Talk:Flag of Japan

Featured articleFlag of Japan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic starFlag of Japan is part of the Law Regarding the National Flag and National Anthem (Japan) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2010.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 25, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 21, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 26, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
October 7, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 5, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 27, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 8, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
October 17, 2010Good topic candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 27, 2013, February 27, 2016, February 27, 2019, and February 27, 2020.
Current status: Featured article


Former flag?

So what was the flag before 1999 then? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 10:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis is on "formally adopted". -Jefu 16:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I see. So what does that mean in practical terms? And are there any other flags around the world that are not yet "formally adopted"? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 17:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In practical term, it meant nothing for most people because they did use it as de facto national flag anyway. However those opposing adoption could claim freedom of speech to not to use "national flag"(quoted because technically it wasn't from their viewpoint) and argue that it was unconstitutional to enforce or promote its usage in public places because it was nothing more than "belief". --Revth 06:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi i am martina thank you for letting me use this information for my project i have put your website address so more people can visit this site many thanks martina (Moved from main article). NawlinWiki 11:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a ww2 flag from the battle of Okinawa. It is red base with a white rising sun thick fabric. I have yet to see another like it. Does anyone have info on it? August 7, 2006

Perhaps it is a home made flag, since there is a lot of homemade flags used during the war and carried by soldiers to use as good luck. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps,but the quality seems better than something homeade. I thought that maybe the white on red (rather than the opposite) may have been designated for a certain division of the military. 0955 hrs. August 19, 2006

My only other guess is a military flag, but for whom or what, I cannot tell you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note under Military flag

I have added an 'be careful' note under the Military session.

Do not delete the note since some designers often misuse the flag or use the flag as a base of design and got their products banned in China and Korea.

The note is not judging the rightfulness of the 'offensive feeling' or the banning. It's pure NPOV and informational.

I live in Taiwan. I personally don't find that flag offensive but some of us do.timdream 16:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rising Sun naval flag is used in the states too by Japanophiles or by other groups, so it is not the first nor last it will happen. I seen clothing makers in China use the swastika in the past, which got folks in trouble. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've add the so-called source upon your request - a link to zh.wikipedia. That was an event about an actress got boycotted because she was found in photos dressing clothes with the flag design. No official banning was in place I must admit. These kind of reaction was little known to English-speaking World but well known in Chinese-speaking world. I think people out there should know. Being advocated by a nationalism gov't, WW II is something not that easy to forget. timdream 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, she has an English wikipedia entry! - timdream 18:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took the second link to the news article and I put it in the article. For future reference, it is a good idea to use actual news articles as sources instead of other Wikipedia articles, given the nature of how we are (as in, anyone can change anything). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current flag inspired by Tokugawa?

Is it true that the current national flag of Japan is somehow or in some way influenced by the battle flag of the Tokugawa clan during the Battle of Sekigahara? Just curious to know... --Shenshuai (not logged).

I would not be surprised, but I am going to find out later. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that I remember the banner being most associated in that period with Date Masamune. Pat Payne 19:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adopted date

For now, the first adopted date is described as 27 Jan 1870 in the article. It is wrong. 27 Feb 1870 is correct because that "27 Jan Meiji 3" is date of the luner calender. In Japan, the Solar calender started on Meiji 4 (1871). This point in JAWP has already been corrected. --125.0.91.246 12:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of controversy (major ellision)

This article has no mention of the numerous legal cases regarding teachers who refused to sing the anthem or fly the flag etc. this is a major ellision of information. Ling.Nut 12:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing as a form of conversation

  • Hi, I'm gonna start copying stuff from Occupation of Japan, plus some other stuff, into the History section of this article. Feel free to edit as I go, if you think it needs it.
  • Do you think the history section should be first? I think both ways (history first, or current order of subtopics) are logical...
  • :-) Ling.Nut 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine; I done exactly that with regards to the ensign.
    • Sure, I done it for the featured article Flag_of_Lithuania.
    • I hope these are the edits you seek for the article to stay GA. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priority conflict?

