Talk:Tsukumogami

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Here's the problem I have with most non-Japanese Japanese scholars who can't read Japanese and don't bother actually using published books, academic articles or even, Lilith save us all, Google Book Search: your information is crap! It's not even information, it's half a paragraph you plagiarized from some blog and then made blind guesses on the rest based on, what? something mentioned in InuYasha? and not only do you neglect to cite your references (there were none except an article that actually contradicted what was written here, larf larf), but based on some of the comments in the talk section, apparently the editors who feel passionate about this article seem to revel in the fact that ignorance is bliss, because they got everything wrong. You can prove me that I'm overeating by citing, wherever I put a tag, where you got these "theories" about Tsukumogami. All I'll say about any editor who writes "this is a encyclopedia so we have to present all sides," you might want to look up the word "encyclopedia" because as Inigo Montoya put it: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Duende-Poetry (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nuking the Pop Cult Section From Orbit (it's the only way to be sure)

I understand that those of us with no first-hand exposure to Japan outside anime and mangas will think that listing monsters that vaguely resemble Tsukumogami is somehow important. It isn't. First, nothing in Pop Cult is referenced, which means it shouldn't be there to begin with. Secondly, it embarrassing to the rest of us since it gives undue weight to things that are the definition of trivia. Once you break open an actual book (hint, hint) and do some research that would stand up to academic inquiry (and if you're not old enough to know what academic research requires ... how cute!), in other words take Japanese mythology seriously, then whatever you come up with should and will go into this article. Anything else needs to be drop kicked and deleted.Duende-Poetry (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Moe-chan

Why include this "Moe-chan"? Why do Wikipedia editors seem so obsessed with including anime examples? Most anime are distortions of traditional yokai and are not reliable or accurate sources of information or knowledge by any means. Since it's an established fact that yokai are repelled by electricity, how can an electrical robot device be a yokai? Plus...it's a robot! Robot does not equal tsukumogami.

Shikino 21:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, and we are required to list examples of same. Regardless of whether or not it adheres to traditional Japanese mythology, she is referred to as such in the anime as a tsukumogami, and thus is listed as a fictional representation of such. It neither qualifies nor endorses her as an "authentic" tsukumogami, but rather simply passes on information.--み使い Mitsukai 13:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but how is this an example of a tsukumogami if it is directly in opposition to the definition of tsukumogami? Just because something is in an anime or manga, or written by a Japanese person, doesn't make it genuine folklore. Moe-chan is not an examle of a tsukumogami. Wikipedia is embarrassing itself, and not just in this one article, by making itself look like it was written by people who get their information on Japanese folklore by watching anime and not doing any real research. Shikino 15:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

First, placing a link that someone needs to register for does not make it easy to prove your point. Second, this does not prove much. Yes, Mizuki Shigeru is a well-known expert on it. But you have to bear in mind: he's talking in allegory, not a literal statement. It simply means that, like with every other place in the world, most of the old traditions have disappeared as Japan takes on a modern face. Additionally, this is folklore, a literary fabric that comes from the people, not from one man himself (otherwise, it'd be intellectual property). No one person can be the expert on the subject (though I will admit, he's as close as they come). Lastly, deploring anime/manga examples...and then using a manga-ka as proof on why manga/anime is wrong is a bit awkward, to say the least.--み使い Mitsukai 17:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. He is speaking literally, not alligorically. If you'd read the entire article you'd know that he makes it clear that he is speaking literally. He is not talking about yokai disappearing from the imaginations of people, but about the actual yokai themselves being driven away by electricity. He makes this very clear, because the interviewer asks him to clarify. Read the article again, the whole article. And I can't help it if the site requires registration. The proof is there, you just have to make a little more effort. It doesn't make the source any less credible. And indeed this is folklore, not anime study. Yes Mizuki is a manga-ka, but is also a yokai expert and his statement was in this capacity. The statements in question were obviously not about his own creations. No one can be THE expert, you are right, but there are experts. To deny this would be ridiculous. Shikino 18:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is common on most folklore entries to have a section on the characters appearing in popular media - I think the soluution is a simple one and I'll drop a header in. (Emperor 14:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC))

