Misplaced Pages

Talk:Japan: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:43, 29 May 2007 editCultural Freedom (talk | contribs)1,294 edits What to call association football← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:00, 4 January 2025 edit undoMaxeto0910 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users94,709 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{American English}}
{{Article history
|action1=FAC |action1=FAC
|action1date= 14 Jan 2004 |action1date=14 Jan 2004
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2003 to January 2004#Japan |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2003 to January 2004#Japan
|action1result=failed |action1result=failed
|action1oldid=2158549


|action2=FAC |action2=FAC
Line 9: Line 12:
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2004#Japan |action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2004#Japan
|action2result=failed |action2result=failed
|action2oldid=7641321


|action3=FAC |action3=FAC
Line 18: Line 22:
|action4=PR |action4=PR
|action4date=28 August 2006 |action4date=28 August 2006
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Japan |action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Japan/archive1
|action4result=Reviewed |action4result=Reviewed
|action4oldid=72486591


|action5=FAC |action5=FAC
Line 38: Line 43:
|action7result=promoted |action7result=promoted
|action7oldid=122108297 |action7oldid=122108297

|action8=FAR
|action8date=05:20, 14 April 2011
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Japan/archive1
|action8result=kept
|action8oldid=423895108

|maindate=May 15, 2007 |maindate=May 15, 2007
|currentstatus=FA |currentstatus=FA
}} }}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|category=Geography|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|coresup=yes}} {{WikiProject banner shell |class=FA |vital=yes |1=
{{WikiProject Japan|class=FA|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Asia |importance=Top |japan=yes |japan-importance=Top}}
{{WP:Countries|FA|small=yes}} {{WikiProject Countries}}
{{WikiProject East Asia |importance=Top}}
{{archives|small=yes|auto=}}
}}

{{press|date=August 17, 2009|author=The Daily Telegraph|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html|title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008|org=]}}
==The most prestigious universities in Japan==
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|1=
''The most prestigious universities in Japan are the University of Tokyo, Keio University, and Waseda University.''
{{All time pageviews|88}}
I think that this is an elite university of not the elite university in Japan but Tokyo. (Graduates at ] are famous because a lot of Nobel prize was won. ) If it is possible, will you delete this part? This has the possibility of making the graduate of other universities revolted. --] 04:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
{{Annual report|]|10,063,050}}
:I agree with Azukimonaka that this sentence is flat-out wrong. And the cited source merely says:
{{page views}}
:* "''The most prestigious national university is the University of Tokyo (founded in 1877); two well-known private universities are Keio University (1858) and Waseda University (1882).''"
}}
:The source doesn't even say that ''Waseda'' and ''Keio'' are "prestigious", only that they're "famous".
{{User:MiszaBot/config
:Based on ] from 2004 , we have the following rankings for Japanese universities, among the world's top 200:
|maxarchivesize = 100K
:* 12 ]
|counter = 21
:* 29 ]
|minthreadsleft = 4
:* 51 ]
|algo = old(90d)
:* 69 ]
|archive = Talk:Japan/Archive %(counter)d
:* 153 ]
}}
:* 167 ]
{{pp-move-indef}}
:So ] is obviously number 1 by any standard. ] appears to be number 2 by any standard also. Opinion usually varies as to who is number 3 (, 4, and 5) in Japan. For example, I've heard ] being ranked number 3 before.--] 10:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
::See also ] (''meimon daigaku''). ] and ] are listed there AT THE BEGINING of their short list of prestigious Japanese universities. I am declaring that ] & ] deserve mention in the "Japan" article, but ] & ] do not.--] 11:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|target= Talk:Japan/Archive index

|mask= Talk:Japan/Archive <#>
::Having a source makes this an easy fix. We can say that "According to The Times Higher Education Supplement (2004) the three top-ranking universities in Japan are ... ." This avoids attributing the prestige ranking to Misplaced Pages and attributes it to the source. I suggest three universities (but other numbers are possible). ] 10:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=

}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
::::Fg2, just in case there are any NPOV concerns, I don't think we should mention number 3 and beyond. Numbers 1 & 2 appear to be undisputed. And yes, we should use "The Times..." as the source.--] 11:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|target=Talk:Japan/Index

|mask=Talk:Japan/Archive <#>
:::::No problem with just two. BTW, along with prestige, there are other viewpoints: public/private universities, old universities, universities from which prominent people graduate (elected politicians, elite bureaucrats, company presidents, innovators, researchers ... the list goes on ... ) so a short or very short list, especially if multiple sources agree, seems prudent. ] 11:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=no
::::::OK, I made the change. Please feel free to correct me if I missed something.--] 11:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
}}

