Talk:Hokkaido/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Useless Information?

"It is 3.6% smaller than the island of Ireland while Hispaniola is 6.1% smaller than Hokkaidō. By population it ranks 20th, between Ireland and Sicily. Hokkaidō's population is 4.7% less than that of the island of Ireland, and Sicily's is 12% lower than Hokkaidō's."

Hi, I posted that information. Do you find comparisons useless? Or would you prefer comparison to other islands? Fg2 12:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuing the rant I started in Talk:Tokyo...

Shouldn't this be under simply "Hokkaido?" The term "Hokkaido prefecture" is a pleonasm: the "do" is usually interpreted to mean "prefecture."

According to Google, "Hokkaido prefecture" is also a very rarely-used term. I checked it against other prefectures that don't share their names with cities... the results speak for themselves.

              Alone   + "Prefecture"  Usage ratio
Hokkaido    1.5 mill.     4,560        328 to 1
Ehime        536,000     11,000         49 to 1
Tottori      295,000      5,100         58 to 1
Hyogo        713,000     20,000         36 to 1
Kanagawa     930,000     23,100         40 to 1

To boot, the Hokkaido government calls itself simply the "Hokkaido Government," not the "Hokkaido Prefectural Government." The latter convention is used by every other prefectural government I know of, with the exception of Tokyo.

Saying "Hokkaido Prefecture" is like saying "Kanagawa-ken Prefecture." Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now... :) Sekicho 02:40, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

I completely understand your reasoning. I think this is a kind of the similar case with HIV virus. V of HIV stands for virus obviously. My point is that this, pleonasm?, happens. I supports the name of Hokkaido Prefecture for the sake of consistency. Japan is divided into 45 prefectures and calling Hokkaido or Tokyo anything but prefecture don't make much sense for readers. Not mention to calling Hokkai Prefecture, which is absurd while logically correct. I have never heard of it. Probably we should clarify this in Prefectures of Japan. I see you are going to do this and I think it's good.

-- Taku 22:12, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, Hokkaido is the name of island, Hokkaido Prefecture is the local government that covers Hokkaido and other other islands. -- Fukumoto 13:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

---

I commented out the following sentence:

The only two major cities are Hakodate, in the far south near Honshu, and Sapporo, also in the south, the regional capital, Hokkaido's largest city, and the regional and prefectural capital.

I agree that Hakodate is probably the second famous city in Hokkaido (for foreign people especially). However, the second largest city isn't Hakodate(283k) but Asahikawa(361k). Nevertheless, if the word "major" means just "famous", I'm sorry to have done it. (I'm a dosanko/道産子, a person born in Hokkaido) --Marsian 14:46, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

Agreed. Asahikawa is definitely a major city as far as Hokkaido is concerned... we could perhaps include Wakkanai, Abashiri, Memanbetsu, Obihiro, etc., but I've never been to those places so I don't know how "major" they are. (Even Monbetsu, where you have to dodge icebergs while walking down the street, seemed to be a pretty big city by Hokkaido standards when I was there years ago...) - Sekicho 14:53, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your fix and comment. (Monbetsu... did you went there to see drift ice? I grew up in Muroran for about 20 years but I've not seen drift ice yet. I'd like to see it (and hear the sound of it breaking) someday...) --Marsian 20:04, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

I didn't see too much ice, actually... it was March, so there was still plenty of snow on the ground, but the sea was mostly melted. I think that Monbetsu isn't a major city by Japanese standards (it only has one Mos Burger, one KFC, one Tsutaya, one karaoke box...) but there are probably other cities that we could call "major." -- Sekicho 22:17, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed the sentence regarding the Sea of Okhotsk freezing during the wintertime, bringing a halt to marine traffic. I wintered over on the northern coast of Hokkaido and witnessed that the sea does not freeze over and marine traffic does not halt. What happens is that large ice floes break off from the Kamchatka peninsula and drift through the Sea. With simple navigation or the use of icebreakers, passage remains possible. The real reason for the halt of marine traffic is due to high winds and high seas that start in October and end in April. The northern airports of Monbetsu and particularly Wakkanai are heavily affected by the high winds. Wakkanai Harbor is ice-free but the wind whips up violent waves in the winter time, which renders the harbor almost unusable. 23:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)~~

number of municipalities

The infobox lists the number of municipalities in Hokkaido as 212. I've gone through and added category tags to all the cities, towns, and villages and I get: 34 cities, 150 towns, and 23 villages. Anyone have any idea what the missing 5 might be? -- Rick Block 04:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I missed Erimo, but Sawara shouldn't count since it's merged into Mori. http://www.watanabegumi.co.jp/linkse/hokkaidoe.html shows 5 (including Sawara) that have merged (3 from Kameda District and 1 from Kayabe District that apparently merged into Hakodate on December 1, 2004). I think the 212 includes all 4 that merged into Hakodate and Sawara, so the current count should be 207. I'll update the infobox and the count in Japanese prefectures unless someone can give me a better number in the next week or so. -- Rick Block 04:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added Maruseppu, Hokkaido. Since we don't count Sawara, we should have 207 municipalities; 34 cities, 150 towns, and 23 villages, which agrees with the number on the Hokkaido Prefecture homepage. Atsi Otani 06:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the count in the prefecture article and Prefectures of Japan. Note that there are 67 districts in category:Districts in Hokkaido Prefecture while the count is 66 since the category includes Shikotan District, Hokkaido (in the disputed Kuril Islands). -- Rick Block 18:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

To answer Rick Block's question, the 212 municipalities consisted of 34 shi, 154 cho/machi, and 24 son/mura. The missing 5 would be the 4 cho/machi and 1 son/mura (including Sawara) as of March 31, 1999. jlog3000 (talk)

demographics of Hokkaido

the history of Hokkaido implies that the island was largely ainu until occupation brought Japanese immigrants. Wouldn't a demographics section be significant? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hanfresco (talk • contribs) . 'There has been Japanese(Yamato) immigrants to Hokkaido since the Muromachi period, 1500ish. And in all the world there is less than 50,00 people with 1/2 or more Ainu blood. That, and in Japan today many Ainu are either unawear that they are part Ainu, or try to hide that they are Ainu, to avoid discrimination (which is silly since all Yamato are part Ainu. I remember reading that there is only about 100 people in Japan and Russia who are 100% Ainu.

spelling of prefectures

A survey is being conducted at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related_articles)#Prefectures and macrons to determine which prefectures should have their spelling "macron-ized", per the existing manual of style. Oita has been changed already, and each of the others is current being discussed (Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Hokkaido, Hyogo, and Kochi). Please join the discussion if you wish. Neier 00:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• As a note here, I strongly oppose macronizing Hokkaido - Hokkaido is in the dictionary (and therefore an English word!) [1] WhisperToMe 03:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Is using diacritics in proper nouns not acceptable, dictionary-wise...?  Unsure, David Kernow (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly support "Hokkaidō". Hokkaidō is in English books that I read (and therefore an English word). Here is an online reference: Encarta: Hokkaidō, Encarta: Hokkaidō Prefecture. Bendono 13:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Opposed — For the record, I am still opposed.--Endroit 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)/Prefectures and macrons#Hokkaidō for the results. It was 7 to 5, OPPOSING the macronned form.--Endroit 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • But in the interests of being bold, it was macroned to be consistent with the other 4 islands of Japan (see Kyūshū and Honshū. Bobo12345 22:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • That would be me, I guess. There are two ways to interpret the vote. One way is "Should we put macrons here", and the other is "Should we exclude macrons from here". Since the MoS said "use macrons always, except ...", then, I think you can make a strong claim that the voting was whether or not to give Hokkaido/Hokkaidō the Tokyo/Tōkyō exemption (that is, the status quo should have been to give Ōsaka, Hokkaidō, Ōita macrons, and the vote was called to give concensus against enforcing the status quo). 7-5 is not much of a concensus either way, no matter how the subject of the vote is interpreted; and despite the fact that I only weakly supported the macrons for Hokkaidō, I sided with consistency with the other islands. That pretty well exhausts my arguments for keeping the macrons in this case. Neier 23:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The island and the prefecture are not the same thing (this article is about the prefecture, and should have prefecture in the title per the main MOS:JP page), and there are already exceptions to the macronning of prefectures (Osaka and Kyoto). Also, this wasn't keeping macrons, this was creating macrons. The real status quo was the previous location of the page, and you had 5 out of 12 votes to move it. I am disturbed that this was moved under the radar. Dekimasu 05:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You say the island and the prefecture are not the same thing. But they are aren't they? Sure there is the island of Hokkaido and a few additional minor islands that are part of the prefecture, but they are virtually synonymous. I wonder are there other parallels in the Wikiworld? Australia the continent and Australia the nation? Iceland the nation and Iceland the island? Does it really make sense to have two different articles? As far as prefecture in the title goes, the last time I read the MOS Hokkaido was an exception as the "dō" would essential be translated as prefecture. No one would say Hokkaido-ken, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imars (talk • contribs) .

