Talk:Hokkaido/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"see also" list

the "see also" section at the end of the article seems cluttered with random items of minor importance. Surely someone could replace it with a list that is more relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.227.173 (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i would agree with your feeling.  It does seem pretty random, almost nothing currently there deserves it. Do you have ideas of what should be in the See Also section? —fudoreaper (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon region

Should the article mention Sinnoh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.17.155 (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting problem

For some unknown reason, words are being bunched up.

Thus, "the Seikan Tunnel"

appears as

"theSeikan Tunnel".

Didn't happen yesterday!

Tabletop (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Abashiri Brewery

Can't understand why on earth this is it's own subsection, or even merits a mention at all. It's clearly added by someone who either has a vested interest in the product, or is just adding some random fact for no apparent reason. It's impact on the economy (the subsection in which it sits) or local culture is below negligible. Even many Hokkaido residents are fairly unaware of it.

Bilk (the drink mentioned) doesn't even register in terms of importance to the region (it's like singling out one small fairly obscure company's microbrew and giving it the only entry in an article on New York State). Sapporo Beer (huge company, internationally famous and massively important to the region's economy) doesn't even get a mention!

Saiing (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

After a quick check, it turns out it was added by the company that owns the brewery. Blatant advert and no reason for existing. After a few minutes thought, I'm going to take it out.

Saiing (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Island vs Prefecture

Perhaps a separate article should be made for the island itself, and this one discuss the Japanese prefecture? Seems like they would do well apart. The island page can be called Hokkaidō (island), leaving this one as the main article. In particular, details about geography can be removed from this article and be replaced by a short summary. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I see little that would be gained since the island and the prefecture are virtually synonymous. --imars (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Same thing with Hainan. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Muromachi era conflict - rebellion or invasion?

The article describes these events the following (my emphasis): "During the Muromachi period (1336–1573), the Japanese created a settlement at the south of the Oshima peninsula. As more people moved to the settlement to avoid battles, disputes arose between the Japanese and the Ainu. The disputes eventually developed into a rebellion. Takeda Nobuhiro killed the Ainu leader, Koshamain,[1] and defeated the rebellion in 1457"

I have no konwledge on the Hokkaido history, but since the article does not mention Japanese taking of control over the island before conflict, wouldn't it be more accurately described as Japanese invasion rather than native rebellion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.94.17.249 (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why has the macron been removed?

• Why has the macron just been removed from the article title? This doesn't match the usage in the article. Wouldn't it have been better just to handle this via the redirect? --Kleinzach 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• No idea, but I have reverted the move, since it was not something that should have been done without any discussion. --DAJF (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• I found and obeyed this request in the uncontroversials part of Wikipedia:Requested moves:

  Hokkaidō → Hokkaido – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:EN, Hokkaido is more commonly used in reliable sources in English than Hokkaidō. Jfgslo (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that'd be uncontroversial. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• The request is uncontroversial because it is done according to WP:COMMONNAME, WP:EN and WP:MJ. I will point you out to the section "Body text" of the manual of Style (Japan-related articles) where it says: "Take care with these points regarding usage in article body text (anything that is not the title of the article)." Article titles do not need match usage within the article. Article titles are determined by common usage in reliable source in the English-speaking world, per WP:AT, where "Hokkaido" is overwhelmingly more commonly used over the macroned form, even by other encyclopedias like Britannica and even the Hokkaido government. This has been recently discussed because it was thought that WP:MJ required macroned forms, which is not true. Article titles of Japanese related topics are determined like any other topic, with common usage in reliable sources in English and they also follow WP:COMMONNAME and WP:EN, as it is clearly stated in the "Article names" section of WP:MJ: "Please note that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline are applicable here." Jfgslo (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Without taking a stand on which name is "correct", this issue has been discussed before and a move without prior discussion is not appropriate. Jpatokal (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the previous discussion, the move towards the macroned form was done against consensus. Jfgslo (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to move Hokkaidō to Hokkaido

