Talk:Haniwa

French article

The French article on haniwa figures looks quite good. We might consider bringing in some details and pictures from it. Theshibboleth 21:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As does the Japanese article Theshibboleth 21:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Is it just me, or does anybody else think the large section on "Haniwa in popular culture" is ridiculous? None of the wikipedias in other languages have sections like that. Do people visiting this page really want to see a list of videogames with references to haniwa? Can we get rid of this section, or at the very least hive it off into a separate article? It's taking up almost three quarters of the article.--Auximines 20:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps they ought to. The inclusions in popular culture create a wide basis for the Haniwa being featured in many parts of modern culture. The second Haniwa image, in fact, has been used multiple times- La Pucelle, Link's Awakening and SaGa2 all have Haniwas that look almost identical to that. 76.28.138.83 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Auximines. A short, concise section is fine, but I don't like these long lists which are far too prevalent on too many pages. The vast majority of these are just not relevant. When an entire movie is devoted to retelling the life of a historical figure, that's relevant "in popular culture" information. When there's just a tiny mention of it in a single episode of an anime or on a single card of a trading card game, it's just pointless. The worst part, I feel, is that it could overwhelm the primary content of the article. I hate the idea that we should give the impression that the primary content is its appearances in popular culture, that people would be looking for it because of that, and then learning about the real history secondarily. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of popular culture and its reallife origins. It is an encyclopedia of real academic/scholastic information, e.g. history, and the pop culture references should be extra. LordAmeth 23:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. 'In pop culture' lists in Japan-related articles are a slippery slope and unchecked tend to expand into long long lists of insignificant appearances in anime, manga and videogames. Besides, the second image doesn't really belong here, methinks. It's fanart, and not particularly good one at that. If we're gonna have an iconic-hollow-eyes-and-mouth-haniwa picture, I'd suggest something along these lines: [1] or [2].

Also, to the IP user: I'm not entirely sure what you meant by: "The inclusions in popular culture create a wide basis for the Haniwa being featured in many parts of modern culture." Could you explain? TomorrowTime 06:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the minimalist approach. Japanese cultural items or historic figures are no different from any other topic on Wikipedia. The article on Pepsi doesn't list every movie character that takes a swig; the article on Michael Jordan does not list every time he's been mentioned in a comic, basketball card, or video game; and on and on.Neier 06:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent comparisons. Don't know why I never thought of that. LordAmeth 11:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, these are extremely poor comparisons- Micheal Jordan is simply a basketball player, and thus his relevance (unless he chooses to extend it in a significant way) to culture is by and large limited to that. A Haniwa, on the other hand, is a widespread mythological figure, widely known in the extent of Japan's culture and used in many aspects of Japan's societal life. Furthermore, I think the image is great. "Not particularily good fanart" my left shoe- if you think YOU can create something of its caliber that represents the classical, iconic pot-and-arm design, you go right ahead. But insulting someone else's work is a cheap way to gain traction in a debate. I've moved the image BACK up to where it belongs. 67.94.201.2 07:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. How long do you think the following addition to a Michael Jordan 'In Pop Culture' section would hold?

In the Cartoon Network cartoon, Dexter's Laboratory, episode Omellete de Frommage, there is a reference to Michael Jordan, when Dexter imagines himself to be a basketball player.

This is exactly the petty level of referencing that occurs in plenty of Japan-related articles, and some of the references in this article were just about this level, as well.

Apart from that, let me correct you on one thing: haniwa are not mythological creatures, they are funeral pot figures. And yes, they might appear in plenty of modern media, but this article really should be much more about their original meaning - as another user pointed out above, the French and Japanese articles have extensive explanations on the actual funeral pot figurines.

