Talk:Gohatto

Fair use rationale for Image:Gohatto Poster.jpg

Image:Gohatto Poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. The only argument against moving is based on numbers and comes from an editor who has since been banned. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Taboo (1999 film) → Gohatto – {{{2}}} elvenscout742 (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The film's official title in Japan is Gohatto in roman letters[1][2][3], and this is also the title under which it was released in the United Kingdom and Ireland.[4] And .. China .. apparently.[5] There is also a huge number of GBooks hits[6] for "Gohatto" that do not even mention the "Taboo" as the English title. Corresponding results for "Taboo" are far fewer[7]. (You have to mention the year, since most of the results at [8] seem to be about how Oshima's more famous earlier films violated taboos, or give Gohatto as the primary title and mention "taboo" as a gloss.) Relisted. BDD (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

elvenscout742 (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support, per WP:PRECISION. "Taboo" is ambiguous, so must be qualified, "Gohatto" (a name used in English sources as well) does not require artificial qualification. "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." So even if Taboo is more commonly used (the possible outcome of the initial discussion below), Gohatto is preferred on Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  That seems to come from WP:NATURAL not WP:PRECISION. Do you have some other examples of where a film article has been moved from the commonest English title to its foreign language equivalent just to get rid of something like "(1999 film)" from the title? JoshuSasori (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  You're right, WP:NATURAL instead of WP:PRECISION. Why would I need another example, when there's a perfectly good guideline right now? Do you have some other examples of where a film article has been moved to the artificially qualified commoner name from its unqualified foreign-language equivalent after consideration of the guideline? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  No, I want to find out what the common practice in moving the film articles is. JoshuSasori (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  Is there some reason to assume the common practice is not reflected in the guidelines? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  "Taboo" is not the commonest English title. My GBooks searches were limited to English results, and "Gohatto" got 5 times as many results. Additionally, a precedent has been set at WP:FA, WP:GA and WP:FILM that articles don't even need to use the "commonest English title" either way. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  My GBooks searches were limited to English results, and "Gohatto" got 5 times as many results. - oh, five times as many results? I am wondering why you do not provide links to such wonderous results. Why no links? This may well be a personal attack on me. I am very angry about it. I am going to report you on the reliable sources noticeboard for not providing links. Additionally, a precedent has been set at WP:FA, WP:GA and WP:FILM that articles don't even need to use the "commonest English title" either way. - I am astonished to find that you do not provide links. Failure to provide links in this way clearly constitutes a personal attack. My immediate reaction is to report you on the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Knitting" noticeboard. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  The links for 4 times as many results are above, and the links for 5 times as many are below. You know this, since you are the one that prompted me to provide them already. I will post them here now again, though.516>107 And please stop making ad hominem arguments (I'm not sure if they qualify as personal attacks, but they make it very difficult to edit). I have noted this on ANI[9], where I should warn you, you still haven't provided a reason why you shouldn't be blocked indefinitely as two other users suggested.[10][11] (Note also that the threat they are referring to was an empty one to begin with, since my employers already know I edit Wikipedia during downtime, which is what Friday was. Also, even if you somehow found out who/where they were, if you tried to contact them I would be the one picking up the phone. :P ) elvenscout742 (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  Why are you putting these comments here? Why don't you add them to the administrator's noticeboard? JoshuSasori (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  I already did. I wasn't going to respond here at all but then I noticed that you still apparently hadn't noticed the GBooks results I had pointed out to you, so I needed to respond here as well. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - the move is not necessary. JHunterJ's arguments for moving it are reasonable, but the numbers are not convincing. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  My argument (singular) does not rely on numbers. The rationale here is not convincing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  The argument at WP:NATURAL seems to rely on showing that the other name is common, so you need to prove that the other name is common. Numbers might help a bit. Also, above we are told that "Gohatto" rather than 御法度 is the name of the film in Japan, but this turned out to be false. Incidentally, Ryuhei Matsuda, it seems to me, looks more like his mother than his father. What do you think? Also, how authentic is the portrayal of the Shinsengumi in this film? Do you have any historical insights? JoshuSasori (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  The other name is common, viewing the discussion below. It's the name of the film in the English-speaking country the United Kingdom[12]. The name in the non-English language Japanese isn't relevant. Your other questions have no bearing on this move; you should start a new section to discuss. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing discussion/double-vote from sock of indef blocked editor

