Talk:Utoro, Uji

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet talk 14:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in the Utoro district of Kyoto, Japan, Koreans who had once been forced to labor there dodged eviction efforts for 65 years until they could afford to buy the land?Source: [1] Aug. 1945 -- Airfield construction suspended following Japan's defeat in World War II. Estimated 1,300 Korean laborers left abandoned, some of them continue living in Utoro... 2010 and 2011 -- Using donations from Korean residents, Japanese and South Korean citizens and the South Korean government, about a third of Utoro land is purchased from the real estate firm.
  • ALT1: ... that in Utoro, Uji in Japan, former forced Korean laborers dodged eviction from 1945 to 2010, when they were finally able to afford buying the land?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought

Created by Toobigtokale (talk). Self-nominated at 08:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Utoro district; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - See below.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Quality article based on solid sources. Earwig detects no problems. A couple small issues. The article ought to be renamed "Utoro, Kyoto" as is the case with other Japanese city sub-districts, such as Kanda, Tokyo. ALT0 is also just a bit of a mouthful and its syntax could use a little reshuffling. It would suffice to write and wikilink Kyoto rather than "Kyoto, Japan". Also, it be more helpful to give exact years for when the Korean forced laborers arrived and when they/their families were finally able to purchase their land. Again, minor quibbles. Really good work overall! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for the review! How's this? I moved page and reworded ALT0. One thing—should I use "Uji" or "Kyoto" in the title? I don't really know how Japanese administrative divisions work lolol 😅 toobigtokale (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Utoro, Uji is perfect! I thought it was a sub-district in Kyoto, but didn't realize that it's actually in a suburb. So thanks for clarifying that. One small request: could you please restore the original ALT0, then copy and paste your revision as a new ALT1? It's no big deal for me, but I just want to make sure other editors don't throw a wrench into this DYK nom on a possible technicality. Once you do that, I'll approve your ALT1. Thank you for your hard work! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Done! toobigtokale (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and great job! Approval for ALT1. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Utoro, Uji/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CurryTime7-24 (talk · contribs) 17:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• I will review this in the next couple of days. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See "Overall assessment" for my comments.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Minor MOS:LABEL and MOS:OP-ED issues (e.g. "dramatically", "infamously", "delighted", etc.).
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Almost all the cited sources are reliable, save for one from the Hankyoreh,[2] which appears to either be an op-ed or a reader's comment. (I'm relying on Google Translate here, so if I'm wrong, please tell me.) If it is the latter, then that is not a reliable source. If it is the former, its statements, not to mention implicit racism, are contentious enough that it makes one question the reliability of the source as a whole. Again, I'm relying on Google Translate here, but the most egregious of them appears to state that the lot of Korean residents in Utoro in 2005 was worse than that of Jewish people that had been segregated into ghettos during World War II. (Per Google Translate: "The reality here in the 21st century, which is more miserable than the Nazi Jewish ghettos established around the world during World War II, is a clear example of the true ugly side of the Japanese people.)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some WP:SYNTH. For example, one passage states that Utoro residents received access to potable water in 1988, "but knew nothing of how it had been obtained". The cited source, however, does not say this at all. Rather, it states that residents were disappointed to learn that the land had been sold from under them, but it neither says when this happened relative to the water access, nor does it imply that these events were related. Spot checks will be needed to ensure everything is stated exactly according to cited sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Occasionally veers off-topic. How are Korean deaths in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima relevant? What does the Mimizuka, which commemorates massacres in the Korean Peninsula during the 16th century, have to do with the subject of this article?
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Most of the article is well-written, but there appears to be an anti-Japanese bias which is concerning. For example, I had to read the sources closely to learn that the residents of Utoro were not only supported in their efforts by their Japanese neighbors, the Association to Protect Utoro was a collaborative Japanese-Korean effort. It was not solely founded by the Korean residents of Utoro, which the article misleads the reader into believing. Searching through Japanese sources turns up more information, including that the association's leader—apparently an ethnic Japanese woman who is a member of Femin, a feminist NGO—successfully persuaded then Chief Cabinet Secretary Nonaka Hiromu to intercede with the governor of Kyoto Prefecture and the mayor of Uji on their behalf.[3] Why was Japanese support for Utoro, which at least one of the English sources acknowledge, not mentioned in this article?
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Generally speaking, this is a quality article, but my aforementioned concerns need to be addressed before this GA review can move forward. Some other issues: "In the 1960s, the owner of the land, a company that is now Nissan": Nissan has been known by that name since the 1930s. Did the article mean to refer to a direct precursor to Nissan, or to a company which was later acquired by it? If the latter, what was the name of that company and did its acquisition by Nissan impact the Utoro issue at all? Initially, "owners" are referred to those who owned the Utoro property, but later only a single "owner" is referenced. Were there multiple owners or only one? If the former, who were they and were their properties consolidated into a single one by another entity that bought them out? If the latter, this needs to be corrected and usage needs to be consistent. While most of the prose is encyclopedic, a couple of parts need further polish (e.g. "What's more, employment policies were put in place...", "and/or"). The terms "Koreans in Japan" and "Zainichi Koreans" are used interchangeably. This is incorrect. A zainichi refers specifically to Japanese Koreans whose roots in the country date to the imperial period. However, there is a sizable minority of Japanese Koreans whose arrival or that of their families occurred after 1945, and therefore are not zainichi. Some of the source titles need to be revised per MOS:ALLCAPS. According to the Yomiuri Shimbun, the last of Utoro's original structures were scheduled to be demolished between June and late September of this year.[4] More to come once I hear back from the nominator! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review, really appreciated! I tend to move a bit quickly while editing so I end up making mistakes. You're right about the Hankoyreh source; that's egrigious. I hadn't noticed, I found it by quote searching terms about the schools in the district and zeroed in only on the paragraphs that I needed, definitely a mistake on my part. Will work to address the comments. toobigtokale (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks! Overall, it's a great article. Just some parts are silver waiting to become gold, so I'm confident this article will make it through to GA! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for essay, just wanted to clarify something: for this article I should have taken more time, as it's controversial, my fault. If I ever give off the impression of bias or not aligning with the international consensus, that hurts my credibility and I've made a mistake.