:::Here's another ranking, from Asiaweek.com's "Asia's Best Universities" in the year 2000 :
:::* (Tokyo University did not participate in the survey, and is NOT included)
:::* 1 ]
:::* 2 ]
:::* 11 ]
:::* 15 ]
:::* 19 ]
:::* 22 ]
:::* 29 ]
:::* 49 ]
:::* 66 ]
:::* 67 ]
:::* 69 ]
:::* (only the universities that participated in the survey are listed here)
:::--] 11:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

== Question about info box ==

The info box has an entry "Capital
(and conurbation (population)) Tokyo<sup>1</sup>
35°41′N 139°46′E"

The left column promises population but the right column delivers longitude and latitude. Anyone know how to remedy this? ] 08:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

:See ]. The right column shows what it is supposed to show. The problem is that the text of left column is misleading. Change or remove the "largest_settlement_type" parameter. I suggest removing it; then the entry becomes "Capital (and largest city) Tokyo<sup>1</sup> 35°41′N 139°46′E". --] 09:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

::Done. If I've removed information that belongs in the box, please help us fix it. Thanks ] 09:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

== Lower courts in the Japanese judicial system ==

HongQiKong re-introduced 3 ] in as follows....

* ''Japan's court system is divided into four basic tiers: 438 ], 50 ], 9 ], and the ].''

HongQiKong says in the edit comment: ''"The United States has these articles, so I'm wikilinking for future development as well. Please see ]."''

I disagree. The lower courts within the Japanese judicial system are not nearly as important as for the United States. New articles for them are NOT warranted. How many FA status articles have links to LOWER COURTS of that nation? Please do not create red links for the lower courts again, because those lower courts are utterly unimportant with respect to Japan as a whole.--] 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:I agree with Endroit. Hong please do not start stuffing these red-links in while we're trying to resolve FAC blocking issues - no one other than you seems worried about a lack of these court links, so I can't see it as a priority right now. ] 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
::At the least, surely district courts and summary courts are notable. There are only 50 and 9 of them, respectively. If FA status articles do not have links to lower courts, then that's probably because they don't even make mention of them. So maybe we need to take out mention of the lower courts. How many FA status articles do that? ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Hong, please just leave it - let us deal with citations problems which are far more serious. This is something that can be discussed another time. ] 16:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

==Pictures==

From now on, please do not move pictures unless you can stop your "space" problems and it keeps them together. When people have said they've "fixed" that problem, it just creates another in that you get a couple of lines of text stuck between the pictures. It's better as it is, I believe. ] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:Hong, '''please stop'''. Take screenshots and identify where these "spaces" are - we can't see any. ] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
::What resolution does HongQiGong have anyways? I have 1152 x 864, and it's fine after we moved the buddha to the left. We should ask somebody like Kusunose for a third opinion regarding the white spaces. I think HongQiGong should lay off until we get more opinion on this.
::Also, I'm troubled that HongQiGong appears to be resorting to ]. If he couldn't introduce red links for the lower courts (see above), he just deletes any mention of them.--] 16:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot - ]. My screen resolution is 1280x1024. Anything bigger than 800x600 gives me blank spaces. And I'm not exactly the only one that sees these blank spaces. ] has mentioned them in the FAC also.

And please, Endroit. That's not a bad faith edit. You made a good point that FA status country articles may not necessary name the lower courts. So I got rid of their mention. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:I had a look at a higher resolution, and I can see them. But I'm fine on 1024x800 with IE7 and my current browser. I think we should ask Raul654 what to do. ] 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The at the time of my writing this comment has gotten rid of one of the blank spaces, but another one remains below the Yayoi section and above the Book of Han section. Look, since I can see the blank spaces and you can't, just let me know if you want me to fix them instead of reverting my changes without question. I can't be taking a screen shot for you every time you make a blind stab at fixing these things. And If I can see them, I'm sure others can also. This is a major violation of ] and an obstacle to FA status. Despite what you and Endroit may think, I'm trying to help. A little good faith might be nice. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

:I had another look and I can confirm it's only IE that has the gaps. I know what you're saying, it's just a shame if we have to separate the pictures just because Microsoft can't string a decent piece of code together. Can you try something other than separating the pictures - like moving them down or something? ] 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

