Images

edit

Images are important to this article to show the daily uses of the furoshiki cloth - from giftwrapping to lunch bag.

I have reinstated the images that were recently deleted.

If you want to delete them let's discuss first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunchan (talkcontribs) 10:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sizes

edit

On Youtube: Kakefuda, Kyoto, video (~8min) they promote items of 105cm length of the edge. The item created by Friedensreich Hundertwasser in the ~1990ies [?] is 90×90cm (see commons / deWP). Therefore, "68–72 cm (26.7-28.3 inch)", as in article, as of now, seems "somewhat off".

Were there any quotable printed sources on that statement? [w.] 16:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Furushiki map from dead japanese soldier

edit

The lengthy (relatively speaking) discussion of a furoshiki map with personal will-wishes written on it which was taken from a dead Japanese soldier in World War 2 is morbid and almost totally irrelevant to furoshiki. There are many topics covered in the Japanese language version of the same article (the patterns, materials, etiquette etc.) and at no point do they talk about a singular specimen taken from a dead Japanese soldier. Most of the characteristics of this exemplar are not typical of furoshiki - for example furoshiki generally don't have maps printed on them nor do they have handwriting on them. The well-wishes from the homeland are characteristic of World War 2 items not furoshiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1313:423C:6DF4:C3A5:C44A:A7DC (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I completely agree with the above comment. There are a number of objectionable things about this entry. Not only is that story way out-sized for the smallness of the article, but it also shows a deep Australian bias at the expense of a Japanese soldier. It completely usurps the cultural context of furoshiki and makes it appear, at first glance, to be an Australian invention made during WW2 from a snatched Japanese cloth. And finally, the description entered into the Wikipedia article is very close to plagiarism, in my opinion. Although there's a citation, there's no inline indication that the text so closely mimics the original at https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/REL/12658/. One need not copy word for word for an entry to be considered plagiarized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism Writers, please reconsider this segment and replace it with material that is appropriate.
Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply