Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarashi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarashi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

TL;DR version: Nothing in the current article appears to be correct.

Details: Sarashi (晒 or 晒し) in Japanese refers to either "bleaching cloth (by exposing it to the sun)" or "exposure (as in doxing)". I cannot find any Japanese-language resources that define sarashi as any kind of figure-altering cloth. Of the two references listed in the article, the first one (the Sarashi page on The International Shakuhachi Society's website, https://www.komuso.com/pieces/pieces.pl?piece=2121) also defines sarashi as "bleaching cloth", and makes no mention of any garment. The second one (a doula-related website, http://www.crowningmomentsdoula.com/History-of-Belly-Binding.php) appears to be a dead link. For those who can read Japanese, see the JA Wikipedia articles at w:ja:晒 about cloth bleaching, and at w:ja:晒し about sensitive data exposure. The former JA Wikipedia article mentions various garments as possible uses of the resulting bleached cloth, but never defines sarashi as meaning those garments themselves. An earlier version of the EN Wikipedia sarashi page referenced https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Sarashi, but I have no idea where that site sourced its information. The picture on that page suggests that the TV Tropes authors were confusing the word sarashi with haramaki, which actually does refer to cloth wrapped around the belly, and might be made from sarashi-bleached material.

I'm reasonably fluent in Japanese and an admin at the EN Wiktionary, focusing on creating and editing entries for Japanese terms. Please ping me with any questions about this AFD. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't see any reason to keep this: it is not an encyclopedic topic. As Eirikr hints, it might be the basis for a dictionary entry, once all the misunderstandings are cleared up. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The dead link is archived - [1]. There are a number of sources that mention sarashi binding - [2][3], and as a bleached cloth [4] or sarashi momen - [5]. I'm wondering if rewriting the article to clearly explain what it is, and what it might be used for might be the better option? Hzh (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat suspicious that I cannot find any Japanese references that mention any such "sarashi". I can find mention of bleaching, doxing, and various forms of public punishment that involve putting the guilty party on public display with a notice of their crimes (vaguely similar to how stocks were used in European cultures), as well as more gruesome punishments such as beheading and public exposure of the head. I can find mention of cloth that has been processed using the sarashi method of bleaching. I cannot (yet?) find any Japanese-language source that describes sarashi as specifically a cloth used for belly-binding (or indeed for any other specific garment).

Looking at the links posted by Hzh, I note that:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160302003147/http://www.crowningmomentsdoula.com/History-of-Belly-Binding.php - the doula-related site is all in English, with no sources given;
https://sarashi-binding.net/2016/03/26/how-to-wrap-a-sarashi/ - poor English and a bit confusing, but looking at the parent site http://sarashi.net/ mentioned at the bottom of that page, the content authors are sellers of sarashi cloth, and the "how to wrap" page is about one specific way of using sarashi cloth, rather than about sarashi itself.
https://books.google.com/books?id=MSc4Afi9XWsC&pg=PA90&dq=sarashi binding - English-only text, and while there is a bibliography with this one, there's no clear source for where the author got the notion that sarashi means "binding".
https://books.google.com/books?id=4h0TAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA375&dq=sarashi - a mention of sarashi cloth, consistent with Japanese sources I've found, and without anything specifically about belly-binding.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WHfTCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA166#v=onepage&q&f=false - sarashi momen is momen ("cotton") bleached using the sarashi process. Again, nothing about belly-binding.

I do note that the Japanese Wikipedia article on haramaki ("belly wrapping") at w:ja:腹巻き specifically mentions 晒木綿 (sarashi momen) as one kind of material used for these, but it does not say that sarashi or sarashi momen means "belly-binding" or "belly wrapping".