*Oppose - Taboo is "the title more commonly recognized by English readers" (WP:NC-FILM#Foreign-language films). Because, according to my Google News Archive Search, "Taboo" Nagisa -Gohatto (274 results) is more than "Gohatto" Nagisa -Taboo (248 results). "Taboo" Nagisa -Gohatto 1999 (222 results) is more than "Gohatto" Nagisa -Taboo 1999 (182 results). "Taboo" Nagisa Oshima -Gohatto 1999 (209 results) is more than "Gohatto" Nagisa Oshima -Taboo 1999 (183 results). 123.224.191.185 (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Wow, you found that a slightly larger number of obituaries for Oshima called the film "Taboo" than called it "Gohatto". The fact is that since so few of those sources actually discuss the film, they don't prove anything, especially given that the numbers are so close. The GBooks results I linked to numerous times now are far more conclusive. elvenscout742 (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Also, please note that the above anon account has never edited any other article than this one and the article on the film's director. All of the small number of edits took place within the space of a few hours, while User:JoshuSasori was due to be banned. I did not bring up the above account in my sockpuppet investigation for JoshuSasori since the edits took place before the latter was banned, but the vote of a WP:SPA who has never edited any other articles should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Or at least it might be taken as half a vote, with the other half being JoshuSasori's WP:POINTy vote that he made against me within hours of getting banned for harassing me across numerous articles. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment - can the proposer please explain what evidence there is that the film was not released under the title "Taboo" or that "Taboo" is not a common English name of the film? The same search applied to the title in reverse, "Taboo" Oshima -gohatto, gives us more hits than the above search which the proposer uses as evidence. Also the film posters that the proposer says indicate that the film's official title is "Gohatto" in roman letters all also have the kanji name 御法度 on them. The Japanese wikipedia claims the title is 御法度 too, and it also gives the English title as "Taboo". There is no mention of the title being romanized. And note that sometimes Japanese films are released with a romanized title or English title, e.g. Love Letter, which was released in cinemas in Japan with the title "Love Letter", so there is no reason "gohatto" is not possible. Even more, the link that is supposed to be about China seems to link to an episode of "Friends" (I didn't actually view the video to confirm this, but it says Chandler & Joey play some foosball for some cash but Chandler on purposely trys to lose.). Can the proposer clarify? I feel this is unconvincing, but I will give the proposer a chance to explain what I am misunderstanding before definitely voting here. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The film was released as Taboo in the United States, but as Gohatto in the United Kingdom. The Google Books searches indicate that Gohatto is the more prominent title for the film in reliable English sources. The search you cite above, as I have already pointed out in move request, is flawed in that a significant number of the sources are not about this film, but merely use the word "taboo" in relation to one or more of Oshima's more famous films (this is why they also don't use the word "Gohatto". Additionally, Japanese Wikipedia is not a reliable source -- anyone can add any information they like to it, and an ISP account mentioning that a Japanese film is known by such-and-such a name in the United States[13] is equivalent to me adding "Japanese title: 声をかくす人 Koe o kakusu hito" to the article on The Conspirator. The Japanese article in its original form gave the name "Gohatto" in roman letters. It is entirely possible that the anon who added "Taboo" to the Japanese article was under the mistaken belief that "Taboo" was some kind of official English title and "Gohatto" wasn't, and wanted to balance the article. This is why we shouldn't trust Japanese Wikipedia. The video I linked to as a joke entirely separate from the move request. The search for poster images brought up a Chinese poster that seemed like a fun aside, and I thought "The film is also known as Gohatto in .. China .. apparently" which brought a line from Friends to my mind and a smile to my lips. I lucked out that the clip was on YouTube. The link to the actual poster image, like all my other actual sources, is at the end of the sentence. elvenscout742 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, only 4 of the first 10 hits for ["Taboo" Oshima -gohatto are about this film and give "Taboo" as the title. 2 (for some reason) give "Gohatto" as the title and merely state that "Gohatto means 'taboo'"; 1 is completely unrelated to the subject, as it is a different Oshima and a different taboo being discussed; and 3 are about the filmmaker Nagisa Oshima and how his earlier much more famous film Realm of the Senses broke "taboos" about portraying sex in cinema. Therefore, while it's easy to assume that any English-language source that uses the words "Gohatto" and "Oshima" together is referring to this film, in order to find sources that specifically call the film "Taboo" rather than "Gohatto" we have to apply the slightly more restrictive parameter of including the year of the film's release. If this seems unfair it can be pointed out that with the same restriction "Gohatto" still comes out on top. elvenscout742 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is related to the use of the word "Taboo" about other films. Changing the search to "Taboo Ryuhei Matsuda Oshima" and "Gohatto Ryuhei Matsuda Oshima" doesn't change the ratio, the "Taboo" version comes out at about the same ratio of hits. Realistically, "Taboo" is the more common name on Google searches. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Taboo Ryuhei Matsuda Oshima" brings up about 80% fewer results than "Gohatto Oshima -Taboo". "Gohatto Ryuhei Matsuda Oshima" still brings up at least as many results. And your search still includes books about Japanese cinema and/or Oshima's work in general that just happen to use the word "taboo" at some point in the text. I am beginning to notice why you never provide links to diffs, etc., since the actual evidence never supports your conclusions. I would also like to see your evidence that Taboo is "the more common name on Google searches" -- Wikipedia doesn't use general Google searches (do you mean GBooks searches?) and it also doesn't use Wikipedia mirrors as sources, so you always need to block Wikipedia from your search. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, that's a personal attack, I shall immediately report you on the administrator's noticeboard. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what personal attack? I just pointed out, as an admin and several others before me, that your failure to actually cite evidence is kind of frustrating. Of course, it is possible that you are referring to the fact that I reported you on ANI because you made a veiled threat and have been calling me names for a month now. If you are sarcastically referring to that, then rather you are the one relying on ad hominem arguments than objective evidence. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing discussion/double-vote from sock of indef blocked editor