::If it was up to me, I'd ''get rid'' of some of the pictures. There are too many in the history section. (And I did see your comment about IE before you edited it. Don't worry, it's not like I have some misguided pride in being an IE user.) ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Well if comes down to having sandwiched text and one less picture, I say get rid of the picture. As I said why don't you try to see whether you can get rid of the gaps by moving the pictures down together or realigning the Buddha. If you can't make it work, delete the Buddha. Ok?
:::As to IE, well can't you migrate? We can solve this problem, but it's better in the long-run in my opinion. By the way I edited because I didn't want to give the impression I was saying "we're not changing - you get new software". :)] 16:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Just wanted to leave a note here to make sure I'm not ignoring you, but I need to get offline for now. I'll be back in a few hours. Yeah, IE is not the best browser, but like it or not, it being used by the majority of the web browsing population, it's used (or should be used) as the litmus test for browser experience. And I'm not talking about WP, I'm talking about web development in general. If your site does not work well on IE, expect to lose a lot of readers. Anyway, I'll be back. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::On HongQiGong's screen shot (]), the upper gap still remains. (The lower gap was eliminated). The Buddha being on the right had a huger gap, and that's what everybody was complaining about before. We're better off now with the buddha being on the left, as shown on this screen shot. I'd be curious to see if that small gap is acceptable enough for FA purposes, since it's less noticeable now.--] 17:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to come back online. I made a minor change to the image positioning. See how it looks on your own individual browsers. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

:It looks fine on both IE 6.0 and Firefox 1.0.7 at 1024×768. Many thanks for this ray of hope! ] 07:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

::Looks fine, thanks. ] 12:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Looks fine at 1152 x 864, as well.--] 23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

== Science and Technology ==

I know the article is quite big already, but do you think a short mention of the ] spy satellites in the science and tech section could work? --] 12:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
: I mean ] --] 12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::If they are properly referenced, of course. I do mean that - please don't add anything in without appropriately formatted citations - I have enough to find right now. Thanks, ] 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

== Right-facing Daibutsu ==

The move of the photo of the Daibutsu to the left results in the statue facing the margin instead of the text. If you want a right-facing photo I suggest Image:NaraTodaijiDaibutsu0212.jpg. ] 10:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

== Population ==

There exists an estimate for 2007 in following the link next to the old 2005 estimate. If someone would update it.] 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

== Request ==
For in Foreign policy and military
<Blockquote>
Japan has several territorial disputes with its neighbors: with ] over the ], with ] over ] (Takeshima), with ] and ] over the ] (Diaoyutai Islands), and with China over the status of ]. These disputes are in part about the control of marine and natural resources, such as possible reserves of ] and ]. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.indiana.edu/~japan/iguides/disputes.htm |title=Japan's Territorial Disputes |publisher=Indiana University | accessdate=2007-03-28}}</ref>
</Blockquote>

Senkaku Islands has subterranean resources. However, Kuril islands amd Takeshima do not have subterranean resources. I request this part to be deleted. <Blockquote>  These disputes are in part about the control of marine and natural resources, such as possible reserves of ] and ]. </Blockquote>
--] 11:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

:Re-read it. It says marine and natural resources '''such as'''... - with the other islands fishing rights comes into it (fishing = marine resources). So I am reinserting it. ] 09:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:::It is a sentence that induces the misunderstanding. Senkaku Islands has subterranean resources. Please explain the reason why you enhance a part of problem to all problems. --] 10:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::I can't speak for John Smith's or anyone else, but I see this as simply a matter of this being a broad overview article which should take the stance of discussing issues in general, not in minute detail. The point here is not to single out ] (which I've never even heard of) and to go into detail about that particular issue, but to summarize territorial disputes in general. Most if not all of the territorial disputes Japan is involved in involve some kind of marine or natural resources - we're not talking about only subterranean resources, or only about oil and natural gas, but rather resources in general - land, fishing, maybe lumber, I don't know, whatever it is that these various islands have. The use of the term "such as", provides an example, and does not share these problems around all the different disputes. ] 09:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I oppose such a negligent description.
:::* As for the administrative power of Kuril islands, Japan was stopped by Treaty of San Francisco. However, Russia is not participating in this agreement.
:::* Japan doesn't agree to this declaration at all though Takeshima declared ] in 1956 to be a Korean territory.
:::I think that I should not lack the incorrect information. Please let me hear your opinion.
:::I request this part to be deleted again. <Blockquote>  These disputes are in part about the control of marine and natural resources, such as possible reserves of ] and ]. </Blockquote>
:::--] 19:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Botched declarations and unclear wording in treaties are nothing unusual. What is unusual is for nations to claim territories based on the value of the seas surrounding them. Anyways, therefore, I reworded the text in question into the following:
::::* ''These disputes are in part about the control of natural resources, which include possible reserves of ] and ], or ]/marine resources within the surounding waters.''
::::--] 19:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::I am Japanese. Therefore, I regret the misunderstanding of the territorial issue. I take a rest before it gets excited. thank you --] 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

==New or no picture for government==
Is there not a better picture to represent the government? I find it odd and almost disturbing having two photos of President Bush in both sections of Japanese politics, side by side. Some people might enjoy GW photo-ops, but that's one too many photos for an article not about the US. ] 10:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

:Hi Falsedef, I think what we're seeing is that it's easy to find photos from US government sources, and if they're official works of the government they're in the public domain. So some editors were able to locate those two photos and they posted them. Do you know of any sources for photos, with appropriate licenses, of leaders of the government of Japan? They'd be valuable additions, and might well replace one or both of the pictures presently in the article. ] 10:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::I've guessed as much that the pictures were posted due to US government archives accessibility. I'd really only like to see one photo replaced. Specifically, the first one seems less descriptive. Both photos are good alone, but in the context of the article itself, two photos of the same foreign president doesn't seem appropriate. , , , ] 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

==Congratulations!==

As you can see, Japan has reached FA status. Thanks for those who supported it through the nomination process.