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 21:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Hokkaidō → Hokkaido — Per WP:AT, WP:EN and WP:MJ, "Hokkaido" is the most commonly used form in reliable sources in the English-speaking world, therefore it should be used in the article title. Jfgslo (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The current consensus is that the macron-less form, Hokkaido, should be used. The consensus can be verified here and here. However, the article is currently located at the macroned form Hokkaidō. I do not know for what reason that move was done since it went against consensus. Per WP:AT, WP:EN, WP:MJ and the last consensus discussion, the article should be located at Hokkaido. But it's been pointed out to me that the former consensus is 4 years old, so a new consensus may be preferable.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. The current Manual of Style clearly states that all places should be macroned except a shortlist of exceptions, and Hokkaidō is not on that shortlist. Jpatokal (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly which part of the that MOS section do you think says that all place names should be macroned except...? Andrewa (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, wrong anchor. Body text point 10, emphasis mine: "Location names (municipalities, prefectures, islands, etc.) should include macrons in all cases with the following exceptions.... Jpatokal (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Within the body text section it also says "Take care with these points regarding usage in article body text (anything that is not the title of the article.)" Article titles, which is emphasized in the proper section of WP:MJ, follow the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. Jfgslo (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I requested the move because I believed it was uncontroversial since it was done in accordance to WP:COMMONNAME, WP:EN and WP:MJ and also followed the previous consensus. This is still my rationale for this proposal. Per the previous guidelines and as I pointed out within this talk page in the previous section, "Hokkaido" is the most commonly used form in reliable sources in the English-speaking world, therefore the article title should be without the macron.

To show that the macronless form is much more commonly used, here are some examples using some search engine tests:

• Google
  • Hokkaidō 99,200 results
  • Hokkaido 9,900,000 results
• Google scholar
  • Hokkaidō 2,610 results
  • Hokkaido 436,000 results
• Google books
  • Hokkaidō 10,200 results
  • Hokkaido 564,000 results
• Yahoo
  • Hokkaidō 26,400 results
  • Hokkaido 486,000 results

Also, as I pointed out before, other encyclopedias, like Britannica and The Columbia Encyclopedia, use the macronless form. Additionally, the sources used to reference the article do not use the macron. Hokkaido's government also uses the macronless form. I could also point out to some mainstream media publications but I think I have already shown that "Hokkaido" without the macron is the most commonly used form in reliable English sources.

Therefore, in accordance with the applicable guidelines WP:EN and WP:MJ and the policy WP:AT, I propose to move the article from Hokkaidō to Hokkaido. Please share your comments and thoughts in order to reach a new consensus. Jfgslo (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, because: 1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Accuracy should come first. Accuracy is more important than search engine 'beauty contest' popularity. 2. The macron is necessary for indicating pronunciation, as well as part of the romanization system. 3. European accents are used in Wikipedia article titles (see, for example, French place names here and German place names here), so non-European ones should be given as well. Standards should be maintained evenly throughout Wikipedia. Japan should not be singled out for dumbing down. 4. The non-macron spelling can be handled simply and elegantly by a redirect. --Kleinzach 02:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support obvious English common usage. 184.144.165.37 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per WP:MOS-JA, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:EN. The macronless form is by far the most common usage. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you against the use of macrons for all Japanese names and terms? Clearly spelling without macrons will in every case be 'commoner' (as measured by the English Google) than spelling with them. --Kleinzach 05:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. It really depends on the name or term. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is an extremely well-known term in English, comparable for example to Tokyo, and almost never spelled with the macron. Andrewa (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support The macronless form is a common English.

The followings are Encyclopedia/Dictionary results:

• Britannica Hokkaido
• The Columbia Encyclopedia Hokkaido
• Merriam-Webster Dictionary Hokkaido
• Random House Dictionary Hokkaido
• Collins English Dictionary Hokkaido
• Oxford Dictionaries Hokkaido
• The American Heritage Dictionary Hokkaido