As for the fanart - I might have been a bit harsh, but the fact remains that it is fanart, and such things really don't have much to do here. Anyway, the way you rephrased the description of it is fine with me. As far as I am concerned, it can stay with this description, unless we get a photograph of a real one. TomorrowTime 07:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I will also have to side with Auximines. While I personally like some anime, and feel that articles on anime have an important place/role sometimes I get the impression that anime fans are attempting to insert references to anime into EVERY Japan-related article possible, and that the sheer number of anime-related articles in wikipedia, is disproportionate to the actual importance of anime in Japanese culture/society. Japanese popular culture is much, much more than anime and video games. A single line reference to the fact that "images based on haniwa remain popular in modern Japanese culture, appearing in anime, science fiction and children's literature" should be more than sufficient, without a separate section. (Furthermore, the main article itself could be considerably expanded.) --MChew 03:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that the Japanese article includes a "see also" link to Jeeg. Whether this justifies adding a similar link to this version of the article I'll leave up to others. Kouban 00:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There. I've created a small paragraph that details the Haniwa's stature in modern culture without using lists or excessive anime references either. It's a very small paragraph, and I believe that this description of it fits along with the included image. It's a small paragraph, but it succinctly describes the "typical" image of a Haniwa in both local Japanese and internationally released media, which is relevant. Now people can start to focus on the rest of the article. 67.94.201.2 11:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the poor writing, there are several problems with your paragraph:

1. Your argument for the "pot"-like appearance being accepted outside of Japan is based entirely on franchises that originated and continue to be produced in Japan
2. In what way are haniwas depicted as "malevolent"? This smacks of original research and at the very least needs to be sourced. And it certainly doesn't jive at all with any depictions I can think of (Animal Crossing, for one).
3. After fixing these problems, all your paragraph tells us is what haniwas look like in pop culture. I think pictures can do a better job of that.

-Amake 15:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your change, as it's obvious that you didn't even read the paragraph at all. If you had actually looked at the references provided, you would have seen where in no less than three of the provided examples (La Pucelle, the Zelda series and FF Legend), Haniwas are indeed depicted as malevolent. Unless, of course, you think that attempting to massacre indiscriminate explorers is somehow an innocent activity. In all these depictions, Haniwas share several singular traits- they are enemies, they are capable of exceeding harm to whomever they encounter, and they all share the gourd-like shape. Next time try and actually read the paragraph before you wreck someone else's work. Furthermore, despite the malevolent depictions, none of the situations in which Haniwas have been placed in gives any insight into their historical contexts, oftentimes just presenting the Haniwa as a feared enemy character. 76.28.138.83 21:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Your prose is still awful, and needs to be fixed.
2. You don't mention La Pucelle at all, and you don't offer any info on how the two you do state support your argument.
3. La Pucelle was also developed in Japan, and so your "outside of Japan" claim is still entirely unsupported.
4. "Pop culture" is more than just video games. Do you have anything at all to say about haniwas outside of video games? If not, you should at least restrict your statement to "depictions of haniwas in video games
   • I'll admit I haven't played recent FFs, but I've played most of the Zelda games; I don't remember any haniwas at all. Could you refresh my memory?
5. You still don't offer any actual references (see WP:REF)
6. The examples you offer may show haniwas as malevolent, but clearly that depiction is not universal. Do you actually have comprehensive data on a significant number of depictions in pop culture? It sure doesn't seem like you do.
7. Please give us some assurance that this is not original research.

I'm reinstating my changes. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines before reverting again. -Amake 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

1- I don't care what you think of my "prose". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just elitists who think they know more than everyone else. 2- I didn't mention La Pucelle because it's a relatively obscure title, and didn't want to bog down the paragraph into an expansive list. 3- I know more about games in Pop Culture than Anime, and anyone who has more knowledge is free to add a reference or two. However, the sources provided are enough of a reference. 4- Haniwas are present in Link's Awakening in the Dream Shrine and in the Chamber of the Magnifying Glass, and take away no less than five hearts with each hit. I've reverted your changes- I provided sources, I provided backing, and you, on the other hand, have done nothing but attack my writing and attack me, plus nothing you did here is supported by Wikipedia's Guidelines, so I would advise that you yourself "familiarize" your own... self with those guidelines before you do any reverting. Hey, you know what would be great? Why don't you, oh, I don't know, IMPROVE the article or the paragraph, instead of just thwacking it with a metaphorical hammer in an effort to make yourself feel good? You know, if you think the prose could be worked on, then work on it. If you think you can provide a better pop culture source, then provide it. Wikipedia seems to be full of lots of people who will snootily delete a lot of people's hard work, insult its composition and generally make the site a really terrible place for people to contribute. Being mean to people might chase them off long enough for you to "get your way", but it doesn't do anything to actually help the encyclopedia at all, and in fact I would wager that if you've been as mean to others as you have to me, that maybe you've chased off some really good contributers. Nobody here gets paid to do anything, and nobody except maybe vandals comes here just so that people can yell at them, berate them or talk down to them when all they really want to do is put a little bit of the knowledge they have down here without someone popping in and being mean. As an added note- the thing about the malevolence isn't in regards to the Anime, it is in the depictions used for Haniwas in games- while Anime doesn't depict them as malevolent, there have not been any instances in game media where the Haniwa is depicted in a positive, nonmalevolent light; they are always portrayed as an enemy (usually a very powerful one) in games, which is also why the paragraph specifically mentions that said depictions within games portrays them in that fashion. 67.94.201.2 10:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I did improve your paragraph, and then you went back and reverted my changes. I don't appreciate your personal attacks on me. I have done nothing but critique your writing (which seems to be about middle school level, assuming you're a native English speaker; it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia without significant proofreading) and your arguments, which are still lacking in support (and obviously wrong re: depictions outside Japan). If you can't handle people critiquing your writing, don't post to Wikipedia.