Dekimasu, if this article is just for the prefecture, then could you or someone please point me to the island's page? I was wanting the page on the island of Hokkaidō. Imars, there are often different articles for the ruling government of a land, and for the land itself e.g. Taiwan and Taiwan Province, Hawaii (island) and Hawaii, Australia_(continent) and Australia. Many times a land, which sometimes shares a name with its ruling entity, has it's own history. Jecowa 09:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that there was an article for the island, but that the content of the article indicates that it refers to the prefecture. That it doesn't exist doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. For a very good example, people are currently debating splitting the feudal domains from the pre-prefectural provinces at MOS:JP. Also, Imars, no one would say Hokkaido-ken, but the MOS specifically states that it should be called Hokkaido Prefecture to avoid naming it Hokkai Prefecture. Dekimasu 11:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I am not in love with my vote on this move. If I had voted to keep the macron, it would have been 6-6. I only object to the fact that the move was performed without any further consultation after the suggestion was turned down. Dekimasu 11:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In a discussion from the first half of December 2006 that was just archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), I once again proposed that this be changed back to an article for the prefecture, and that a stub be created for the island. There was general agreement and there were no objections there. Unless there are any objections here, I will perform the changes myself (and use macrons on both pages, so don't worry about that). Dekimasu 05:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with splitting the island and prefectural articles. Are you planning to follow the Okinawa example, and redirect to the prefecture, with a DAB page for everything else? Neier 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture section

Okay, it looks like we need to have a talk about the trivia section because my removals (which I thought were quite uncontroversial) were deleted. The relevant things that I want to say are here (taken from Wikipedia talk:Trivia):

That should be required reading for anyone participating in this debate. What's said there about Marduk could apply to just about any other article about a deity or other mythological figure:

• Osiris: "In the movie Hedwig and the Angry Inch, Hedwig's song "Origin of Love" mentions Osiris";
• Apollo: "The original classic 1978 Battlestar Galactia series. The main character of the show was called Apollo. Who was an ace Viper pilot (space fighter planes seen throughout the series) and the Captain and strike leader of Galactica's Blue Squadron."
• Quetzalcoatl: "In the computer game Rise of Legends, there is a playable race called Cuotl. There are also air units in this race's army called 'Quetzals'."

Etc, etc, etc, by way of Kokopelli, Ozymandias, Sigurd, King Arthur... (the list goes on). Adopting the Marduk solution (wiping it all off and depositing it on Marduk in popular culture) as general practice would enable such articles to give a much better impression (seriousness, rigor, perspective) than they do at the moment. Bolivian Unicyclist 12:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a tenable solution. But, then, this is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think editors are perfectly within their rights to delete random trivia factoids on sight. And I'd caution against avoiding "popular culture" sections altogether; these can be nice additions to articles, provided they are well written, academically sound, and analytical rather than exhaustive. I'm currently reading a book on Jeki la Njambè (sadly, we have no article yet), an oral epic of the Duala people of Cameroon, and the author devotes quite a few pages to interpretations in Cameroonian popular culture. So I guess I'm trying to say: If you've got something intelligent to say about Fujin in popular culture, say it. If all you have is the fact that a character in Final Fantasy VIII is named Fujin, keep it to yourself or put it in the Fujin (Final Fantasy character) article. But ghettoizing these sections to X in popular culture is akin to sweeping the dust under the rug. — Amcaja 13:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The point being that saying that an anime character or a musical group is from Hokkaido is not relevant to the Hokkaido article, but it might be relevant to the article for that anime character or musical group. Millions of Japanese people are from Hokkaido, and so it is natural that many characters in popular fiction will be from Hokkaido. However, that adds to our understanding of the characters, and does not contribute to our understanding of Hokkaido, and ergo should not be in the Hokkaido article. I believe that the same statement applies to several more of the trivia items than the ones that I took out. Dekimasu 02:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, upon further review, I see no factoids here that contribute to an understanding of Hokkaido. The only ones that come close for me are the "Alaska of Japan" comment (which really could have been made by anyone) and the setting for Kurosawa's The Idiot (but since there is no discussion here about why Hokkaido was chosen as the location, it also fails the test). Both could be properly integrated into the main text of the article. Dekimasu 02:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about popular culture is directly relevant to this article, and more broadly relevant to articles on Japan generally (since so many Wikipedians enjoy popular culture from Japan). Comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#"X in popular culture" sections of articles will reach a wider readership and, I hope, give us a better chance at developing a community consensus on the matter. You're all invited to participate. Fg2 07:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about Marduk in the article. Is that still there? The popular culture section did look sloppy before. I tried to trim it up some so that each popular culture reference only used one line even in a smaller window. It's fine with me if some are removed, but I liked that "Alaska of Japan" description of Hokkaidō. Jecowa 20:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yesso

The article includes "Yesso" as a former name for the area. I'm not familiar with that reading. Does anyone have English sources that use that spelling? Fg2 00:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have often seen Yezo. Ooops, after a quick search on the web, I found this reference from the Nutall Encyclopedia 1907. I guess Yesso has been used. The next question would be how widespread are both usages. Number of hits on google (if that is a measure):

• Yezo Japan 35000
• Yesso Japan 13700
• Ezo Japan 174000 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imars (talk • contribs) 05:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, that helps. Fg2 06:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

History

"During the Meiji Restoration, the Tokugawa Shogunate realized there was a need to prepare northern defenses against Russian aggressions and took over most control of Ezochi. The Shogunate made the Ainu burden slightly easier, but did not change the overall form of rule." If the Tokugawa Shogunate realized anything during the Meiji Restoration, it was that they were no longer in power. Did the Meiji Oligarchs recognize the need to prepare northern defenses, or did this happen before the Restoration? Melander 18:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Accent over the "o"

Why is there an accent over the "o", it makes no sense. If the word is a conversion from Japanese to English, then it should use the English alphabet, and last I checked, such a character is not in the English alphabet (not even the extended one to include characters like the ae in "praetor", or the i in "naive". Infact neither of those wiki pages has a title containing those characters, so why should this one have a character that is not part of the alphabet, let alone the extended one?). If the accent represents a pronounciation, then it belongs in the IPA pronounciation section, not the title. If it is in a different language, then it belongs in that language's wiki, not English. 74.12.72.63 06:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

