Yeah, also that article seems a lot less sensational. The Japan Times article says > The fact is, most ghost characters have yet to be fully understood. One su

Yeah, also that article seems a lot less sensational. The Japan Times article says > The fact is, most ghost characters have yet to be fully understood. One such example is 彁 while the blogpost says > In the end only one character had neither a clear source nor any historical precedent: 彁. According to the table in Wikipedia[1], of the 28 characters which were originally considered ghosts, 16 were found to be legitimately used to write place names, 8 occurred in earlier dictionaries, 3 (including 妛) were similar to (and probably a mis-read form of) some dictionary entry, and 彁 is of unclear origin. [1] https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B9%BD%E9%9C%8A%E6%96%87%E5%AD%97#%E5%85%B8%E6%8B%A0%E3%81%8C%E4%B8%8D%E6%98%8E%E3%81%AA%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B9%BD%E9%9C%8A%E6%96%87%E5...