There is always room for improvement, such as ensuring data is the most recent available. However please always remember to update information with new, properly formatted citations from reliable sources.

Thanks again, ] 11:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:sorry, when i gave my reasons why i didn't actively support it, it had been fixed but i forgot to change it to support. Anyways congrats to everyone's hard work. -] 23:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for featuring Japan as a Featured Article...this is one of my favorite articles on Misplaced Pages! -]

:WOOOOO-HOOOOOOOO!!!! YES! YES! I've always wanted this!! ] 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I'm so glad this article was featured on the Misplaced Pages. This is one of the best articles on Misplaced Pages. The pictures go along very well with the text...I hope this article will be up on the homepage again soon. -]

==Complaint==
I would like to know what the language in japan is. But it never stated it. I just thought that that was important.
<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 14:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:::You will notice that language is listed in the infobox on the right side at the top of the article. Unlike some countries with much more complex political/cultural/ethnic and therefore linguistic histories, Japan has always enjoyed a relative stability and unity of language under the umbrella of dialects, slang, etc know as the ]. ] 22:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Japan has not "always enjoyed unity". There's ], several ], languages brought to Japan by immigrants like ] and ], as well as special developments like ], and of course ]. --] 07:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Let's throw in all the Trekies who speak Klingon too, while we're at it...-] 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::The >1 million speakers of Ryukyuan languages, 670,000 speakers of Korean in Japan, and 320,000 signers of JSL can't really be compared to the handful of people who speak Klingon. Ainu is nearly extinct today, but it was not always so. --] 10:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Although for a featured article you'd think someone would have fixed the grammar error at the beginning. "Japan comprises over three thousand islands" is wrong. It should be "Over three thousand islands comprise Japan." The many always comprise the collective and never the other way around.
] 14:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

== Mount Fuji as an island? ==

"Most of the islands are mountainous, many volcanic, including Japan’s highest peak, Mount Fuji."

this is in the intro. Not sure if it's ambiguous or misleading? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 03:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== "Second-Largest Economy" ==

Thought it might be prudent to mention, in the introductory paragraph to the "Japan" article, that Japan is the world's third-largest if using purchasing-power parity (see IMF website, CIA World Factbook). <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

Japan has moved from second to third in recent months and I think this article should now be updated to reflect this. ] 06:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Statistics are never a simple - "Japan become the second largest economy in the world, after the United States, at around US$4.5 trillion in terms of nominal GDP and third after the United States and China in terms of purchasing power parity.". Thus at the moment it is a definition issue, so I have not changed this. ] 22:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

== Name ==

There needs to be a <nowiki>==Name of Japan==</nowiki> section, explaining where ''Japan'' and ''Nihon'' come from, and other names that were/are used (''Yamato'', ''Wagakuni'', etc). I'd do it myself but I don't have sources to cite. --] 07:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:There's a whole article on it. Click the link in the lead paragraph. ] 11:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::Whoops! Missed that.
::Still, it would be clearer if there was a summary on this page, with {{tl|main}} linking to ]. --] 11:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

==How many islands?==

Someone insists that it is 6,000, whereas wikipedia articles generally say 3,000. I have found search results for both, so can someone supply a definitive source on this issue? ] 11:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:"Over 3,000" would be the correct description, per .

:If you wish to cite it, you can do it as follows....
:<nowiki>{{cite web | </nowiki>
:<nowiki> | title = ''Nihon Rettō'' (にほんれっとう[―れつたう] 【日本列島】)</nowiki>
:<nowiki> | url = http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%AB%E3%81%BB%E3%82%93%E3%82%8C%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A8%E3%81%86&dtype=0&stype=1&dname=0ss </nowiki>
:<nowiki> | publisher = ] / Yahoo Japan dictionary </nowiki>
:<nowiki> | accessdate = 2007-05-07 }}</nowiki>
:--] 21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the citation - added to the article. ] 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The ] says 6,852, and it's not a recent addition to the article. I'm sure I once saw something on a Japanese government web site. I might have listed it on this talk page -- if so, it would be in the archives. ] 21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:I have searched Japanese government web sites with Google (<span class="plainlinks">{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|<span class="messagebox" style="padding: 0; font-size: xx-small; color: #000000;">''] should not be used in articles as Google links are not considered appropriate for an encyclopedia.''</span>}}</span> and <span class="plainlinks">{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|<span class="messagebox" style="padding: 0; font-size: xx-small; color: #000000;">''] should not be used in articles as Google links are not considered appropriate for an encyclopedia.''</span>}}</span>). According to them, 6,852 is a number of islands with a length of coastline of 0.1 km and over. --] 06:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
::Any idea how the 3000 figure defined the size of those islands? Also does wikipedia have any "guidance" on the "minimum" size of an island? ] 22:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