First, it is called a macron. Second, English does not have an alphabet. It borrows the Latin script. The macron indicates a long vowel. do and dō are different words and contrastive. Distinguishing between short and long vowels when writing about Japanese people, places etc. is the norm in professional English publications. I invite you to confirm that at a local library. Just for reference, here are corresponding Encarta articles: Hokkaidō, Hokkaidō Prefecture, and Map of Hokkaidō. Bendono 06:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this would also be the case with the differing pronounciation as I mentioned before. Coincidentally, the naive page title has been recently changed to reflect this, but the praetor page still has a title spelled with only naturally occuring characters of the English language, despite the "æ" pronounciation. I've come across many other examples of this throughout wiki, and it seems like the spelling of words using original characters or English approximations seems to be variant across many pages (even within the same page). So what is wiki's official policy on Quasi-English word spelling? Do we use English-only characters that approximate the original spelling, or do we use the original characters, even if they may not be part of the English alphabet? 74.12.87.83 02:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Because this question is more general than just about Hokkaidō, you should ask this question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). There are extensive discussions there and in the archives. Fg2 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Map of Hokkaido

Just a quick note here. I noticed the map of Hokkaido marks the southern Kuril Islands as part of Hokkaido. I was under the impression that those islands were still a part of the Sakhalin Oblast of Russia. Is this claim actually recognised by anyone outside of Japan? Lachy123 01:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an item of dispute between Japan and Russia. The two nations have still not technically signed a peace treaty since WWII because of this issue.imars 15:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Russia big enough? Let Japan have something. The islands are closer to Tokyo than to Moscow. - Lontano (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Using of Hokkaido map where Kuril Islands belong to Japan its violation of principle "neutral point of view", abuse of independence, contravention of law and can not be placed in encyclopedia article. In this article must be placed map without Kuril Islands. For all discuss exist other article - Kuril Islands Dispute, where you can show all points of view. By the way, Kuril Islands have big strategic meaning for national economy and military forces. So its not "just few rocks". Two examples. On the Iturup Island - rhenium deposition. Solitary in the whole World. Not big, little, but exist. On the Kunashir Island - nature reserve. 84 species in the Red Book of Endangered Species and conserved by Russia. // Wilderr (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that farce from the main article about "russian agressions" who actially were just naval explorers and fir traders,and "good japanese" who "just" occupied Ainy owned territories and "defended" them against "those european agressors".And,of course,not a word about major battles and rebellions conducted against "japanese good lads" by Ainu people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.18.129 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont think that using a map with south kurils drown as a part of hokkaido an NPOV matter. Although there is no any inprementation of administration of Japanese governmetn, it is official claim of Japan (and Hokkaido) governments. We can use a map of independent Kosovo when we describe about it, while we can use a map of Serbia including Kosovo on topics about Serbia. Anyway, US and China support Japan's claim.--Peccafly-talk-hist 07:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

European Parliament adopted this in which mentions the "northern territories" as "occupied by Russia". --Peccafly-talk-hist 08:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Average Temperature

i believe the august's average temprature in hokkaido ranges between 17-22°C. although the temprature may go up as high as over 30°C in inland areas, it is rare that the temperature goes above 25°C in eastern hokkaido including kushiro. the following are the average temperatures in august from 1979 to 2000 and will give you some idea what climate is like in hokkaido: Japan Meteorological Agency

• sapporo 22.0°C, hakodate 21.7°C, asahikawa 21.1°C, tomakomai 20.3°C, obihiro 20.0°C, kitami 19.9°C, abashiri 19.4°C, kushiro 17.8°C, nemuro 17.3°C

Best wishes --Iwashigumo77 07:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

aynu mosir

The leading section included "Ainu Mosir" as the Ainu equivalent of "Hokkaidō."[2][3] This is highly questionable and needs to be verified.

The phrase aynu mosir consists of aynu (people, the Ainu) and mosir (land). As far as I know, the primary meaning of aynu is mankind as opposed to gods (kamuy), and hence, aynu mosir primarily means the earth as opposed to the land of gods, or heaven. As you know, aynu can refer to selves (Ainu) in contrast to others (Japanese). In this sense, aynu mosir refers to the Ainu's land. The question is: does the "Ainu's land" exactly correspond to Hokkaido? Clearly, it wasn't.

Where did the Ainu live? The Ainu lived in Karafuto (Sakhalin) and Chishima (Kuril) too. There was no reason to limit the land to Hokkaido. In addition, Hokkaido itself was divided into "Wajin-chi" (和人地, land of the Japanese) and "Ezo-chi" (蝦夷地, land of the Ezo or Ainu).