I think I and Zscout370 have different priorities in mind. To be honest, I have zero interest in whether this article has GA status or not. All I care is to expand the article (in particular in terms of breath). On the other hand, I can tell he cares a lot about the status. I really don't think this rather philosophical conflict can be reconciled. Thoughts? -- Taku (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I do not want this to be delisted from GA is that, from what I notice now, it is a very, very long waiting game. I deal with it a lot and the time for articles to be checked is longer and longer. For exampled, I placed an article there on Nov 18 (won't say which one) and I do not wish for this article to linger there for weeks on end. I want to work very hard to prevent it from being delisted so I can just edit it and keep it at this status. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for can it be reconciled, sure. All I ask is that with anything you wish to add to the article, try to have a source on hand. If you are not able to format it, or just do not know how, look for a program called "wikicite." That will tell you how to do it in the way that I have been doing it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be more frank then. Why is it such a big deal? GA status. I mean the waiting game a problem? Why are you in hurry? All I'm asking is let me (and others) to edit the article in the way it might result in delisting. I know how to cite sources but sometimes I can't find them; maybe because I need to consult some offline sources. What you are asking isn't a universal practice. People add materials without sources, if they look ok, non-controversial. You are not against that in general right? Like I said above, it is more important for me to expand the article and it is more important for you to keep the status. That's the conflict. But anyway I don't have a problem with leaving the article to your hands. -- Taku (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want absolute control of the article, I was just in panic mode. Now, the GAR is closed and the article still will have its' status. Now, we could try and play around with the article some more. Also, Taku, some of your edits I did put back into the article, since I found sources after I removed them. However, Taku, I don't think you worked with me much, except for the photograph of Yasuo Fukuda, the Prime Minister of Japan. When I work on articles, I do not like tags that deal with "citation needed" or anything along that sort. I understand that is different from most articles and different from most experiences you and others have. I do not want to be a total control freak, I do not want to [WP:OWN|own]] this article from anyone else. However, I believe we should try, with other articles related to Japan, to start getting quality articles and get it similar to this. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant more like this: since I'm quite busy with my real life right now, I just don't have time or energy to involve in some (if minor) dispute. I still contribute to the article by adding sourced materials. Now, here is my response. While I understand your allergy to the cleanup tags, I disagree respectfully. I think you brought a good point; I believe it is more important to improve the article in terms of "quantity" before worrying about "quality". To me, an article that is well-written, well-sources but lacks some important facts is useless. That is, well-developed articles beat well-sources ones. Anyway, like I said, I don't want to engage in a philosophical dispute, which I usually enjoy if I'm not busy. -- Taku (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the urgency is now gone, I will just see what happens with the article while I focus on other things IRL]. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag days

Do we think we can include a list of days the flag is requested to be flown? I am not sure if the list at this government file corresponds with what I have on a flag I was mailed from Tokyo-Prefecture. The first two Kanji are hard to read, but from what I can tell, it is the Emperor's Birthday and Labor Thanksgiving. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that there is a list of days when the flag is requested to be flown. I mean, "required by law"? That would prove extremely controversial. By the way, the reading of your kanji is correct. I also think the use of a government-provided date is non-NPOV. In the issue of the flag of Japan, one point view is the government's and using it as if it is a fact is far from being neutral. I think we need some kind of secondary sources on this matter. In any rate, I'm surprised to find there is such a list. -- Taku (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted a list to sound in a way that says "While it is not legally required to fly the Hinomaru on these days, here are some holidays that the flag is flown." As for where the flag maker got the list, I have no clue. However, the flag maker on the package is "Mikado." If I know the kanji or any specific terms I need to look for in Japanese, I can try and look myself. I ask about the list is that other flag articles have a list of legal flag days (Lithuania, Mexico is ones that I can remember to some degree). There is no rush, we can get this task done whenever. (I partially wanted to use my new camera to see what other flag related images we needed for this article, and maybe the ja.wikipedia article). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to try out an idea, if you think it is POV, you are welcome to revert it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be nice if we can just tell "here are some holidays that the flag is flown". The problem is it's not that simplistic, as far as I know. I tried to add this (the use of flag) to the article, basically by translating stuff in the corresponding Japan article, but couldn't find sources online. (We need to be careful with FUTON bias; for example, the ja article says that there was a flag-burning incident in 1971 in uk, but couldn't find any news story on it.). I think there are some other incidents of flag burning. Also, we should expand on the references to the flag in literature such as movies. Things of this sort should add much more depth to the article than simply the list of days. (Of course, it's very time-consuming work, though) -- Taku (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the flag burning, or just desecration of the Hinomaru, it happens monthly. If it is not Koreans or Chinese burning/tearing the flag, it is someone else using the flag to demonstrate against whaling. There was a protest in Australia last month where a girl sat on a white cloth, and poured red paint all over herself and got a bunch on the cloth. As for a list of days, I saw something mentioned at [1] about the flag days, but I am not sure if they are just mentioned in law. I don't have much about the cultural impact of the Hinomaru, but I know other Japanese flags (mostly the naval ensign) has a huge impact in the US. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's no-brainer, but the article should mention the protesters burn hinomaru on occasions; the 1987 one in the article is probably the best known in Japan. (I just can't find much reference to it, maybe because of the age.) By cultural impact, I meant, the hinomaru has the important symbolic meaning, i.e., rising sun, as the article notes, and this point in the article can be expanded, as the corresponding ja article has some on this. So, you know, I (or we) have good ideas for the expansion of the article. I, for one, just don't have time. Finding sources just takes so much time. -- Taku (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, about the protocol section. Not only it is too detailed, I find it not much relevant, either, because I don't think many Japanese people know it, and so it feels so arcane. Maybe it's written in some law or ordinals and so is official, but if it's not practiced actually, then well it doesn't belong to the article. -- Taku (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I been asked to include flag protocol before in articles about flags. I understand it is not practice much, so I removed the non-important stuff. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re "History"