== Need Some Help? ==

Hi! I'm a newcomer. Feeling like a stranger in a strange land or should I say I'm helpless as a kitten up a tree? I'm not sure I could be a helper. But just try and ask me. I'm a native Japanese, working as a translator. ] 16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
== Foreign policy&Military ==
*The following things does not Fair
*1)Image Manupulation
*Japan have border probrem but 1945-1952 SK& Russia Military Occupy Japanese Islands because at that time she could not defend herself, and Japan proposed SK Peaceful solution at court but SK rejected it. And regarding senkaku After 1971 Oil reserve found China/Taiwan suddenly decleare that the island belongs to them.
*Even all these case Japan is a VICTIM, but the article Just Indicate "HEY JAPAN IS A TROUBLE MAKER SHE DESPUTE WITH ALL NEIGHBORS" it is Not fair and it is NOT American way.
*2)Hiding Truth
*NK Aiming 200 Rodong Missile to Japan. And US analyst comented that 3 of it Loaded Nuke Warhead=NK can Nuke TOKYO. Why hide the truth is this the way of Democrats?
*Total amount of Omoiyari Yosan donation is equivalant Value of 22 Nuke Aircraft carriers, why hide this truth and Propaganda Free Rider? --] 00:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

Hey, I want to know what the national flower for Japan is? But I cant find it :( Also what is the most important food?

== External Links ==
I think we need to add some additional links to better maps. The Wikimedia Atlas of Japan is good, but if you are trying to find anything other than large cities then it will not help. I suggest that we need a link to either the Yahoo! maps site or the mashup version found at http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/travel/japan_map.html as this map allows the user to zoom into a good level of detail.

I don't think that Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Guardian Unlimited links should be included. They are not specialist sites on Japan and they are just as commercial as many other sites that have far more detailed information and probably just as accurate. ] 06:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

:That's a ridiculous justification. The Guardian is a respected broadsheet newspaper, so unless you can show its information is wrong then I strongly disagree. ] 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
:Ok, I see now you've been spamming links from the same website around. That is not a good link to put in. I certainly hope you are not from that website - your Australian-esque alias doesn't help. I suggest you stop putting in to Japan-related articles. ] 23:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

== Request Article Protection ==
This article keeps getting vandalized every few seconds or so and starts up again after a protection period expires. Maybe someone should add a PERNAMENT one to prevent randon people completely wasting the time of others and throwing off anybody reading the article. Discuss. --] 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

:I will protect it for now--let's say, for a week--but you might want to go to ] to request something more permanent. I'm not sure how many articles have a "permanent" semi-protected status (] comes to mind) but I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Have any anons made good edits recently? ] ] 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

:Oh, thanks Sean--you read my mind. LOL. I was just about to do it. ] ] 17:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) I've beaten you to it, Antandrus :). I have semi-protected the page for one week, per a request at ] ] 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

== "great power"? ==

Is it correct to call Japan a "great power"? The article cites Paul Kennedy's ''The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers''. Skimming this book, it seems that Japan isn't a great power according to Kennedy's definition ("a state capable of holding its own against any other nation", p.539) in the military sense. Misplaced Pages ] as "a nation or state that, through its great economic, political and military strength, is able to exert power over world diplomacy." Japan definitely is a great economic power, but not a political nor military one. In any event, "great power" is a highly subjective term and Japan's inclusion seems iffy at best. I think "great power" should be removed from the article or at least should be explicitly be attributed to Paul Kennedy as in "According to Paul Kennedy, Japan is a 'great power'", although I don't think he ever says anything of the sort about modern Japan. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
:I think it is correct to call Japan a "great power". Quite apart from its economic strength, it has built a significant military capability and has political clout too. ] 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

On military power, it is known that Japan's military is larger then Great Britain, and is also signifcantly advanced.

:Well, according to the ] ], Japan's military is about half the size & 2/3rds the spending of Britain. So, no, it's not larger than the U.K. Still, it's much larger than I had thought, so I stand corrected. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

== What to call association football ==

I have just changed the following sentence.