You rightfully point out that some of my mistakes may appear to have an anti-Japanese bias; you'll have to take my word that I don't have any, and that it's really the opposite and that I really like Japan and visit often. If anything, my writing might be biased anti-discrimination and anti-colonialism, and if I ever come off as cutting, it's not exclusive to Japan; I write critically and unflatteringly about how South Korea treats its minorities (example, example), and I'm clearly not anti-Korean.

I write a bit sloppy because I intentionally try to write quickly. This comes from my feeling that there's so much wrong or missing currently with Korean history articles on Wikipedia that even my hasty accuracy rate has been higher than the accuracy rate of many articles that organically developed over 15+ years. On a significant proportion of article I'm on, I'm often either the creator or the only native English speaker who cites things at all. I know writing quickly isn't the best practice, but I'm also a frequent return editor and try to be receptive towards feedback. I figure it's better to introduce a topic with 95% accuracy and let the mistakes be corrected over time, than it is for the topic to go virtually unknown and never discussed. Most sciences have had inaccurate predecessors that captured the interest of others that eventually corrected and improved on it. toobigtokale (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Notes on corrections:

• Addressed 2c, I was missing a ref. The page of the book says: By 1986, agitation for a better water supply was growing intense. Nissan proposed a plan to settle both the land ownership and the water issue. The land would be sold to a company which Hirayama would set up to resell land to the residents in individual lots. Water and road construction costs would be apportioned according to the area of each lot. With Hirayama’s agreement to this scheme, Nissan advised Uji City in 1987 that they consented to the water supply, which went ahead, much to the delight of the residents who remained ignorant of the real reason for it.
• For 3b, removed offenders. The atomic bombing and mimizuka bits were admittedly because I learned of them recently and found them really interesting and wanted to share. If they smell bias-y, then gone.
• For 4, I swear all of that was unknown to me until now; if it wasn't included it's because I didn't know and didn't read close enough. Gimme a bit, I can add it in. No intention to portray all of Japan as complicit in the discrimination; I don't feel that way at all. The vast majority of Japanese people are perfectly fine towards Korean people nowadays, and in the videos I linked in external link most of the visitors and workers at Utoro's museum were ethnic Japanese.