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The commonly used English spelling (without macron) should be used for the title, as per WP:ENGLISH and WP:MOS-JA. Note that even the Hokkaido Government website uses "Hokkaido" without macrons on its English pages. The romanized Japanese form (with macron) can be included in the lead sentence as part of the "Nihongo" template, so there is no issue of "dumbing down". --DAJF (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support: "Hokkaido" has clearly entered the English lexicon along with "Tokyo", "Osaka", and "Kobe". I have also initiated similar move requests at Talk:Kyūshū#Requested move and Talk:Honshū#Requested move.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not opposed to this move per se, but according to MOS-JA, this is clearly supposed to be at Hokkaidō. (To be more specific, MOS-JA states that all Japanese places with a very few exceptions should use macrons, and Hokkaido is not one of the listed exceptions.) Assuming a new consensus can be formed, I would like to see the MOS-JA amended before this move takes place, and especially before any other moves along the same lines. Jpatokal (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:MOS-JA#Place names does not deal explicitly with this issue. One of the examples given is Hokkaidō, but this is given as an exception to another rule, not as an example of macron usage. Suggest we see how the several related moves get on before rushing to change the MOS. Andrewa (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment : Wikipedia:MOS-JA#Article_names does deals with this: "Article titles should use macrons as specified for body text except in cases where the macronless spelling is in common usage in reliable sources in English-speaking countries (e.g., Tokyo, Sumo and Shinto, instead of Tōkyō, Sumō and Shintō)." The operative words are 'reliable sources'. That means reference works, not newspapers and websites etc. --Kleinzach 12:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:MJ also says "Reliable sources should be used in all cases when determining the most common English-language usage for within body text or in article titles. Scholarly reliable sources and mainstream media reliable sources are equally acceptable, and neither should be considered more valid than the other." Also, as I pointed out, the references used within the article do not use the macron and neither the vast majority of scholarly sources. And other reference works like Britannica also do not use the macron. Jfgslo (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Two problems here. Firstly, note that the list is preceded by e.g., so the list is explicitly not exhaustive. Secondly, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations reads in part Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. Andrewa (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Hokkaido has become an English word, and not just a transliteration of the Japanese. WP:ENGLISH requires the macronless form. Quigley (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: The followings are English news site results:

• Guardian: Hokkaido 226 results; Hokkaidō 0 results
• Independent: Hokkaido 64 results; Hokkaidō 0 results
• Daily Telegraph: Hokkaido 144 results; Hokkaidō 0 results
• Financial Times: Hokkaido 258 results; Hokkaidō 0 results
• The Times: Hokkaido 119 results ( Hokkaidō 119 results)
• New York Times: Hokkaido 2100 results; Hokkaidō 4 results
• Washington Post (1987-Current): Hokkaido 214 results; Hokkaidō 0 results
• Wall Street Journal (2 years): Hokkaido 63 results (Hokkaidō 63 results)
• Los Angeles Times: Hokkaido 20 results; Hokkaidō 0 results
• Associated Press: Hokkaido 590 results; Hokkaidō 0 results
• Reuters: Hokkaido 418 results; Hokkaidō 0 results
• Google News: Hokkaido 2261 results; Hokkaidō 3 results

―― --Krtek2125 (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The common omission of the macron of "Hokkaido" is purely the result of the difficulty in typing diacritics on an English keyboard. It is not an Anglicisation or an "English name", but a slight misspelling of a kind which English-speakers happen to be blind to. There is no reason whatever for an encyclopedia to mimic the sloppiness of the mass media. Xanthoxyl ^< 08:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reliable mass media sources should be given the same weight as reliable academic sources, regardless of personal opinion about how "sloppy" they may be. "Hokkaido" is—by far— the most common way for this location to be written in reliable English-language sources. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:57, 22 December 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal to merge Ezo into Hokkaido

I'm opposed to the merger. Ezo has usage beyond the purely geographical. --Kleinzach 10:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As there has been no response I'm now removing the merge tags. --Kleinzach 09:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Aynu Mosir

User:Nanshu is pointing to a discussion that no one else bothered to take part in. The name of this island in the language of its original native people (who are determined to be so by the Japanese government) is Aynu Mosir. It may translate to "Ainu Land" but there is no consensus not to use this name on this article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are too bold to edit Wikipedia. Now that your claim is questioned, you need to cite reliable sources to confirm that aynu mosir is the established alias of Hokkaido. Otherwise we have no choice but to dismiss your claim. As I said three years ago, I suspect Ainu has no exact word for Hokkaido. And, personally, I oppose any attempt to confine the sphere of the Ainu to Hokkaido. Do not forget Karafuto and Chishima. Anyway, the burden of proof is on you. --Nanshu (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've put a fact tag on 'Aynu Mosir'. This needs a reference. --Kleinzach 06:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a map of 'Aynu Mosir' here published by the National Museum of Ethnology. This confirms that the term refers to all the Ainu lands, not just Hokkaido. --Kleinzach 09:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the Ainu Association of Hokkaido shows a nearly identical map on its site. We should note that these are (1) rare examples and (2) ahistorical. It is not something widely used by the Ainu or researchers. For example, a leaflet on Ainu place names published by the Hokkaido Ainu Culture Research Center [1] never mentions aynu mosir. --Nanshu (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong added a piece of text on aynu mosir again[2]. It is much better than earlier revisions but is still problematic. The source he cited gives:

“ The Ainu called their domains Aynu Mosir (the earth/world of humans). ” — Minpaku, http://www.minpaku.ac.jp/english/museum/exhibition/ainu/11.html

It was incorrectly expanded by Ryulong as follows:

“ the term Aynu Mosir (アイヌ・モシリ), translating as "Ainu Land" or "The Land Where People Live", has traditionally been applied to the all of the lands the Ainu inhabited; ”

Ryulong must prove that the term was traditionally applied and that it referred to all of the lands the Ainu inhabited.

We should keep in mind that the phrase is vague. And accordingly Minpaku gives a vague explanation to it. I suspect Ryulong misinterpreted the map on Minpaku's page. It depicts "the all of the lands the Ainu inhabited." This is a very product of modern researchers, who have full knowledge of geography and ethnography. It is not something shared by the Ainu in the past. I doubt the Ainu ever thought of all of the lands the Ainu inhabited when using the phrase. Were the Ainu in Ishikari aware of their brothers and sisters in Shumshu? And did they manage to develop the concept that they all belonged to the same nation despite lack of a unified polity? Did the phrase have a territorial connotation at all?

The following sentence is unsourced.

“ this also designated them separate from the Kamuy Mosir, or the land of the Kamuy, and the Sisam Mosir, the land of the Yamato people. ”

Ryulong seems to have taken this from ja:アイヌモシリ.

“ 対となる語にカムイモシリ（神の住むところ）がある。また本州をシサムモシリ（和人の島）、サモロモシリ（隣の島）と呼んだ。 ”

Leaving aside the fact that the Japanese article is also unsourced, Ryulong over-interpreted the source again. The Japanese article does not claim that aynu mosir was contrasted with sisam mosir. It explains sisam mosir only as a related phrase of aynu mosir while kamuy mosir is an antonym of aynu mosir. Are there any attested examples? --Nanshu (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong pushed the nonsense again.[3] He was aware that his unsourced claim was questioned and rejected here, but he did not follow one of Wikipedia's most important policies CITE. He carried out his purpose simply by editting the article more often than users. He looks more like a revert warrior.

Once again, you must cite reliable sources to confirm that aynu mosir is the established alias of Hokkaido. This term belongs to folklore or cosmology but not to geography or politics.

Ryulong is not just rude and dishonest but ignorant. It is astonishing that every time he edits, he inserts errors. This time he stupidly misunderstood John Batchelor's century-old dictionary.[4]

Another name is ''Isho Mosir'' ({{lang|ain|イショ・モシ<small>リ</small>}}) which [[John Batchelor (missionary)|John Batchelor]] recorded as the Ainu word for the Japanese place name of "Ezo".<ref>{{cite book |title=An Ainu--English--Japanese Dictionary |last=Batchelor |first=John |authorlink=John Batchelor (missionary) |coauthors= |year=1905 |publisher=Methodist Publishing House |location=[[Ginza]], [[Tokyo]], [[Japan]] |isbn=9784000800556 |page=39 |pages= |url=http://www.archive.org/stream/ainuenglishjapan00batcuoft |accessdate=January 25, 2012}}</ref>[5]