On top of all of this, you're insisting on adding pointless trivia to an article that could otherwise be a quite enlightening bit of info on traditional Japanese art. Perhaps you should try studying haniwas beyond their appearances in anime and video games. -Amake 02:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the subject, but the paragraph is badly-written and the editor rejects criticism as being vandalism. The main thing is, are their appearances in video games really relevant to the subject? You need to prove that the game appearances really affect public perception of haniwas. The paragraph (along with the rest of the article) needs referencing, too. Also, 'I don't care what you think of my' whatever is ridiculous. It's an encyclopedia for everyone; that includes people who disagree. Everything is fair game for deletion if it's not up to quality standards. 99.244.97.75 (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Both of your claims are baseless and false. The only person who thinks the paragraph is "badly written" has been Amake (whom I strongly am suspecting you are, only using an IP), and the very fact that a number of both print and digital sources directly use a very specific, iconic depiction of the Haniwa (more than just "game appearances", certainly) again completely obliterates your assertion, Amake. You say this is an "encyclopedia for everyone"- if you truly believed that, then you would focus on improving it. If you think there is grammar that should be improved, spelling mistakes or whatnot, then go ahead and do it. But all (and I mean ALL) that you have done, Amake, is simply attacked the section and DELETED IT. "Everything" is not "fair game" for deletion simply because you believe it is. As it is, so far the only reasoning you've given for your vandalism centers around attacking the wording of the paragraph (which you simply could have improved), and the noteability of the subject (which you have yet to disprove). I would say that the fact that multiple international sources have all used the VERY SAME depiction of the Haniwa in their media is a significant thing. This isn't an instance of a single usage of the depiction- these are multiple, deliberate references, in popular media ranging from the iconic Legend of Zelda all the way through to television and print media as well. And these references all describe the very same iconic image. If you think that it's "not noteable" that large numbers of outside media recognize the Haniwa's iconic gourd-style shape, that's entirely up to you. But as far as I'm concerned, it IS noteable, and the fact that you've simply decided to pooh-pooh the writing of the piece and then delete it goes beyond the pale. 75.165.117.199 (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP user is not me. I have no qualms about continuing to remove your horribly-written, non-encyclopedic paragraph as many times as necessary without resorting to faking support from IP users. -Amake (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As the person who translated most of this from Japanese, I would have to agree with Amake. The pop reference section is tangential at best, absurdly irrelevant at worst. Additionally, the section is jarringly out of place when compared with the previous sections on historical context. Konamaiki (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you "translated" is, in all honesty, irrelevant. You don't own an article, you are, like all of us, nothing more than a contributor. And, quite frankly, There is nothing "tangenital" about mentioning the fact that Haniwas have found a place outside of pure Japanese culture and into internationally recognized media. As well, the fact that a very specific, stylized depiction exists across numerous media is also relevant as well. YOU might not think it relevant, but that in itself is irrelevant. The paragraph is relevant, sourced, and whether or not you like the wording of it, will stay. 75.165.117.199 (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I can readily provide some reasons why haniwa are important as artifacts -- they give us some clues into Kofun Period customs, clothing, traditions, and religion.