How can we be so sure that Moe-chan was electrical? Been made in the 19th century, I would have thought she was just a wind-up doll. When in a sequence Su-chan is repairing her, what we see in her insides are rope and dented wheels, nothing suggested electricity to me (no cables, for example). However I only understand the English translation, not the original japanese, something may have been lost in translation. Besides, I find it difficult to accept that Moe-chan could be just a robot. She has abilities far beyond what can be built nowadays, like really making sense in a conversation, let alone what could be built in the 19th century. It seems likely that her behaviour is due to some kind of magic. Zeycus 21:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello I am going to revive this discussion over a year after the fact. Disregarding all this electricity business, I looked at the character's description and um, she sounds much more like an ordinary anime robot than a tsukumogami to me. So...identified as a tsukumogami by who? The artist who draws the comic, or the fans? If it's the former I can understand her being in the article. If it's the latter, no. Since it sounds like it's the latter, I'm removing her. If it's the former, you can revert. Kotengu 小天狗 10:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Moe Chan does not appear in the manga, only in the anime. The word tsukumogami is explicitly used in it. I do not understand japanese, so I quote here the english subtitles:

Motoko: A hundred years... A Tsukumogami?

Su: Tsukune chiken patty?

Sara: That sounds good!

Motoko: That's Tsukumogami! If cared for 99 years, possessions such as tools or dolls can come back to life in their 100th year. A supernatural... monster... of a sort.

Therefore I feel it should be reverted. But before I would like to know if you agree.--zeycus 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Since in fact it is not the fans, but the anime creators who used the term tsukumogami, I take you agree with the reversion.--zeycus 22:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging

I have to say, don't merge the other shorter articles with this one. This is on tsukumogami as a category of yokai or obakemono; the other two are on specific types. No one is suggesting merging oak and cedar into the tree article, are they? Shikino 19:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep I'm unsure about some of the others that are red linked at the moment but Karakasa certainly deserves its own entry and I can't see any really reason to merge it - Tsukumogami is just a rather broad class of creatures and the individual types have different attributes. Any arguements for merging are probably more likely to arguements to expand the current entries instead. (Emperor 14:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC))

Keep Karakasa should definitely have its own entry. (although the name should be changed...) MightyAtom 03:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

no reason to merge them - unless you were to merge "penguin" and "wren" to bird.--K.C. Tang 10:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

on the other hand we understnad that there may be not much to write for each tsukumogami... perhaps each entry would comprise of only one or two sentences... the questions are: are those entries expand-able? if not really, are "super-short" entries acceptable on Wikipedia?--K.C. Tang 01:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No merge - I think super-short articles are acceptable if they are branches off of a categorical article like this one. Since there is a Wikiproject that fully encompasses these articles, I think separate articles will be the "clean" way to go. -- Emana 07:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Connection to other legends

I'm not quite satisfied with this article because it doesn't seem fully linked to some other Japanese legends -- but I lack the knowledge to do it properly. The RPG book GURPS Japan seems to identify finely-made objects that have "souls" as tsukumogami, but the definition here only encompasses objects that are just plain old. The GURPS definition seems mixed up with the legends of willful swords made by the smiths Masamune and Muramasa -- see Masamune#Legends_of_Masamune_and_Muramasa and Muramasa -- and with those of enchanted calligraphy done by the monk Kobo-Dashai aka. Kukai. (That reference doesn't seem to be in the WP article, but is discussed at length in Lafcadio Hearn's Glimpses of Unfamiliar Japan.) Is there a good way to mention the similarity of the concepts without OR? -Kris Schnee (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you know the exact paragraphs where Hearn discusses the difference between tsukumogami and soul-imbued swords, enchanted calligraphy/scroll paintings, etc., go ahead and add his information. I own Glimpses myself, but I'm involved with other projects right now so I don't have to time to look it up. All I know is that the line on calling things "tsukumogami" between objects always having life and objects attaining life upon their hundredth "birthday" is somewhat obscure. Yes, hundred-year-old objects that have attained life are tsukumogami, but enchanted objects? That I have no idea. 67.167.29.149 (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Chris G.

Translation of the name

The listed translation is not good. A direct translation would be "mourning attachment diety" - though kanji-by-kanji translation like this is generally a bad idea. Many sources use terms like "artifact spirits" (found in a few dictionaries) or "transfigured objects" - online example of the latter's use here: http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/afs/pdf/a1042.pdf I'm going to change the existing translation to 'artifact spirit' for now, as it's the best term of the bunch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.190.199 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon Reference

Munna was proven to be based upon incense burners called koro that are often shaped like pigs with the smoke coming out the nose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.243.137.64 (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Chimecho, Shuppet, and Banette would be equally good, if not better, examples of tsukumogami-based Pokemon, but they're trivial. 173.180.89.129 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Tsukumogami is kami. Translation of "specters" is wrong.

(付喪)tukumo"(神)gami". gami is kami. 211.122.250.144 (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Big flaw in this article: it's not Buddhism

One very easy reasoning for this is: there are no gods(神 kami) in Buddhism. It comes from the old Shinto religion. Not even bothering to discuss the rest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SharkMeetShark (talk • contribs)

Deletion of Tsukumogami from this page

There have been some edits on this page recently attempting to remove the list of tsukumogami or to remove specific entries from the list of tsukumogami. The ones that are listed on the page absolutely do belong here in my opinion. Many of them appear in tsukumogami emaki scrolls dating back to the Muromachi period and through the Edo period, and are pretty much universally accepted examples of tsukumogami. I will undo any removal of them unless there is a good reason to remove them. If there is a specific example that someone thinks does not belong on this page, please post here so we can talk about it, rather than just deleting it. Osarusan (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the entry Kasa-obake. On page 67 of the the book titled 日本と世界の「幽霊・妖怪」がよくわかる本 by Katsumi Tada, there is the statement, それらのことを考えると、傘お化けもまた、付喪神の一つかもしれない。もちろん、そのことを証明する文献は、なにひとつ残されていないが… (emphasis added). As Katsumi Tada is a reliable source on this subject, I would say this is a good reason not to consider the Kasa-obake a tsukumogami for sure.--Tosiaki! (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

傘お化けもまた、付喪神の一つかもしれない <- "The kasa obake is probably a tsukumogami." Seems like Katsumi Tada agrees with me. The Japanese page for kasa obake also refers to it as a tsukumogami. Other yokai experts, like Murakami Kenji, also refer to it as a tsukumogami. It's pretty much universally recognized as a tsukumogami, and is among the most recognizable examples cited. I don't see where you are getting the idea that it isn't one. Osarusan (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you forget the かもしれない part? That means that it is not for certain, especially since there is no proof in any old texts. Well, we can include it, but I think it'd be best to include a note that says that there are no classical texts that confirm this to be true.--Tosiaki! (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

These are fictitious beings. None of them are real and there is no true taxonomy that we can use to accurately categorize them. However, the karakasa is pretty much universally recognized as a tsukumogami by all yokai scholars and authorities. The Japanese pages on Wikipedia also very definitively refer to it as a tsukumogami. I think it absolutely 100% belongs on this page unless there is a very clear and authoritative source that definitively demonstrates it does not belong. Osarusan (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not saying anything other than "all yokai scholars and authorities say (...)" while not providing any sources. The Japanese wikipedia page on Karakasa says the same thing as the English one does now because the English version was translated from it. It says too, basing it on Katsumi Tada's book, that there is no confirmation that it was ever referred to as a karakasa in any classical texts. What I am suggesting now is not to completely deny that the kasa-obake is thought of as a tsukumogami sometimes, but to also include the caution that sometimes it is not.--Tosiaki! (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Japanese page on karakasa says that it is a tsukumogami. Further, yokai scholars, including the person you are citing, very clearly refer to it as a tsukumogami. I think you are looking for proof about these creatures that simply doesn't exist. No classical books about karakasa exist because tsukumogami and other yokai like it were not around in the classical period. Tsukumogami didn't appear in books for a very long time; they originally appeared in picture scrolls which were popular during the Kamakura and Muromachi periods. Books about yokai didn't begin to spring into popularity until the Edo period, and karakasa didn't become a major player until the 20th century. If your litmus test for a yokai is that it needs to have a classical book specifically referring to it as a particular type of yokai, then you might as well go ahead and delete every single yokai page on Wikipedia. The history of Japanese literature and folklore just doesn't work like that. Karakasa is very clearly described as a tsukumogami by scholars and on its Japanese wiki page; the definition of a tsukumogami (an everyday artifact with a spirit residing in it) very clearly describes the karakasa; and the passage you are citing about karakasa also confirms that it is. There is no question here at all. Further, the nature of all yokai, including karakasa, is ambiguous. Many yokai sources disagree with each other, contradict each other, and are otherwise obscured or confused. There has never been a central authority or universal agreement on yokai; they are *folk*lore, and ambiguity is the nature of the entire subject. Casting doubt on an artificial categorization of a mythical creature is absurd and does not add anything of value to the page. Osarusan (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm citing a source that clearly says what I mentioned earlier. You haven't mentioned any sources to back up your position. Also, on the Japanese Wikipedia page for Karakasa, it also says それを証明する古典などの文献は確認されていない. That is because the kara-obake is likely one that was made up in paintings rather than one that came from folk legends. So there is no way to say it is connected to any folk legends or beliefs such as tsukumogami―especially since it is likely not related to any legends.--Tosiaki! (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to do some reading up on yokai and their history, then, because the majority of yokai are made up in paintings rather than coming from folk legends. That is a pretty common feature. Particularly with tsukumogami, nearly all of them come from painted scrolls as opposed to legends. In fact, nearly all tsukumogami originated as paintings, and stories about their origins were made up centuries later by people trying to sell yokai encyclopedias. What's more, there is nothing in the definition of tsukumogami that requires them to be from folk legends. A painted character is just as legitimate as one from a written story. If you're going to delete them for that, you're going to have to go through and delete most of the yokai from Wikipedia, because it applies to the majority of them. Osarusan (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't yet know about many of the ones other than the kasa-obake, but yes, tsukumogami is talked about in this page as something that people believed in, and in emaki from the Kamakura and Muromachi periods such as the Tsukumogami Emaki and Nezumi no Soushi (鼠草紙), they talked things that had their origin identified as tsukumogami. For ones that originated from the Edo period, however, their origins are not talked about much probably because they were made up――and ones like the kasa-obake were not specified as tsukumogami in those Edo period emaki. Thus, I think a slight distinction can be made between ones that were indeed identified as tsukumogami when they were written about and ones that we identify as tsukumogami only in retrospect from the modern era.--Tosiaki! (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

Voice of this article is extremely confusing. Many sentences are unnecessarily long and separated into too many clauses. This should be avoided when using long foreign words for readability purposes. There are many grammatical errors and poor style throughout. The article reads as if it has been poorly translated or written by a non-native English speaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:6390:8700:B482:D131:8DE1:5E80 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The above is correct. I worked on this some, but only in the intro and first section, and I was not comprehensive in my review nor did I check sources. See also the section below where I discuss italics and foreign terms, and whether the term "kanji" has become English or not. Geekdiva (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Is "kanji" English? If so, no italics!

My edit summary from the second of my two April 2019 edits:

I left the term "kanji" without italics, but moved my hidden comment from my previous edit of this page to the talk page with an explanation, since the scope of needed discussion is larger: Note that "kanji" is now an English term (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kanji#English) and therefore does not become italicized as a foreign term ... I came back to add the en.Wiktionary URL because the enWP Kanji article's body text italicizes the term "kanji" but its templates do not.

So, the topics I think need to be discussed are:

1. Should the term "kanji" be treated as an English term on en.WP as it is on en.Wiktionary? Do other dictionaries treat it as English AND therefore not italicized?
2. If so, should any other Japanese-derived terms related to the Japanese writing system (such as "wikt:kana") also be treated as English? (IMO off the top of my head, only kana, katakana and hiragana, and only to be even considered if supported by en.Wikt.)
3. If so, what about analogous terms for the rest of the CJKV languages, such as the Korean-derived wikt:hanja#English?
4. Once the above is securely decided (so as to prevent efforts that get reverted later), the 3 or so sidebars in the Kanji article must have parallel construction with the rest of the terms in that article, whether all terms in italics or a few not, unless there is a tech issue that makes it unfeasible.
5. Italics is also an issue in the navbox on this page, Template:Japanese folklore long, as compared to the list of tsukumogami in a previous section. In other words, the usage doesn't match.

I hope to come back here and flesh this out a bit, including links and a centralized discussion, but my real-life limitations might get in the way so I'm data-dumping all I can. —Geekdiva (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that it is better to write kanji, kana (and so on) in italics. There is no simplistic answer to the question "Is 'kanji' English?" -- it is all an issue of degree. But contrast with a fairly obvious example of a word which really has become English: "emoji"; the point is that this has (in a very short time) acquired a life of its own in English. In contrast, kanji is only ever used (except plainly erroneously) to refer to exactly what 漢字 refers to in Japanese (or CJK). Thus it is a technical term, and italicising helps the reader, because we show we really are referring to 漢字. Wiktionary is a great sister project, but it is not an authority; it claims to have a distinct entry for "kanji" in English as opposed to "kanji" in Japanese, and then an absurdly arbitrary collection of languages, from Spanish to Malay, in which it is claimed that identical words exist. (None of this really makes any sense: how can you determine that the "English" noun kanji is non-count in "written in kanji", rather than being the analog of "written in Roman letters", given that there is not really a plural form. etc.) I looked in my ancient copy of Sakade (pub. 1959), and of course it uses italics for all Japanese terms. A practical benefit of this approach is that when you inevitably hit a word that looks like an English word, it is clear that dame (go term) is not a "Dame". There is also the obvious question of the supposed distinction between the "English" words kanji, hanja, and hanzi. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)