{{cquote|Since the establishment of a professional soccer league in Japan in 1992, football has also gained a wide following.}}

I have changed the ''football'' to ''soccer''. I believe that such a change is justified for the following reasons.

#It's bad style & potentially confusing to use two different names refer to the one thing (except in special cases) - particularly in the one sentence.
#The article obviously uses American English. This is true for both the current version and the original version (or at least the earliest version I can find). In American English the sport is called ''soccer''.
#''Football'' is an ambiguous term (it could mean soccer, rugby, Aussie rules, American football, etc.). Such a term would require qualification.

Although it should not really qualify as a reason it might also be noted that the Japanese name for the sport is "サッカー" which is a transliteration of "soccer". ]]]] 05:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

:Well I changed both back to football, so that gets rid of the problem of using two terms.
:As to the J. League, look at their . They use the term "Japan Professional Football League" - the word soccer isn't there.
:Also football is about, well, football. If you're talking about something else, you're talking about something else. What is the more commonly used word around the world - football or soccer? I think it's the first. ] 11:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

::"both ''back'' to football"? One had been ''soccer''. "that gets rid of the problem of using two terms", no, technically the problem had already been got rid of. As to the J. League, let them use whichever term they like, we're under no obligation to follow their lead here.
::Yeah, football is about, football. It's an ambiguous term: what one person means by it can differ from what the next person means by it. We don't all speak the same dialect. A person from New York will think American football when you say "football" but a person from Sydney will think rugby league. Go on, prove us wrong.
::"What is the more commonly used word around the world ..." what does this matter? But since you ask, do you mean in English or do you include cognates in other languages? If it's the latter, keep in mind that the Japanese name for the sport is "サッカー" (''sakkaa''). But, no, this is the English Misplaced Pages so other languages don't matter ... not even Japanese. So what is the more commonly used word ''in English'' around the world? I think it's the second ... not that this matters.
::Nor have you addresses my second point that the article uses American English - just check through the spelling. Calling soccer ''football'' in this context is not consistant.
::P.S. re: your edit summary: "both articles use the word 'football', not soccer" - This is an irrelevant point. The ] calls for consistancy ''within'' but not ''across'' articles.
::]]]] 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
::Jimp's right. Japan prefers American English forms, and the Japanese term for the sport is a ]zation of the word ''soccer'', not ''football''. The best idea is to probably list ''both'' terms to avoid ambiguity, though, and this is what I have done. — ] (]) 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I do not accepted Jimp's arguments about the J. League. They know better than us what term they want to use. And if they use the word football then I think we should respect that.
:::Yes, Japan does use the word "sakkaa", but that doesn't mean the word "soccer" must be used either. As I have said above, if the J. League refers to itself with the word "football" then that is the word that should be used to describe the league. As to mentioning the sport, then of course the most common term should be used first. The article is primarily for the benefit of English-speaking users, not Japanese.
:::Also, Brian, just because Japan might prefer American-English does not mean it should be used all the time especially if the association or whatever uses a specific term. ] 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
::::There appears to be confusion about our English guideline. Generally if an article is about one location, we use the form of English used locally. English in Japan may be more similar to American English then Commonwealth English. But this doesn't mean it's the same as American English. If the Japanese generally refer to it as football locally, then that's what we use. Besides that, the term soccer is (sadly) sometimes preferred in Commonwealth countries anyway e.g. New Zealand and Australia. ] 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well, as an English teacher in the place, I can tell you that all of the text books (the ones I'm asked to use anyway) are written in American English and refer to the sport as ''soccer''. :) — ] (]) 22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::If the same term has to be used in the article, I changed "soccer (football)" to "football (soccer)". That way the same term is used, the league uses the correct word and the sport itself has mention of both. ] 11:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::The J. League "know better than us what term they want to use." It's hard to refute that, however, aren't we discussing what term ''we'' want to use? We are not obliged to use the term someone else has chosen. Note that the current wording is "a professional Japanese football league" not "the Japan Professional Football League" ... this makes all the difference since we're not free to change someone else's proper noun.
:::::::"The article is primarily for the benefit of English-speaking users, not Japanese. ... just because Japan might prefer American-English does not mean it should be used all the time" you also write. Yes, I agree here. The facts that most Japanese tend to prefer American English and that the sport is called "sakkaa" are side-points. This is the English Misplaced Pages. Japan is not an English-speaking country.
:::::::So let's, then get our perspective right: we are writing an article about a topic with no particular connexion to any English dialect. However, do note that most English speakers call the sport "soccer" and would find the term ''football'' (without qualification) either ambiguous or misleading. This includes a good number of people from Commonwealth countries and being one of them myself I don't feel sad about it in least. "As to mentioning the sport," you write, John, "then of course the most common term should be used first." In that case ''soccer'' should come first.