These three sentences are not clear:

The Hinomaru was legally the national flag from 1870 until 1885.[6] After the Meiji Restoration, the use of the Daimyo flags were discontinued and the flags of the modern Japanese state were used.[7] The Hinomaru was the de facto national flag, although there was no law to that effect.[8]

When did the Hinomaru become the legal flag? Should "flags of the modern Japanese state" read flag?

Also, I question whether the use of the Z signal flag is really relevant here.

Hope this helps. Awien (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move the Z flag to the military flags, since it is an important part of the Naval culture of Japan. I'm checking that statement now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Postwar period"

The reference to the e-flag ensign strikes me as being a bit off-topic here given that it was never the national flag. Awien (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many websites carry that as an actual national flag, so I need the statement in there to debunk that myth. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I have tweaked the wording accordingly. Awien (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear

Can anyone please clarify the following:

Negative perception towards the Hinomaru still exists in former colonies of Japan and Okinawa. In one notable example of this, on October 26, 1987, a supermarket owner burned the Hinomaru before the start of the national athletic competition.

People who don't know the history of Japan well - like myself - are confused by this. Is it supposed to be "former colonies of Japan and of Okinawa" or "former colonies of Japan and in Okinawa"?

Also, who was that supermarket owner? Japanese? Okinawan? Did he protest against Japan or the USA? The "national athletic competition" - of what nation?

Thanks in advance for clarification. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. The athletic competition is the National Sports Festival of Japan. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hinomaru?

  • I'm pretty sure it's Hi no maru, they're usually separated in romaji. I could be mistaken, but I don't think I am. --Ashitaka96 | E-mail • Talk | 08:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I seen it, it is never separated. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since the Japanese language has no such separations, the decision of where to separate in English (romaji) becomes a rather arbitrary one. In this instance, arguments could be made for both sides, so I don't think you can say that one is correct and the other is not. It is such a common expression that English media like the Japan Times normally write it as one word "hinomaru". --Westwind273 (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I faced a similar issue with Kimigayo. I used to keep the words apart, but from all of the government sources, I have seen both versions used. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR or uncited?

I can see the flag of Bangladesh looks like the Japanese flag. Was it influenced by the design or are we just making it up (original research). Is there a citation? A 3rd possibility is that the designer was influenced by it but even that should be documented, if possible. It may not be possible. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the research I have done, the only thing is that the flags are similar in design and no actual influence. I made sure I put what the text gives me in that book. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to remove a section

I would like to begin a discussion about removing the section on related flags:subnational. The other related flags look like the flag of Japan. The subnational flags are not related. That would be similar to having a provincial flag section on the flag of Canada article. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I want the subnational section is that most of the time, the city and prefectual flags use a symbol on a monocolored background, very similar to the national flag. In more of the FA articles about flags being written now, I have been asked to include small sections about other flags used in a country. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this article is only edited by you and me! Just kidding. Can we find a reference saying that the subnational flags copy a design of the national flag so that it isn't just our theory or observation. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know some prefecture flags copy the exact pattern for the national flag (Hiroshima was the example I provided with a source and the details why; I believe Kagoshima and Aichi also follows this pattern, but I need to look at all of my laws again). 46/47 flags are symbols on a monocolored background (Ehime defies this pattern and provided with a source). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1900

Hello. I've taken on the task of copyediting this article. There are two concerns I have in the section "Before 1990":

1. "The sun, however, has historically had a religious connotation in Japan, and the rising sun has important symbolic meaning."
This article doesn't describe what this meaning is. There are examples that follow this text, but they don't illustrate the sun's meaning. Rather, they list that the sun has been used in stories and texts. If there is meaning in these examples specifically relating to the sun, perhaps the common theme can be found and identified in the paragraph.