However, I have no idea why haniwa are important as depicted in the Legend of Zelda. Why are they significant? Does the depiction of Haniwa in Zelda give us a clue into Japanese religion or mindset? Are they some kind of metaphor for something else? You mention that Haniwa are depicted as primarily malevolent in video games, but what does this mean in the greater scheme of things? Maybe if you could add some of this information, like "the malevolent Haniwa, as portrayed in modern video game culture, are symbolic of the modern Japanese fear of _______" or something like that, I think people would be less likely to revert your edits. Instead of TELLING me that Haniwa are relevant, why don't you SHOW me.

Anyways, as it stands, you have not provided any reason as to why this section is significant, and I will revert any changes in the future until you can provide some significance. Konamaiki (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

References

I started adding information for this page gleamed from the Japanese article on Haniwa 埴輪, but I'm not sure what to do about references...? Konamaiki 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Added more references from the modern period

I've added a few more of the modern references, including referenced discussion about how the Haniwa influenced the sculptor Isamu Noguchi. Along with that, did a little clarification as to the Haniwa's depiction since the late 1990s (earliest point I can reference as to the appearance of the malevolent depiction of the Haniwa) and how those depictions have treated the Haniwa similarily to the Banshee of the Irish Culture; ie: they have abandoned the cultural and religious roots of the subject in favor of portraying the Haniwa as a simple evil spectre-like creature for the sake of storytelling. 75.165.117.199 (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's much better, but it still makes unsubstantiated and dubious claims such as the "malevolent" depictions. Also the fan art is still inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. -Amake (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing "dubious" about it- in the vast majority of media depictions, including almost all the anime references, all the game references, and all the manga references, the Haniwa is focused on as a ghostlike, spirit-type figure. Furthermore, it's not "fan art" whatsoever, but an example of what the depiction of the Haniwa is. You can see for yourself, if you like- it's a classic "gourd style" haniwa, featured in a great many of the aforementioned media items. It's not simply coincidence that SaGa2, StarTropics, Headdy, the Legend of Zelda and many others all feature this exact identical Haniwa. As well, simply describing it as a "potlike object with deep eyes and two hands" could describe anything, from a painted teapot to a trashcan. I spent a great deal of time on this, so please focus on improving it, not removing it. 75.165.117.199 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Check the image page. It was created from scratch by a wikipedia user for wikipedia. It is not actually from any of the media you mention. That makes it fanart, and inappropriate for use here. I agree that a picture would be useful; go find one actually from any of the media you mention.

And regarding the malevolent claim, even if you were right, it still needs a source. But you're not right, you're just cherry-picking convenient examples that support your hypothesis. That's called original research (if you can even call it research), so either go find an actual source supporting your claim, or take it out.

-Amake (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

n That doesn't make any sense- "It was created from scratch by a wikipedia user for wikipedia"? Of course it was. Wikipedia's policies clearly state that if a free version of an image can be created, it is to be used in place of a nonfree. It was created to represent exactly what the representation of the popular version of it is. You can see the exact same creation here [3] and here [4] and here [5] all of which share the exact same characteristics. 75.165.117.199 (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not a "free version" of any of the images you linked to. It is derivative and an interpretation, and is fan art entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Using one of those screenshots you linked to under fair use would be much more accurate and free of any distortions introduced by the author. -Amake (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's not what Wikipedia's policies state. It is not "fan art", and is derivative of nothing, despite the anon IP placing the "inspiration drawn from" tag. Wiki clearly states that a free version MUST be used in place of a nonfree version. Please self-revert (3RR) and read up on Wikipedia's policies. 75.165.117.199 (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What are haniwa?

Replica haniwa

The MET says that haniwa are offering cylinders, not the clay sculptures used atop them: "Burial mounds were circled with stones. Packed in rows at the base, scattered on the crest of the knoll, or placed on the sloping sides of the mound were haniwa (clay cylinders). These hollow clay tubes served as stands for offering vessels when the tombs were the focus of community ritual. Although most haniwa are unadorned, some are topped with sculptures". HLHJ (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added a sentence that haniwa can refer to clay cylinders and not only to figures, but images at the met article also shows clay figures captioned as haniwa, so no great mystery there, haniwa can probably mean both cylinders and figures. Artem.G (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

References