:::::::Then, what dialect should we be using here? Let's have a look at ]. Okay, I had claimed that the article used American English. did. As did the oldest version I could find. At the moment we just have inconsistancy - this, of course, should be fixed as per ] but that's another issue. <span title="Pronunciation in IPA" class="IPA">]]]]</span> 16:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Since when do most English-speakers use "soccer"? You mean Americans. Maybe you could tell me what the full title of FIFA is, or indeed why the main wikipedia entry is "football" and not soccer. ] 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Since when? I don't know off the top of my head but I guess it's been a while. Yes, I mean Americans ... and Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, ... Maybe I could tell you what FIFA's full title is. That'd be easy. As for the other thing ... I'm not about to dig into the archives regarding that. I do wonder why it matters. <span title="Pronunciation in IPA" class="IPA">]]]]</span> 17:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::You've forgotten other English-speakers, such as those from other Commonwealth countries as well as other people who speak English. Football is easily the most common term used around the world. ] 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Have I? But the question at hand is what dialect this article is written in ... and hodge-podge is not a viable option. <span title="Pronunciation in IPA" class="IPA">]]]]</span> 17:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::Well you have, unless you want to claim the Commonwealth is only made up of the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ when it comes to English-speaking states.....
::::::::::::Currently it looks like it's written in International/British English to me. ] 17:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::When it comes to native English speakers ... with ''neighbours'' & ''neighbouring'' alongside ''modeled'' & ''practiced'' it currently looks like a hodge-podge to me. <span title="Pronunciation in IPA" class="IPA">]]]]</span> 18:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Ignoring the overwhelming grammar style, but never mind - that's been rectified. Got anything else? ] 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Yeah, the article still uses American dollars. <span title="Pronunciation in IPA" class="IPA">]]]]</span> 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::That's because the figures supplied (from citations) are in US dollars, apart from those converted from Yen. Also the US dollar is a standard when it comes to expressing budgets, size of economies, etc. That has nothing to do with spelling or grammar. For example ] uses US dollars, as do similar ones on the global economy. ] 18:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Behold, now the article is in British English, looks like I've got no argument any more and we can all go away happy. <span title="Pronunciation in IPA" class="IPA">]]]]</span> 18:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC) - P.S. I was just having a go with the USD comment, though yen values would be worth including. <span title="Pronunciation in IPA" class="IPA">]]]]</span> 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Excellent..................... 19:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Yeah, until somebody back to the original dialect i.e. American English & justifiably so according to ]. <span title="Pronunciation in IPA" class="IPA">]]]]</span> 23:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::He didn't "revert it back," he undid John Smith's spelling vandalism, which itself was a continuation of John Smith's reversions of a sincere editor's attempts to follow policy by making the article consistent. (It was ~98% American English, someone made it 100%, and John Smith mindlessly, orthographically imperialistically, reverted the edits.) --] ] 2007-05-29 17:43 17:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well that's about spelling, not the actual words to be used. I think it would be more productive if we simply moved on and found other things to do. Though that page isn't binding, only offering suggestions. ] 06:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:Whether it's about spelling and not the actual words being used is debateable. In fact it really isn't clear. There is an emphasis on spelling but the section does refer to usage, punctuation and grammar as well as differing versions, forms and varieties of English. I think I'll bring the point up on the talk page. No, it's ] and is only offering suggestions but the note at the top of the page does say "Misplaced Pages articles should heed these guidelines." Consider, also, the spirit in which those suggestions were written. It is jarring to the reader to have a haphazard mix of different dialects - this is true whether we be talking only of spelling or whether we be also referring to vocabulary. I don't feel that any good reason has been put forth to go against this. As for moving on, I had, I haven't touched the page since I made my original edit. I do wonder, John, whether you'd be suggesting we move on if the page had ''soccer'' rather than ''football''. <span title="Pronunciation in IPA" class="IPA">]]]]</span> 07:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:I don't find it jarring, which is why I originally didn't mind the American English spelling - I only changed it after you made your earlier point.
:The very reason I suggested we "move on" was because you weren't editing the phrase back. However if you aren't satisfied you can always start a RFC/straw poll. ] 08:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::Well it had been but that didn't last and I wasn't about to get involved in a war over it. Okay, how about the following as a kind of compromise?
::<code><nowiki>Since the establishment of the ] in 1992, ] has also gained a wide following.</nowiki></code>
::This way the first instance refers to the name of the organisation, we are no longer mentioning the sport directly so gone is the question of what to call it here. In the second instance we use the full name of the sport which is unambiguous and should not be too strange regardless of what dialect you speak (it does take somewhat a formal register but this is not inappropriate for an encyclopædia). The common short form of the sport's name is included for those unfamiliar with the full name and we have the word ''football'' appearing twice. <span title="Pronunciation in IPA" class="IPA">]]]]</span> 09:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't have a problem with that at all. ] 09:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