For 7:

• I'll look into the Nissan bit, sec.
• In owners of the land and the various governments, this refers to Nissan and Western Japan Development, as the statement about illiteracy causing difficulties applies over the course of decades. For The new owners of Western Japan Development, this is because the owner went from one person (I think; Hirayama?) to multiple (I think?). From the Hicks ref:At the end of the year, however, they received unconditional eviction notices by post from the new board of Western Japan Development. It says board; not sure what % of the shares the board owned. I guess they were all technically owners of the company as shareholders are?
• I fixed examples of prose issues but I'll give article a thorough scrub soon
• Oh I didn't know this about Zainichi; ok I'll make consistent.
• Will fix ref titles
• I think the distinction might be between "bunkhouses" and "houses"? I saw a number of other sources about the bunkhouse removal in 2021; they apparently held a kind of ceremony for it, so it was some kind of milestone. Lemme verify

toobigtokale (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Please bear with me. I have to go out of town and won't be back until Monday (PDT), but will answer some of your points in the next day or two. So far, though, the article is on its way! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with me and your detailed reply! I understand where you're coming from as my feelings about this and related subjects are similar to yours. My remarks were too strong, but I'm glad we're generally on the same page. :) Will respond to some of your edits in a few. So far, so good! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry it's taking me a bit too to edit; I have a bit of a short attention span. Tomorrow I'll get around to fixing everything toobigtokale (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, made another pass. I worked on addressing the existing comments. I gave my best effort to fix the encyclopedic language. I also adjusted some wordings to align closer with sources. toobigtokale (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24 Just in case you didn't see, I made updates to the article toobigtokale (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply! I'll be back tomorrow so we can finally wrap this up. Thanks for waiting! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Spot checks

Great work improving the article! All my comments noted within the original review have been struck through since the issues raised therein have been remedied. Just some spot checks are needed now. May I please have the quoted source texts for the following (present non-English texts in the original instead of in translation)?

• FN 5 cites "The recruited Koreans were mainly tenant farmers from Gyeongsang Province".
• FN 9 cites "Illiteracy also contributed to the prevalence of trust-based verbal contracts among residents during exchanges of goods and services".
• FN 18 cites "The group alleged that Nissan Shatai had struck a secret deal with Hirayama, and demanded that Nissan Shatai purchase the land back from Western Japan Development. Nissan Shatai declined to".
• FN 19 cites "It's shameful that the only way to get Japan to correct a wrong is to bring it to the outside world. As a Japanese citizen I am embarrassed".
• FN 27 cites "In 2018, the villagers created another committee to campaign for the creation of a museum about the village's history".

A couple of unrelated remarks: you should archive all the web links because they will become broken eventually. Also, the first paragraph in "Anti-Korean sentiment" appears to cut-off in mid-sentence. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Quotes as per requests, my own translations for convenience, although encourage you to verify using dictionaries.

• FN 5 (I use the Korean version, first button of three after intro): 경상도 출신을 중심으로, 원래는 농민 (소작농 다수)이었다. -> Mainly from Gyeongsang Province and originally farmers (majority tenant farmers).
• FN 9: 우토로에서는 계약서이나 등기부등본과 같은 부동산 거래의 일반적인 원칙보다 서로에 대한 믿음을 우선시해 판잣집이나 새로 지은 주택을 구두 약정으로 사고파는 일도 흔했다고 한다. 우토로 조선인이 제대로 학교를 다니기 어려웠고 글을 모르는 이들도 있었던 것도 한 원인으로 보인다. -> It's said that in Utoro, it was common to trade property using verbal agreements based on trust, instead of contracts or formal documents. One reason for this was because it was difficult for Utoro's Koreans to attend school, which led to illiteracy.
• FN 18: “The residents demanded that, since Nissan had intended to sell them the land, the company should buy it back and deal directly with them. A larger demonstration was later held at the Nissan Corporation’s head office in Tokyo. The corporation maintained, however, that it had no further responsibility for the land.
• FN 19: Oops, I put the wrong FN for this. Fixed it. "It’s shameful that the only way to get Japan to correct a wrong is to bring it to the outside world,” said the Rev. Kana Shimasaki, associate pastor at a Japanese church in Honolulu, who is active in the petition campaign. “As a Japanese citizen I am embarrassed."
• FN 27: Last month, we organized "Citizens For Utoro Historical Center," with the aim of establishing a space to remember their painful history.", article is from 2018.

Fixed cut-off sentence and I'll run the archiver. toobigtokale (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name derivation?

I can't access the Hicks title given as the reference for the "hollow" meaning. Presumably this would be a shift from "standard" Japanese term wikt:うつろ#Japanese (utsuro). Does Hicks mention utsuro at all?

There are dialectal variations in other places that show a similar shift, such as utsurogi becoming utorogi and shifting even further to utōgi. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

He does not. What he says is this:

It is called Utoro, a name so unusual that it is sometimes assumed to be Korean, especially as, uniquely among [Japanese] place names, [sic] no Chinese characters are used for it, but it is apparently local dialect meaning 'a hollow'.

CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)