If someone wants to completely rewrite our [[Sarashi]] article, I'm fine with its continued existence. But in its present state, it's effectively lying to our readers. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just poorly written, there is no need to throw accusation of lying. It's also just two sentences long, should be easy to rewrite if anyone wants to do it, and it seems that a few minutes adjusting the text by someone who knows the subject should fix any error. I don't have strong feeling about keeping or deleting it, but perhaps a better rationale for deletion should be given rather than any error in it - perhaps WP:NOTDICT, but it seems that it could be expanded, for example its use in rituals [6], or to wrap around parts of the body - [7][8], etc. Hzh (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no basis whatsoever for the implied claim that sarashi is a Japanese term for a binding cloth, rather than for the type of cloth. There is no accusation of lying (saying something you know is false); the suggestion is that the handful of entirely English sources are muddled about what sarashi means. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There you are, I've just done just a little work to fix the wordings, instead of spending time arguing about it. I'm sure you can do better than me fixing the content. Hzh (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither reference attached to the first sentence supports the (surely false) claim that "a sarashi" is a "bleached cloth". Hepburn's dictionary says that sarashi refers to bleaching (as we knew), and the shakuhachi article refers to a piece titled sarashi, meaning "(the act of) bleaching cloth", and not to a particular type of cloth which has been bleached. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tiresome. The dictionary gives two definitions, one of them "white, or bleached muslin". Can you do something more useful than pointless carping? Hzh (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the above conversation between editors appears to be about the definition of this term, is WP a dictionary? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator thought that the definition is wrong, hence concentrated on the definition. This is probably the wrong thing to do, since an error in definition can easily be fixed, and is not that relevant to whether the topic warrants an article or not. Hzh (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think I have fixed the issue the nominator was complaining about. There are also other sources on its production and uses, and other related things, for example there is a sarashi dance based on the cloth - [9][10]. It is therefore possible to expand it into a decent article on the subject. Hzh (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that after the nomination for deletion, the article was significantly copy edited by User:Hzh, which included the addition of several sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three additional links provided further above by Hzh, the first (https://books.google.com/books?id=iDqKsWFEf-4C&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q&f=false) appears to be correct, using the term sarashi to mean "bleached white cloth". This conforms to all the Japanese materials I have seen. However, Hzh seems to think that this implies some ritual usage specific to this material; I don't think this is enough to warrant notability; perhaps a note on the page for any such ritual, but not a page of its own. The second (https://books.google.com/books?id=RMEMAAAAYAAJ&q=sarashi belly&dq=sarashi belly&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8mKzSzcvjAhUNYcAKHUeYCaIQ6AEIQTAE) is mistaken: "a strip of cotton, called iwata-obi or sarashi, is tied around the expectant mother's waist, just below her extended belly." Here, an iwata obi is definitely a thing, and it even has a JA WP article at [[ja:帯祝い]]. However, it is not sarashi, nor is sarashi an iwata obi, although an iwata obi could well be made of sarashi material. Notably, the JA WP article lists several synonyms, but it doesn't include the word sarashi anywhere. The third link (https://books.google.com/books?id=zH1oDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT173&dq=sarashi#v=onepage&q=sarashi&f=false) also appears to be confused: "He carried an unsheathed dagger wrapped in a towel, thrust in his sarashi (a light muslin cloth, wrapped in many layers around the belly for warmth)." From all that I've read so far in Japanese, the described use is a haramaki made of sarashi material, not a valid definition of sarashi itself.
...in its present state, [the article] is effectively lying to our readers. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi |^{Tala við mig} 16:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just poorly written, there is no need to throw accusation of lying... Hzh (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the term "lying" is from the sense of "knowingly telling a falsehood". The [[Sarashi]] article is known to be false. In its current state, we are effectively lying to our readers, by knowingly (at this point, at least) telling a falsehood. We could rewrite the page at [[Sarashi]] to properly conform to known Japanese usage, describing the material, what it's made of, and how it's produced. However, none of the English-language links so far posted to this thread provide the information needed to do that. I'm also uncertain if it's notable enough, although I do see a page for [[Muslin]].

The page after editing by Hzh seems ... unuseful. I recognize that that's a subjective judgement; however, the page barely provides more information than a dictionary entry would. And if WP:NOTDICT holds, then [[Sarashi]] appears to fall below that threshold, and we should delete. Some of the sources also don't say what the article seems to imply that they say; I'll clear those out in a moment. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you misread a lot of what is written there. The thing you complained about is actually about its use, not what it is defined as (e.g. the cloth used for binding either a woman's or man's belly is sarashi). You also seem to misunderstand what sources may be used - while English sources are preferred, there is nothing wrong with using Japanese language sources if you want to do per WP:NOENG, therefore arguing about English sources is pointless. You can just replace them with Japanese ones if you want to. If there are valid sources in Japanese in Japanese Wiki, then they can also be used here. It's really odd to keep referring to the Japanese Wiki, for one you should not use another Wiki article as a reference (Wiki article are not valid sources whichever language they may be), for another, if the sources used in the Japanese Wiki are valid for that article, then they can be used here. Otherwise you can also argue for the deletion of the Japanese Wiki article. I have no idea why you waste so much time writing here in the AfD when you can just spend a few minutes in the article to fix any issues given that it is just a few sentences long. Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why are you bolding delete, it makes you look like you are voting delete again after nominating it for AfD. Hzh (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with Eiríkr here. I have just edited the article slightly, but don't know how to get the bolded title to be italic, as it should be, since it is not an English word. Fairly clearly some ancient (unreliable) sources in English have confused the Japanese term for the type of cloth with its purpose. So once again: what is the topic of this (supposedly encyclopedic) article? Your comments about Japanese sources seem odd: the WP:ja article totally supports what Eiríkr is saying, and we should generally assume that writing by speakers of Japanese is a more reliable guide to usage in the Japanese language than isolated (mis-)quotes from non-speakers of Japanese. Imaginatorium (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is the policy of Wikipedia per WP:CIRCULAR, you cannot use Wikipedia as source. You can however use content that is sourced. Since that article is referenced with Japanese language sources, you can therefore simply translate the article and use it here with the sources. All these arguments are pointless since the issues are so easily fixable, and we are only having this discussion because the nominator isn't aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including on deletion). If the nominator thinks that an article on sarashi shouldn't exist in English Wikipedia because of the sources, then it would also apply to the Japanese one and he can nominate that one for deletion as well. Hzh (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Hzh.