2. "…the mon of the Daimyo."
From what I have gained in the mon article, these people were either aristocrats or commoners, but that is not yet clear in this article. "Artistocratic mon" or "common mon" would suffice to fix this.

Thank you for addressing these concerns. mheart (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the first issue, Japan is known as the land of the rising sun. The cycle of life is also seen as a giant circle. However, the other important fact is the Japanese imperial throne, and some say the Japanese itself, descended from the sun goddess Amaterasu. Those are the common symbolisms of the sun to the Japanese and they are covered by that book reference. (User:Zscout370 02:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC): This was the first half until separated at 11:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC) by Dumpty-Humpty (talk).)[reply]
I removed descriptions on the sun's religious connotation. (I was astonished by the citation of the goddess Amaterasu ! ) In Japanese Myths, Amaterasu is the supreme god, but not the Creator of the land: she is one of the three gods born to the Creator couple of gods. It's not clear whether 'her being a sun goddess' has something to do with the Imperial Throne. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to how the sun was positioned, the cited official letter from Japan to Sui sounds to be a good example. But... I've not found a good phrase to mean 国書 (kokusho, lit.: national letter) in English. This letter is considered to have been a piece of diplomatic correspondence between the two nations, but there are some objections to the view that it was sent by Emperor Suiko (= Shōtoku's aunt) or Princess Regent Shōtoku. Does "official letter from Japan" make sense? If we have a good expression, we can mention this letter without saying who sent it. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Official correspondence" may sound better, as "letter" makes one assume the matter is more private. "Correspondence" emphasizes the importance of the document as far as the significance of the flag. Why is there controversy over who sent it? Does who sent it change the significance or meaning about the origin of the sun as part of Japan's symbol? The date that goes with this letter, however, is something that I think should be left in, as stories mentioned after that list dates as well - they may have gathered influence from the letter sent earlier, which will further illustrate the meaning of the sun for this article. They probably helped to spread the meaning throughout Japan. mheart (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went with official correspondence, but it could also be a diplomatic note or letter. I removed the name of the person who sent it, because of the info Dumpty provided. I am still trying to find more reasons about the sun as a symbol, but need to look at Google again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The mon is just a family crest, but the daimyo is a lord. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Japanese flags in the wartime

This article is about the flag of Japan, so I think 'how non-Japanese flags were treated / regarded' is not necessarily notable; to me the two quoted below sound not. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It's dubious whether this film can represent 'how the flag was used during this period' as a whole. Maybe a large number of similar films were commonly played, but emphasizing supremacy of the national song, flag or so is one of usual tricks to enhance national prestige, not unique to Japan. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"European" is too ambiguous. One reason why non-Asian flags had been used there is that some Southeast Asian countries had been under control of U.K., France or U.S.A. It's not surprising that flags of these suzerains were removed and replaced by the flag of Japan, because Japanese Army occupied the countries and these suzerains were then Japan's enemies. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The main important thing I wanted to state is that even though the Hinomaru was flown in the occupied areas, some local flags were allowed in either a display of Japanese power or in exchange of political favors (as with the case of Indonesia). However, I wanted to give the mindset Japanese media was using against foreign flags. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public schools quote

"Additionally, the ministry's commentary on the 1999 curriculum guideline for elementary schools note that 'given the advance of internalization, along with fostering patriotism and awareness of being Japanese, it is important to nurture school children's respectful attitude toward the flag of Japan and Kimigayo as they grow up to be respected Japanese citizens in an internationalized society.'"