I googled and found that an ethnic Japanese used aynu mosir as a translation equivalent of Hokkaido[4][5]. Apparently he translated Japanese texts into Ainu with considerable difficulty because Ainu lacks modern vocabulary. He might have thought that such a basic term as "Hokkaido" should have been translated. But I suspect there is/was no exact Ainu word for Hokkaido. Did they think of a geographic region with clear boundaries when using aynu mosir? In general, such a vague phrase cannot be associated with a certain geographic entity without conscious effort by geographers, politicians and nationalists. So, to keep this word in the article, you have to prove that aynu mosir really means "Hokkaidō" as a very modern product. --Nanshu (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanozentric Time Data

Time display should be translated into the Gregorian calendar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.119.13.93 (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? Fg2 (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Such like "During the Nara and Heian periods". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.119.5.24 (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

When discussing Japanese topics, it is common practice to mention Japanese era names. If you feel so strongly, then why don't you follow the links provided and add the Gregorian year to the article itself. -Amake (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Map edit war: ownership of the southern Kuril Islands

DAJF and Wilder: I wonder if we can have a discussion here about the map question, rather than continue the edit war? WP policy is to follow a neutral point of view. How can we do this here? --Kleinzach 11:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It is explained in the "Geography" section of this article that "by Japanese reckoning, Hokkaidō also incorporates several of the Kuril Islands". This is a fact, regardless of whether we as Wikipedia editors agree with it. My view is that if Japanese maps include these islands as part of Hokkaidō, then we as Wikipedia editors are obliged to reflect this in articles about regions of Japan. Once we start inserting personal opinion on whether the claims of one country or another are justified, then that is no longer "neutral point of view". --DAJF (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You write: "My view is that if Japanese maps include these islands as part of Hokkaidō, then we as Wikipedia editors are obliged to reflect this in articles about regions of Japan." Can you elaborate on this? Why are WP editors "obliged to reflect this" and what does this mean in practice? --Kleinzach 13:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Two questions please. 1) Who are the ruler of Kuril islands at present? 2) Whose army is located on Kuril islands at present? //Wilder (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I think both DAJF and Wilder have valid points. What we need to do is agree how to handle the issue. Wilder, no one disputes that Russia currently occupies and administrates the entire Kurile chain. You also know, that right or wrong, Japan claims the last four islands in the chain. The question is how do we depict this in Wikipedia.

• We can remove the islands from the Hokkaido map. This would require a new map.(Since all of the prefecture topics use the same map, I would dislike to use the one presented by Wilder.) It would also belie the fact that Japan see itself as the rightful owner of what it calls the Northern Territories.
• We can leave the islands on the Hokkaido map. This does not make clear the fact that Russia physicaly owns the islands.
• We can indicate the islands in another color. This might be the best compromise.

What might be worthwhile to do is to survey how other territorial disputes are displayed in Wikipedia. The only dispute that readily came to my mind is the Golan Heights. Here the topic for the Israeli district and the Syrian district both show ownership. See North District (Israel) and Quneitra Governorate. With that as an example, there does not appear to be a problem with Sakhalin Oblast and Hokkaidō both displaying the islands.imars (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with that general approach. IMO it is important that the general reader can understand the present situation with the islands, however the present maps on the page are not consistent in their approach. I'm not sure I understand the analogy with the Golan Heights. Maybe Kashmir might be a better example? In the small (top right) map of India the disputed territory is indicted in a lighter colour than the rest of the country. Could that be a model for us? --Kleinzach 05:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See also File:China administrative.gif, used in People's Republic of China. Fg2 (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On WikiCommons, someone created a version of this file with the Northern Territories highlighted. Check out version 2 from ASDFGHJ.imars (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's ideal because the Kurils are the same colour as Honshu! Maybe the Indian or Chinese solution is better? --Kleinzach 07:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• For debate concerning rightness of the sides there is other place – Kuril Islands Dispute, where you can show all points of view. Another one question. Japan lays claim on some other territories. Why these territories are not shown on this map? // Wilder (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wilder: Which territories are you referring to? --Kleinzach 05:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two other disputes that I know of are Liancourt Rocks and Senkaku Islands. The former is so small that it will be a challenge to indicate it on a map. However, I have no objection to doing so.imars (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. Wouldn't the Senkaku Islands also be too small to appear? After all we just have a minimal outline map of the country. --Kleinzach 09:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Here are some examples of Chinese maps on a similar divisive issues. Compare them:

1. en:File:China_administrative.gif – Chinese claim line. Just a red line around the disputed territories.
2. en:File:China_provinces_numbered_with_regional_colors.svg – Disputed territories just marked gray.
   On these maps (above) disputable territories are shown, but they are not included in structure of the state. This is NPOV in action.
3. http://www.abirus.ru/map/adm.jpg – On this map which printed in China in 1997 all disputable territories are included in structure of China.

The latest map violates the rule of a neutral point of view. So this is a reason why this map not used in Wikipedia. Why concerning Japan exception should be made? // Wilder (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wilder: Please don't ask rhetorical questions. They don't help us move towards a solution. Your links to the Wikipedia maps are helpful. Thank you for those, but the Abirus.ru/China 1997 one is not relevant here. --Kleinzach 00:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment, I do not think an exception was made for Japan. Like I pointed out earlier, other articles do it the same way that the Hokkaido article does. Some articles handle this issue better than others. We are trying to ensure that the Hokkaido article is one of those articles. Imars (Talk | contribs) at 15:55, 22 January 2009

Proposal

At present this article has two outline maps indicating the location of Hokkaido (see right):

I propose we retain the southern Kuril islands or Northern Territories (Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan, and Habomai) in the (top right of the) maps but change their colour to white grey, indicating the special status of the islands from a neutral point of view, in line with Wikipedia practice elsewhere with similar maps (see above). (The maps are small (on the article page) and do not have space for (text) captions.) Please agree, disagree or suggest alternatives - as you please! --Kleinzach 01:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

agree, but I would like to see a shade of the current color used to indicate that a relation exists, but that it is of different status than the rest of Hokkaido. However, because of the small size of the image, I will drop my suggestion if it makes the Northern Territories indistinguishable from the rest of Hokkaido. Imars (Talk | contribs) at 15:55, 22 January 2009

agree, as I mentioned before "We can use a map of independent Kosovo when we describe about it, while we can use a map of Serbia including Kosovo on topics about Serbia" and as Imars mentioned about Syria & Israel, I believe it would be the best solution both Sakhalin oblast & Hokkaido can have their maps including those islands, but Klein's proposal also makes sence.--Peccafly-talk-hist 01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yagree. Namely, that is what I wanted. But please do not use white color. The standard solution in such cases – to use the gray color for the disputed territory which is under the jurisdiction of another State. // Wilder (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wilder: Can you give some examples of the use of grey for disputed territories? (I haven't seen any myself.)--Kleinzach 13:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

en:File:China_provinces_numbered_with_regional_colors.svg // Wilder (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupted but I made a edited version that is colored in gray on dispute territories it, might have to enlarge it to see it. — ■~∀SÐFﾑｻ~■ =] ^{Babashi? antenna?} 22:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I like it! Will we do the same for Sakhalin Oblast? Not that anyone would be able to see it, even if you looked at the large size image. See Map of Russia - Sakhalin Oblast (2008-03).svg. We might have to choose a different color than gray though.imars (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done here you go on the rightside, might have to enlarge it to see it. — ■~∀SÐFﾑｻ~■ =] ^{Babashi? antenna?} 17:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If everybody is agreed that grey is suitable that's fine by me as well. ASDFGH's version of the Japan map looks good. However I don't think we should change the Sakhalin Oblast map. That really needs to be discussed on the Sakhalin Oblast article page. We don't want to start another edit war!--Kleinzach 00:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)