"You also seem to misunderstand what sources may be used - while English sources are preferred, there is nothing wrong with using Japanese language sources if you want to do per WP:NOENG, therefore arguing about English sources is pointless." -- Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At no point have I added sources to the [[Sarashi]] article. At no point have I advocated adding sources to the [[Sarashi]] article. Instead, I have pointed out where existing references in the [[Sarashi]] article have been incorrect. If an English source is wrong, I will argue against its inclusion and/or remove it from the article.

"It's really odd to keep referring to the Japanese Wiki, for one you should not use another Wiki article as a reference..." -- Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I use the Japanese WP as a point of reference, but nowhere do I advocate for using the Japanese WP as a reference proper, that is, as a source for the [[Sarashi]] article here.

Sarashi is an artifact of the Japanese language and culture. Understanding what sarashi is and its significance requires that one evaluate what Japanese writers have to say about it. When the Japanese WP article at [[ja:晒]] disagrees with the English WP article at [[Sarashi]], simple logic suggests that we should give more credence to the article written (presumably) by authors who belong to the culture and language from which sarashi originated, and then do further research.

"...if the sources used in the Japanese Wiki are valid for that article, then they can be used here. Otherwise you can also argue for the deletion of the Japanese Wiki article. I have no idea why you waste so much time writing here in the AfD when you can just spend a few minutes in the article to fix any issues given that it is just a few sentences long." -- Hzh (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that hasn't been addressed fully is whether the topic of [[Sarashi]] is noteworthy enough for an English-language audience to even merit the existence of the [[Sarashi]] article. I explicitly called that into question above: "I'm also uncertain if it's notable enough, although I do see a page for [[Muslin]]." ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi |^{Tala við mig} 16:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding so far has been that the existence of an article on one language's Wikipedia does not necessarily mean that the topic is similarly notable enough for readers of other languages. Each Wikipedia is a separate community, with separate ideas about what merits notability. By my reading of the English Wikipedia guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Notability]], the topic of sarashi is not sufficiently notable to merit a separate page. I am uninterested in expending the effort to build out an article on a topic that I judge to be non-notable. At least one other editor here, Imaginatorium, seems to share my view; in your posts here to date, you haven't stated anything explicit about your views on the notability of sarashi for English-language readers.

"...we are only having this discussion because the nominator isn't aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including on deletion)." -- Hzh (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. My initial nomination was prompted by the patent and complete incorrectness of the entire article at that time, and by my view that it is better to have no article at all than to have a completely incorrect article. At present, I continue to advocate for the article's deletion, as I do not think that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable for English-language readers to merit an independent article.

"If the nominator thinks that an article on sarashi shouldn't exist in English Wikipedia because of the sources, then it would also apply to the Japanese one and he can nominate that one for deletion as well." -- Hzh (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also incorrect. For one, bad English-language sources in the English-language article have no bearing on the quality of Japanese-language sources used for the Japanese-language article. For two, I do not think that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable to merit an independent article. For three, as I stated above, the different Wikipedias have different criteria for what constitutes a notable topic for an article.

In summation, 1) is the topic of sarashi sufficiently notable to merit its own article? I do not currently think so. I am open to being convinced otherwise.

Also, 2) if we are to keep and maintain the [[Sarashi]] article, it should at least be correct. This is where I am concerned about the sources. Given time, I can find you sources published with Japanese government ministry approval that state quite clearly that Americans all have big family gatherings and turkey dinners on Halloween. Anyone with much experience of American culture can ascertain that this is incorrect. Simply finding a source isn't good enough: sources must also be vetted. Several of those listed above have not been correct.