Should this be "given the advance of internationalization" rather than "internalization"? mheart (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting and speed

I was asked to look into the slow page-load times for this article. Switching from {{cite book}} etc. (in this version) to {{vcite book}} (in this updated version) decreased the average page-generation time from 12.73 seconds to 8.58 seconds, a 48% performance improvement. If there's consensus to switch to the faster vcite templates (which generate Vancouver system citations instead of the more-common APA-ish style), I suggest installing this change to switch from the old to the new version. Eubulides (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hinomaru as a weapon

I think that is a bit odd to say. Did people get strangled with it or were people suffocated by it? I think it is a propaganda tool but to say it is a weapon is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.106.145.194 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I used called the flag a tool and a weapon of the Japanese propaganda machine. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Perceptions

I believe this sentence in the introduction is unsourced: "For nations occupied by Japan, the flag is a symbol of aggression and imperialism." Undoubtedly there are some people in formerly occupied nations who think this way. Yet this sentence makes it seem that it is the majority view in those countries. I do not think this can be properly sourced. The majority view in those countries is probably rather ambivalent toward the Hinomaru. For example, do Chinese people today consider the Union Jack as a symbol of aggression and imperialism because of the Opium Wars? Watching the Beijing Olympics, I did not get this impression. This article belittles the ability of nations to let bygones be bygones with regard to national flags. It is quite shameful that this unsourced statement made it onto the Wikipedia main page today. --Westwind273 (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is sourced at Flag_of_Japan#Present-day_perception. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and is wholly accurate. The flag is very poorly perceived in the rest of Asia, to the point of seething hatred in many places. The Japanese as a nation are also very aware of this fact. Comparing the opium wars to events within living memory is chalk and cheese on this one I'm afraid. Its no real secret that China doesn't much like Japan, and they really are struggling to let bygones be bygones. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't see anything wrong with the article, I'm somewhat doubtful of Ranger Steve's comment 'is very poorly perceived in the rest of Asia' is particularly accurate. Do people in say Saudi Arabia or Syria feel this way? Doubtful, why would they? Even in places in India, I don't think you'll find that strong feelings about the flag (see for example these surveys on the perceptions of Japan [2] [3] albeit nothing about the flag). The article mentions things are somewhat mixed in Singapore, I suspect (from personal experience) you'll find there's even less strong feelings in Malaysia, particularly among the majority Malays and minority Indians (the minority Chinese particularly the older generation similar to Singapore may still have some feelings). Not sure about the Philippines and definitely there's significant dislike of the flag in the rest of East Asia (other then Japan obviously) but RS's comment is IMHO way too broad, comments which say something about the entirety of Asia usually are because it's a very big and diverse continent. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I limited the statement to nations that were occupied in Japan. I also know from personal experience that the main nations that dislike Japan and her flag is China and South Korea (probably the North too). I know the Philippines made a comment about the adoption of the Hinomaru and Kimigayo in 1999. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So now for every country's flag we should add a statement about people who dont like the country/the flag? Good luck with Flag of the USA. I don't think these sentences belong into the article. 84.72.44.205 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ni Einne is right, and I apologise for not clarifying. I did mean Asian countries occupied by Japan in the past. And from those, the main countries are China and Korea. I should have clarified (I'd been thinking Far East Asia but forgot to type that) - again, apologies. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP, no, not every article. The flag of Japan is a special case when it comes to some nations do not liking it. There were other exceptions too, such as the current Belarusian flag and the former Macedonian flag (where there was a real political battle between Macedonia and Greece over it). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad that this article is so POV and anti-Japanese with regard to current foreign perceptions of the hinomaru. The statements in the Wikipedia article are grossly out of proportion to the sources that they reference. Read http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp79.html, and you will see that there are at best conflicting views in Asian nations. The main problem here is conflation of protests against the actions and policies of Japan with antipathy toward the flag per se. There is valid evidence of the former (Yasukuni, textbooks, etc), but scant evidence of the latter. As with all protests, the flag of a nation is used as a symbol of that nation. But the people do not hate the flag per se; they hate the country which it represents. Why doesn't the article on the US flag contain statements like "The Stars and Stripes was used as a tool against the Philippines for purposes of intimidation or subjugation", or "For Iranians and Venezuelans, the US flag is a symbol of aggression and imperialism." This article has an anti-Japanese double standard. The real issues that Asian nations are complaining about are the official prime minister visits to Yasukuni and the re-writing of textbooks to downplay Japanese aggression. The hinomaru in and of itself is nothing compared to these issues. When the hinomaru is burned today, it is because of issues like Yasukuni and textbooks, not because of the flag itself. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, changed the wording. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the hinomaru is, it is the subject of this article, so it is entirely correct to include well sourced and referenced statements about its perception in foreign countries. If the flag is burnt and referenced in a RS, how exactly is it biased to include it here? It might be caused by issues like Yasakuni, but it is the flag (the subject of this article) that gets burnt. I also disagree that other nations view the flag with antipathy - would you make the same assertion about the swastika, a flag that also 'represented' a foreign occupying power? I don't know why the American article doesn't make mention of regular, well reported burning demonstrations, but that is that article's problem. Perhaps you should bring it up there, the article looks like an advert for patriotism at the moment and is lacking most of the FA criteria that this one has (particularly 1b). That said, I'm happy o let Zscout sort this out, as he's done the most work on the article. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally not use the US article as some sort of benchmark for this article. The article, in my personal opinion, is rubbish. Also, when the US flag is even torched in Iran or other nations, I could have mentioned how the flags are crudely made with not having the correct number of stripes or stars or the stars are replaced with swastikas or other symbols. As for what I did, I took out the flag burning (except the Japanese laws that were mentioned) but did give insight to what the foreign countries stated when the flag was formally adopted in 1999 (along with Kimigayo). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that the statements in the article are significantly stronger than the statements in the source material. The article says: "For some nations occupied by Japan, the flag is a symbol of aggression and imperialism. The Hinomaru was used as a tool against occupied nations for purposes of intimidation or subjugation. In the People's Republic of China and South Korea, both of which had been occupied by the Empire of Japan, the 1999 formal adoption of the Hinomaru was met with reactions of Japan moving towards the right and also a step towards remilitarization." The source material says: "Along with the enactment of new laws concerning U.S.-Japan defense cooperation, the U.S. plan to create a Theater Missile Defense, and the move to change the status of Yasukuni Shrine, China considers this legislation [the 1999 Law] to be a step toward Japan's remilitarization. Although in June 1999, a Chinese foreign ministry official said that the bill was a matter of Japan's internal affairs, another ministry spokesman noted opposition to the bill within Japan and hoped the issue would be solved in a manner that would contribute to Japan's peaceful development. South Korea is also wary of this legislation and the review of Yasukuni's status, and it deems the sum of these actions to constitute a serious move to the right." Where does the "tool of intimidation or subjugation" come from? Also, note that the protests from China and South Korea are not about the flag itself, or that Japan should change its flag. China and Korea are only commenting that, in the context of other issues (Yasukuni, the US-Japan alliance), the timing of making the de facto national flag the de jure national flag is objectionable. They are protesting the 1999 Law, not the flag itself. Neither China nor Korea is asking Japan to change its flag to something else. Honestly, I think this is such a minor and subtle point that it is hardly worth mentioning in the Wikipedia article. I think the sentences from the article that I quoted above should be deleted. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I agree that the hinomaru has been controversial within Japan. For decades now, left-leaning public school teachers have come into conflict with the Ministry of Education regarding use of hinomaru and kimigayo at school functions. There is a domestic issue. China was in fact commenting more on this, than on their own feelings toward the flag. The truth of the matter is that the average Chinese or Korean person today has no particularly bad feelings against the hinomaru. They know it as the flag of Japan, and if you asked them whether they knew about any controversy regarding the flag, their reaction would be "I don't know." --Westwind273 (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tool comment comes from Flag_of_Japan#Early_conflicts_and_the_Pacific_War. With the words "the 1999 formal adoption of the Hinomaru" is the same thing as the 1999 law that you mentioned. I will keep the sentences in the article, but added the context of the comments. Removing the comments before caused people to come here and complain about no mention of Japan's neighbors and their reactions. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I made my point.  :) I have refrained from touching the article in any way. I hate those edit wars that take place in other articles. Thank you for hearing me out. --Westwind273 (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it this way, you only have to convince one person to change this article (me). Anything that can be used to expand the article, I really appreciate a lot. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flagpole Protocol