Batchelor did NOT "record" Isho Mosir as the Ainu word for the Japanese place name of "Ezo." Quite the opposite. Batchelor attempted to interpret the Japanese word "Ezo" as Ainu and found isho (iso) as a supposedly good candidate. If Ryulong had spent 10 seconds more to read this page, he would have found that this folk etymology was followed by another folk etymology for Mount Fuji. I think this mistake alone shows that this topic is outside his capability. --Nanshu (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Holy shit, Nanshu who pissed in your wheaties when you wrote all this up? I've provided sources that the Ainu have no word for Hokkaido but "Ainu Mosir" is what they used for the land they lived on in general. You are the only one who has ever voiced any sort of opposition to this phrase's inclusion which clearly shows that no one else disagrees. I find it extremely odd that you felt it necessary to personally attack me throughout the 4k of text you posted on this page to say "RYULONG IS DUMB AND WRONG". You did this constantly through the Ryukyu Shoto discussion as well. Instead of deleting it each time you could just correct it. Clearly there is an Ainu word for Hokkaido or wherever they lived, and that's "Ainu/Aynu Mosir". It's the closest we can get for this other ethnic group that called modern Hokkaido home.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A man without common sense may find it difficult to understand, but the name of an island with a population of more than 5 million cannot be determined by a dozen of activists. 5 web pages, cited (improperly) by Ryulong, all point to a single event: a meeting held by a small group of activists to counter the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit 2008. No serious attempts to change the name of Hokkaido have happened since then. For example, the Ainu Party was founded in 2011 and failed to win any seat in the 2012 House of Representatives election. However, no such policy is proposed by this small political group.[6] Actually, the meeting of 2008 did not aim to propose the name change either. The adoption of the new name was nothing more than a superficial attempt to make the meeting look Ainu-like. After all, this event is too trivial to mention at this big article. It is something like mentioning Emperor Norton at the article of the United States.

Ryulong cited 5 web pages for the following sentence:

However, the Ainu people did have a name for all of their domain, which included Hokkaido along with the [[Kuril Islands]], [[Sakhalin]], and parts of northern [[Honshu]], which was ''Ainu Mosir'' ({{lang|ain|アイヌ・モシ<small>リ</small>}}), a name taken by the modern Ainu to refer to their traditional homeland.[7]

So did he manage to make this statement credible? Not at all because these web pages contradict with each other. All he can do is to google "Ainu Mosir" and to add whatever he gets. Unfortunately, he is incapable of understanding the contents. Two web pages just use the name of ainu mosir as the name of the 2008 event. For what purpose were these pages cited? One web page is authored by a photographer (reliable?). This page equates Ainu Mosir with Hokkaido without providing any evidence. However, a Japanfocus article correctly admits:

there is no overarching term in the Ainu language which refers specifically to Hokkaido, because Ainu historically dwelled in Southern Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands, Hokkaido, and Northern Honshu, and did not conceptualize their terrain using modernist concepts of territory such as the nation-state.

This statement clearly contradicts with the photographer's claim. But this article may be too long for Ryulong to read. Lastly, a paper from the University of Hawai'i at Manoa does not map ainu mosir to any geographic region. To sum up, among 5 pages, which supports the part of the claim: Ainu Mosir = Hokkaido along with the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin, and parts of northern Honshu? None. Two against it. One weak oppose. Two claim nothing. That's incredible! If Ryulong is not intellectually dishonest, his reading ability is far below minimum standard.

So what about another part of the claim, ainu mosir as the name taken by "the modern Ainu?" None. This is Ryulong's original research. His style of citation is too innovative to edit Wikipedia. BTW, who ever represent "the modern Ainu?" The group of activists? Is there any evidence for it?

As I said before, you are at the wrong place if you want to say something useful about aynu mosir. It is about folklore or cosmology not about geography or politics. This is too obvious to those who know the basic knowledge of the Ainu. But it is probably too difficult for Ryulong to realize.

I don't see why Ryulong sticks with this article even though his lack of ability is too obvious. Does he just want to demonstrate that anti-intellectualism is a real threat to Wikipedia? --Nanshu (talk)

I have sources that show its usage. What more do you need?—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Some comments

This article has some problems but I do not have enough time to correct them. Maybe I will work on them but for now I only list most serious problems here.

• Archeologists theorize that Hokkaido was settled by Ainu, Gilyak, and Orok 20,000 years ago.[2]

• I can hardly believe that archaeologists make such a sloppy remark. They are usually cautious about identifying archaeological findings with modern ethnic groups. Japan Handbook should be replaced by scholarly work. And we definitely need to explain archaeological achievements: the Epi-Jomon, Satsumon, Okhotsk, Tobinitai and Ainu (in an archaeological sense) cultures.