Iff a convincing argument can be made that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable for English-language readers to merit an independent article, then I will happily withdraw my nomination of the [[Sarashi]] article for deletion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens, if I had known this is going to get so tedious, I would never have participated here. You claim to know what the deletion policy is, but only mentioned actual guidelines after almost two weeks. Half of the problems lie with you misreading what's written, then rely on your misreading to claim that what's written is wrong. The only person who supported you could not even read the dictionary source provided properly. If there are sources in Japanese that discuss the subject in any depth, then it is notable in English Wikipedia. Notability of any English language article is not limited by the sources available in English. You apparently have found sources in Japanese, unless those are trivial sources, if you are questioning its notability knowing that there are significant Japanese sources, it would suggest that you don't know what the policies and guidelines are. Hint: read WP:SIGCOV, if sources in Japanese don't cover the topic more than trivial mentions, then argue for deletion based on that. Hzh (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh, please maintain civility. Your responses have grown increasingly belittling and accusatory.

I have read WP:SIGCOV: as I stated above, I have read Wikipedia:Notability, of which Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline is a part. Apparently my understanding differs from yours. Particularly (emphasis mine):

"A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article... If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article."

For instance, I believe that sarashi might merit a mention and brief description in the [[Muslin]] article.

By way of relevant example, the Japanese-language editing community decided that the topic of lower bigrade conjugation verbs deserved a whole page, at [[ja:下二段活用]]. The English-language editing community decided differently, and instead we only have a mention of this conjugation pattern in the [[Classical_Japanese_language#Verbs_(動詞_Dōshi)]] section. Clearly, different-language Wikipedias make different decisions about notability.

Along similar lines, I am not convinced that the topic of sarashi is sufficiently notable to English-language readers to warrant its own article. This is wholly independent of sourcing and the language of any such sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You only have to click on the Japanese version of WP:N to see that the same criteria on significant coverage and others also apply. If you want to argue about the notability of the English article, then you are also arguing for the deletion of the Japanese version. However, I have no idea what your argument for deletion is based on (you need to specify what exactly which bit of WP:N the article supposedly failed), which is really strange after you have written so much. Even odder that you are in effect disputing what WP:SIGCOV says on the link between sourcing and notability. You really need to show that you understand which policy and guideline that this article fails. And no, the fact that a topic only appears as a subtopic in an article does not mean that that subtopic does not warrant its own page. Splitting of a subtopic occurs too often to be even worth discussing (someone may very well create an article on that subtopic tomorrow), and entirely irrelevant here. What you are saying about putting it into the muslin article is also an argument for merging (see WP:MERGE), not deletion. I recommend reading WP:Deletion policy on reasons for deletion and the various alternatives available for an article. Hzh (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Hzh: Among your posting about you said "The only person who supported you could not even read the dictionary source provided properly." I think this means me, so kindly remind me what you refer to as "the [sic] dictionary source", and explain what I am not able to read. You have never explained: what is supposed to be the topic of this supposed encyclopedia article. A topic cannot just be "This Japanese word", it has to be a noun phrase describing the subject. Currently the closest seems to be "Various misconceptions in old books in English of the meaning of the Japanese word 晒し"; at least it could be moved to sarashi momen (晒し木綿), so that the topic could be described by the English noun phrase "Bleached cotton in the context of Japanese tradition". Imaginatorium (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the sources again after you complained about sarashi meaning only bleaching and not bleached cloth in the dictionary? The dictionary gave 2 definitions, you apparently stopped reading after the first one. If you don't want to check, perhaps you can just ask Eiríkr Útlendi, who said that sarashi meaning "bleached white cloth" conforms to all the Japanese materials he had seen. I have spent a ridiculous amount of time replying when those I replied to can just do a simple check themselves, and to a nominator who so far has not produced a valid reason for deletion (citing WP:N while apparently disputing what it says on sourcing and notability is absurd, he should really understand that notability is not independent of sourcing). As far as I can see, there are enough sources to extend the article beyond a simple definition, therefore WP:NOTDICT would not apply, and so justifiable in keeping. I think I should really bow out of this discussion before I get really rude over an article I don't care that much about. Hzh (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in 大辞林, which is a pretty good dictionary. 晒し can be used as short for 晒し木綿, which is "bleached cotton". But you did not answer my question: what is the topic of this article? If it is "Bleached cotton", then that would be a better title. Or is it "Semi-misunderstandings and confusion around the Japanese word sarashi in old books in English"? Is that really a notable topic? Imaginatorium (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.