I have heard many times and seen that when the Hinomaru is displayed on a pole, the tip is not a spearhead or sharp point but rather a flattened brass bulb to indicate the nation's non-aggression towards others. If this is true, I think it should be included in the article. I don't have a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.39.27 (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

It has been discovered that this book:

  • Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. ISBN 8182053897, 9788182053892.

Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, I will deleting all citations to the book. However I will not delete the material that cites it, as there's no indication that the material is inaccurate. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive after it goes there.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dead link for flag specifications, found new docs. Need Japanese reader

  • DSP Z 8701C, which is cited a handful of times on the page, is a dead link and may have been superseded. I found this page:
Information contains Defense Specifications (DSP)

...and if you look in the "Miscellaneous, etc." section you'll find "FLAG, NATIONAL, JAPAN" containing links to two relevant documents:

ENACTMENT
ERRATA
  • We really need someone who can read Japanese well to check these documents against every instance citing DSP Z 8701C, and make corrections as needed. • Ling.Nut 01:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have hard copies of the documents at my home. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think DSP Z 8701C may have been superseded by DSP Z 8701E (?). See Abolition Defense Specifications (DSP) List, whatever that means, and note the slightly different DSP number [E instead of C] on the latest document ("ENACTMENT", above).• Ling.Nut 01:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, DSP Z 8701E is the new main document. The document was created in 2008 and not only changed the flag to where the sun is placed in dead center, change of ratio, and also the change of Munsell colors (and for what fabrics). I also have that document at my home. (Note, there are other documents like that published about flags, such as the Naval Ensign). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flags missing

After the end of WWII, the Allies imposed a new flag of Japan - Japan, the Ryukyu Islands had a separate flag Japan. I'm not 100% sure how long these flags were in use for, but think it was 1945-48. No mention is made in the article about these flags. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, it is mentioned but there's no display of the actual flags. Maybe small examples could be shown in brackets if there's not room for large images of the flags? Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are ensign, not the national flag. you can see them on this article. Oda Mari (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be clearer

Hi,

1. It would be useful if the "Variant flag of Japan" in the main infobox at top right of article also mentioned the name "Rising Sun Flag" and had a link to that article. (Based on the Rising Sun Flag article name, I'm assuming that "Rising Sun Flag" is the preferred name, but the lead text in this article calls it "Rising Sun Ensign". Ideally a consistent name should be used.)

2. I was aware that there is sensitivity surrounding the use of the "Rising Sun" flag (with the rays), but not the other flag (without the rays). I'm a bit confused whether the mentions of controversy in the lead section are referring to just the former or to both versions. I feel this should be clarified.

86.160.212.235 (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the first part, the "Variant flag" is directly coded into the infobox, so I could not change that. I still added a link to the Rising Sun Flag article, but it is down a bit more in the infobox. As for part 2, most of the lead is talking about the Hinomaru but both flags are seen as having problems in some areas occupied by Japan, such as China. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you using "Hinomaru" to mean the flag with rays? If so, that's another thing that's not made clear in the lead. It just says "This flag is officially called Nisshōki (日章旗, "sun-mark flag") in Japanese, but is more commonly known as Hinomaru (日の丸?, "circle of the sun")." There is no indication that the two terms refer to different flags (or don't both refer to the main no-rays version in the infobox). If "Hinomaru" specifically means flag-with-rays, then is the sensitivity section in the lead (the last paragraph starting "Public perception of the national flag varies") talking about both flags in its early sentences, then specifically about the sun-with-rays flag in the latter part? It really is not at all clear, in my opinion. To me it seems odd to say that the flag-without-rays is "not frequently displayed due to its association with ultranationalism". In every situation, from the Olympic Games through to political and corporate events, through to Japanese embassies, I have always and very commonly seen Japan represented by the circle-with-no-rays flag. I have never got any impression that this flag is "not frequently displayed", or that there is any awkwardness about displaying it publicly in international arenas. I do wonder if this paragraph really is almost entirely about the circle-with-rays flag, and whether that should be clarified right at the start. However, I will have to leave it to others with a greater knowledge of the subject. 86.179.112.87 (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hinomaru is the flag without the rays, as mentioned at http://www.sf.us.emb-japan.go.jp/jp/m08_01_01.htm#5 The Hinomaru is the most common term for the without ray flag, but the Nishouki is the official term that is used in the laws. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the question remains, if "the flag is not frequently displayed due to its association with ultranationalism", then why do we see it all over the world, at every sporting and other event where Japan is participating? 86.160.221.85 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is later explained in the article under Present-Day Perception. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the relevant sentence has been changed to "However, the flag is not frequently displayed in Japan due to its association with ultranationalism." Thanks to whoever did that; I think it makes more sense to an international audience who are used to seeing the flag used apparently freely in international arenas. I would point out, though, that thousands of Japanese people at the recent Japanese Formula One Grand Prix did not seem to have any qualms about waving the flag enthusiastically, and I can't believe they were all ultranationalists. I also still have, at the back of my mind, a notion that there is more sensitivity, both domestic and international, about the with-rays flag. I don't see this mentioned anywhere in the article. It could be that this is misconception of mine, but if correct I think it is worth a brief mention. 86.181.206.127 (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In some places, like the US (my home) you will see the flag displayed at homes, businesses and other stuff on a constant basis. In Japan, it is not as much as mentioned before. I know people will wave flags at different sporting events, such as the Olympics, F1 and others, but I just needed to have a source for the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a slightly different point... Since there are three slightly different with-rays flags shown at Rising Sun Flag, and also in this article, is there any reason why we single out just one of these, the Naval Ensign, for prominence in this article's infobox as "Variant flag of Japan"? 86.179.116.118 (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Naval Ensign, mostly. The way these articles work, which I do not agree with personally, is the national flag is put on top, then the naval ensign (if a different flag) and the naval jack (if different). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_terminology#National_flag_variants_by_use helps explain it. Ideally, I want to have just the national flag in the infobox but I am in the minority on this. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perception