*Comment - The film's official title in Japan is not "Gohatto" in roman letters. All the national newspapers such as Asahi, Sankei and Yomiuri refer to the film as "御法度" in kanji. In Japan, unlike Gonin, Nana or Ichi, roman letters are sometimes used as a substitute for furigana to show the pronunciation of the kanji title. For example, take a look at the Kueki Ressha poster, which says "苦役列車 KUEKI RESSHA", even though the official title of the film is "苦役列車" (not "苦役列車 KUEKI RESSHA"). 123.224.191.185 (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Update: Oshima's 1999 film is referred to as "御法度" (not "御法度 GOHATTO") in the Oshima Productions LTD. website. 123.224.191.185 (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC) The title used on all the posters cited above, as well as on the official DVD[14], is 御法度GOHATTO. Are you saying we should name this article on a Japanese film based on a DVD released by New Yorker Films[15] rather than the title used by the studio that produced the film as well as the filmmakers? elvenscout742 (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Reply to the update You know, you are just admitting that this film's official title is Gohatto, right? Because 御法度 is not romanized any other way, and we are not allowed use Japanese text in the article title. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Back in the day, I remember a certain user was trying to get the words "official title" into Ugetsu and Sansho the Bailiff on the basis of DVDs released by Eureka films. But definitely we should believe what the studio says, e.g. this, or this, holy macaroni batman look at that Japanese text: 商品名：御法度(DVD). JoshuSasori (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted to get a mention of the fact that no one outside North America refers to the films by your name into the article. I was, however, coincidentally moving to get MOSFILM and NCF amended so all of these articles get moved to their actual official titles. I think the fact that I didn't make requested moves at both of those articles to their official titles shows that this has nothing to do with my personal POV, as I have made that POV clear throughout. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a horrible change to NCF/MOSFILM, and would contravene WP:PRECISE and WP:UCN and WP:OFFICIALNAME. It doesn't matter what official names are, as we operate on common names. Further many official names are horribly long, and we use shorter forms frequently, especially for some films that have paragraph sized titles. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with that, please discuss it on WT:FILM or with the various users I was discussing it with there. This page is for discussion of this film, where your points clearly do not apply: the romanized Japanese title (which does appear romanized in official media, by the way) is 7 letters; the American title with disambiguator (including spaces) is 17. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You haven't opened any such proposal at WPFILM -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't, because I am not a member of WPFILM. Other regular members of WPFILM indicated that this will probably be done in the near future, though, since articles on films under their official titles have been tending to get promoted to GA and FA status of late. Additionally, your constant opposition to all of these moves is ignoring the spirit of WP:UE, which specifically states that only words and names that are very commonly known and used in English should "use English". elvenscout742 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The constant opposition to all these moves is all in your head. I did not oppose this particular move at all. Your statement that you shouldn't use titles found in the English-language market is what I oppose. Since this film was released as Gohatto in the English-language market, it is one of the viable titles, along with Taboo. That you would say that only official names of the original release should be used is what I find objectionable. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You must learn to distinguish between the expression of personal preference and the quotation of policy. You don't actually look like you know more about policy when you hijack a move request in order to attack me for my personal opinion. The statement you are referring to was my personal preference, and it is also a growing preference among Wikipedians in general and WPFilm members in particular. Therefore, I was merely pointing out that we can expect the policy on this issue to change in the near future to reflect actual consensus among the Wikipedia community. My actual arguments in this case have, however, been based entirely in reliable sources and objective evidence, so your nitpicking my wording is just ridiculous. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim (talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gohatto. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5m2L8LzfU?url=http://www.eiren.org/toukei/2000.html to http://www.eiren.org/toukei/2000.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308111814/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/5172/year/2000.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/5172/year/2000.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) 19:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)