here when there are plenty to be had is really not very excusable. For the issue of "drive-by tagging" (which is sort of a derogatory term to some folks), Robert K.S. has started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup#Reviving discussion on tagging guidelines (or, "tags as nags and tags as drags") though I would imagine that any changes to the current methods of tagging that arise from that discussion would have to be taken to the Village Pump or other more broadly visual area before it could be implemented. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations for use

Here are some potentially useful citations for the article:

• Leyland, Matthew (2006). "My Neighbour Totoro". Sight & Sound. 16 (6): 89. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• "At Home: Animated Japan". Empire (202): 164–165. 2006. {{cite journal}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Text "last Osmond" ignored (help)

• "A brief look at the early output of Japanese animation production company Studio Ghibli with DVD reviews for: TONARINO TOTORO, HOTARU NO HAKA, MIMI WO SUMASEBA and MY NEIGHBOURS THE YAMADAS."

• Prunes, Mariano (2003). "Having It Both Ways: Making Children Films an Adult Matter in Miyazaki's My Neighbour Totoro". Asian Cinema. 14 (1): 45–55. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Feel free to use them! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Two reviews (one needs free registration):

• Klady, Leonard (1993-05-06). "My Neighbor Totoro". Variety.
• Holden, Stephen (1993-05-14). "Review/Film; Even a Beast Is Sweet as Can Be". The New York Times.

Also see the Google Books Search with all varying titles here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Stibbe, Arran (2007). "Zen and the Art of Environmental Education in the Japanese Animated Film Tonari no Totoro". Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture. 1 (4).
• Sharp, Jasper (2006). "Forgotten roots of Japanimation: In praise of shadows". Film International. 4 (3): 30–39. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Napier, Susan J (2001). "Confronting Master Narratives: History As Vision in Miyazaki Hayao's Cinema of De-assurance". Positions. 9 (2): 367–493. doi:10.1215/10679847-9-2-467.

Three possible resources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Update on changes

Hello, I just wanted to notify editors of the changes I've made to the article today. I trimmed the "Themes" section to the stubby form because the three books that were cited were published before the film ever came out. On Wikipedia, we cannot synthesize information to analyze our own themes. I also removed two websites that were not reliable sources and replaced them with an academic journal. The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture article has a lot more about the Shintoesque elements in the film, and I am thinking that we could have a screenshot to support this critical commentary.

I also revised the first paragraph of the "Release" section to be supported by a book instead of a website, but I removed the claim about one of the two films possibly being too depressing since it was unverifiable. I started a "Critical reception" section and a "Cultural impact" section. So far, there's three American reviews and one British review... it would be nice to get some Japanese reviews in there, too. I think that we need to further solidify this film's prominence in Japanese cinema, particularly in the lead section, which I believe focuses a little too much on the different releases. I put in a request at WT:JAPAN for help in implementing the Asian Cinema citation, since that seems like a very useful source. "Cultural impact" also has a little bit about Totoro's fame and ties with the environment. Lastly, I also included a "Further reading" section to mention the art book, which I don't think has anything to use in the article but could be of interest to readers. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)