I find overall description to be somewhat obsolete. It reads as if it was written 20 years ago. Hinomaru is nowadayas not a big taboo in Japan as it used to be before , especially after football became popular in japan. I also do not agree that the flag is considered as a symbol of aggression and imperialism in former colonies with the exception of PR China and Korea. If there is no reliable source that the MAJOR people from other asian countries link Hinomaru to "aggression and imperialism", it should be explicitly written as "PR CHina and Korea". In general, it is unfair to put such statement only to Japanese flag, and not to the aricles of Frence, UK, Dutch, Spanish, and Portguese flags. --79.244.29.9 (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the perception section, PR China and South Korea are listed as having the most reservations of choosing the flag as the symbol of Japan. It also talked about the reactions (at the time of the laws passage in 1999) from other former occupied lands, such as Singapore and the Philippines. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence sounds a bit odd

"Because of the association of the Hinomaru with uyoku dantai (right wing) activists, reactionary politics, or hooliganism, some homes and businesses do not fly the flag."

This makes it sound as if all homes and businesses would normally be expected to fly the flag. I don't see any reason for that expectation. In most countries, as far as I can think, most homes and businesses do not routinely fly the national flag, or necessarily even possess one. 86.128.3.108 (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no regulation on having to fly the flag whatsoever, except for entrance/graduation ceremonies for schools. But there are some homes and businesses that do fly the flag for one reason or another. Some countries do require the flag to be flown on several occasions and have programs to furnish a flag for homes and businesses to fly on national holidays. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it means that there are special occasions in Japan when most/some businesses and homes do fly the flag, but certain businesses and homes decline to do so for the reasons stated, then I think that should be stated more clearly. I think the current wording may raise doubts or questions in the reader's mind, or seem to suggest that homes and businesses are expected to fly the flag routinely. 86.176.211.72 (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are national holidays in Japan, but there is no requirement to fly the flag on any of those. But I did note a city was trying to subsidize flags for their citizens and it was met with backlash for those reasons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative flag?

This article and that on the Japanese Communist Party mention that the Communists oppose the use of the Hinomaru. Do they propose an alternative national flag? If so, I wonder if it should be mentioned here? Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen a proposed flag but if there was, definitely it belongs. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pavel

a name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.81.122 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National flags by proportion of white

Is the national flag of Japan the national flag in current use with the most percentage of its area being white? 122.213.236.124 (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

鉢巻について

日本で鉢巻をこの記事に書いてあるように使うことは第二次世界大戦以降ほとんどありません。 運動会にて小学生、中学生が赤色の鉢巻と白色の鉢巻をつかうことがありますが、それは旭日旗ではなく源平合戦という1180年頃の戦いをイメージしています。

日本の鉢巻の用途は他人と競う運動、受験に合格するための祈願、応援ぐらいですし、その状況でも鉢巻を使用することは滅多にありません。

機械翻訳 translation


Hachimaki in Japan have rarely been used as described in this article since World War II. At athletic events, elementary and junior high school students sometimes use red and white Hachimaki, which is not a symbol of the Rising Sun, but of the battle of Genpei, which took place around 1180.

In Japan, the use of Hachimaki is limited to athletic competitions, prayers for success in entrance examinations, and cheering, and even in these situations, Hachimaki is rarely used.


Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) 狐月狼陽 (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

弔旗 Link

The link given in the Mourning section for the mourning flag only has the Japanese Wikipedia Entry (ja:弔旗), however in that article, there is an English version given which redirects to Black ribbon. Should the link in the article be changed from ja:弔旗 to Black ribbon for the English version of this article? Or should a different English translation be given to ja:弔旗 which is separate from Black ribbon as it appears that the two articles do contain slightly different content? 亞頭回不 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Japan&oldid=1217050610"