  Shortly after the Boshin War in 1868, a group of Tokugawa loyalists led by Enomoto Takeaki proclaimed the island's independence as the Republic of Ezo, but the rebellion was crushed in May 1869.

• This is completely wrong. Enomoto Takeaki did NOT proclaimed independence. The article on Japanese Wikipedia ja:蝦夷共和国 discusses common misunderstanding about the the polity but unfortunately it is unsourced. The main article Republic of Ezo must also be revised.
• The episode of William S. Clark is too long for this general article and should be summarized.

  Subprefectures

• In 2010, the subprefectures of Hokkaido were replaced with General Subprefectural Bureaus (総合振興局) and Subprefectural Bureau (振興局)(I consulted [8] for translation). The main article Subprefectures in Hokkaidō should also be updated.

--Nanshu (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

On the first point, I imagine this is a misleading summary of a (possibly not very authoritative) source. Certainly there's no way anyone can identify 20,000 BP settlers with recent ethnic groups. --Kleinzach 15:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the sentence. --Nanshu (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Bilk?

Could someone please explain why Bilk redirects here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leegee23 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Hokkaido/Archive 2#Abashiri Brewery. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: The useless redirect has been fixed. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:ClarkBoysBeAmbitious.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ClarkBoysBeAmbitious.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Google Ngram

The historical use of Ezo, Yezo and Hokkaido can be restated or captured by an algorithm which surveys the array of books uploaded to the internet by Google.

Google Ngram = Ezo ≤ Yezo < Hokkaido

This data gives us an insight into a change which is important enough to be mentioned in the lead paragraph.

The Google Ngram link was added to the "external links" section here and removed here with an edit summary which ased "what purpose does that have?"

In my opinion, the link should be restored -- if not at the bottom of the page, then as a note in the 1st sentence of the article here. --Ansei (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This content is not relevant to the article, which is about Hokkaido in general. We are not looking at the differences between English name choices over a 200 year period. Please do not put the link back into the article. You added it once and it was removed. That means you start a discussion and you don't insert the link back in without an agreement.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Outrageous footer-frame

Maybe it's just this stupid Chromebook computer, but this page is coming up as two-thirds or more of footer. Well I'm not sure 'footer' is the right term, I mean the part of the frame left at the bottom of the page. Lots of blankness, even if I expand every part of the bottom link-box! Someone might want to look into that, eventually.

KhyranLeander 16:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khyranleander (talk • contribs)

I am a little bit of a noob when it comes to wiki editing. It looks like the issue was in the subprefectures section, where there were image labels being used on the image but no opening nor closing statement. Somehow this caused the page to grow ridiculously large. For now, I've removed the labels because I myself am not yet sure of how to use them, but hopefully my actions aren't seen as an act of vandalism as I struggle to understand what went wrong. --Dramartistic (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I have since updated the table to the best of my ability, but I have no idea how to properly center elements woops. --Dramartistic (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the wildlife section include notes on what the major predators are?

Sika deer and Asian brown bears made it onto Hokkaido, but the tiger didn't. Is the bear the only deer predator? Will (Talk - contribs) 06:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Jomon People predates Ainu People

There are several Jomon sites in Hokkaido proving that before the Ainu, Jomon people lived there. So the original indigenous people of Hokkaido are the Jomon, not Ainu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikedalan (talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems dubious but find some good sources and add mention. Even if accurate, some earlier sites would still ≠ certainty of complete earlier ownership of the island. — LlywelynII 16:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a government site dedicated to it, you can find more info on https://jomon-japan.jp/en/jomon-sites/ - It may not prove complete ownership of the island but it proves that they were there before the Ainu. So saying that the Ainu are the indigenous people of Hokkaido is factually wrong.Wikedalan (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Name

Right now, we have way too many names shoved into the lead and they don't even mention other common spellings in earlier English and French sources like Jesso. They should be sourced and dealt with an a Name/Etymology/Toponymy section. The current "Name" section solely deals with Japanese nomenclature and is misplaced as a subsection of the island's history. Treatment of the names themselves should follow the lead, with a fuller history section (without dwelling overmuch on the naming) should follow it. — LlywelynII 16:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)