== Wrong flag! ==

Hey, it's the Canadian flag! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 10:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:This page seems to be very active. The whole first paragraph was edited to "Japan is ( *stuf* ) bullshit" this morning when a friend noticed. I was going to undo but I think someone beat me to it. Going through the history is kinda amusing too :) ] 12:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)



==WRONG INFORMATION!!!!!==

I have just realized this, but Tokyo as a 'city' does not exist in Japan. Tokyo is a prefecture. not a city. ] 23:12, May 15, 2007 (JPN time)


__TOC__
:The article on Tokyo calls it a "unique prefecture-level government entity" after the prefecture and city were merged. --] 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
<!-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -->


==Did you know nomination==
::The correct Japanese word for "city" in this case is {{nihongo|''toshi''|都市}}, when Tokyo is compared to other cities. It is absolutely correct to say that Tokyo is the largest {{nihongo|city|都市|''toshi''}} in Japan.--] 15:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Japan}}


== Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2024 ==
==Lock the page==
I think we should lock the page ASAP. Its a featured article, and hence lot many people try to vandalize it! ] 19:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Japan|answered=yes}}
: Today's featured article is a high visibility article that is a standard of brilliant prose and how open Misplaced Pages is. Many editors are monitoring the page for vandalism. It should not be protected; regardless, please help monitor the article for vandalism. We certainly welcome more help! :-) --] 19:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
established_event3 = ] ] (]) 19:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 23:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)


== Regarding human rights issues in Japan ==
::I disagree; articles on the main page should be protected. Sometimes there are things that most editors just don't see. For example, the flag of Japan was changed to the Confederate flag for nearly ten minutes before someone finally noticed it, and this was a pretty obvious error, especially since the picture on the front page is the real flag of Japan. It would not be good for Misplaced Pages's reputation if someone looking for the flag of Japan to come here and paste the wrong one into their report, thinking that there was no way there would be an error on a featured article on the main page. --] 21:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Whenever I make edits related to issues of discrimination against women, they are deleted. The fact that abortion can only be performed with the consent of the man and the fact that the gender gap index is poor are always deleted. This is true, and all sources have been disclosed. The gender gap was also included in the Japanese version.I don't understand why they were removed even though these are true.] (]) 17:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)


:Please consult the edit summaries explaining why your edits were removed. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Please see ]. Also, Misplaced Pages should never be used as a primary source of information, as Misplaced Pages content has no ] of its validity. --] 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
::The section should b removed all together...... human rights are not a concern here. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 22:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but the reliable sources disagree. OP has already pointed out some of these human rights issues. ] (]) 05:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::@] your edit summary stated that {{tq|i think these are worth including but the prose needs considerable work, as this is a featured article}}. Unfortunately, there is no policy that states that sourced changes to an article can be removed or contested solely because they might threaten its rating. If the prose needs rework, then rework it! Reverts should only be used instead of improvements when you are totally unable to improve the text yourself, but we are talking about three sentences here. What's more, @] ''did'' rework the grammar in subsequent edits, yet you reverted them anyways, perhaps failing to read them and therefore failing to note that the grammar had been improved. ] (]) 05:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::There is such a policy, it's called ]. We're reworking it here: I think maintaining the consistent quality of articles as such is important for readers as a balance/potential ] issue, and this will likely result in a better article for the extra attention and collaboration. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 05:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)


:This is a high-level ], meaning that not every fact that is true should be included. Claims that a specific private individual committed offenses is ''definitely'' not something that should be included here. ] (]) 23:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the information :) I was really helpful! ] 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
::I understand that in the previous edit, I quoted part of the notation from the title of the article because my English was insufficient, and it was pointed out that it was a violation of copyright law, and it was deleted. However, this time I am posting an overview, so I am not quoting the article's expression. Also, if it is inappropriate to post a specific person's crime, it is clearly abnormal that the gender gap index is also deleted. It's not fair. ] (]) 17:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Johnny Kitagawa's crimes were systematic, involving the entire company and media. The United Nations Human Rights and Business Commission has pointed out that Japan needs an organization that protects human rights independent of the government. ] (]) 17:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


::::If the involvement of the entire company can be sourced, that could be something to discuss in the company's article - but still not here. ] (]) 02:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
==Culture and recreation==
:::::It was an open secret that the president of Johnny's was committing sexual crimes against men. This has been revealed for a long time through disclosure books and court cases by multiple singers. Sexual crimes were also committed in the restrooms of the national broadcasting station and Asahi TV. When Mr. Kitagawa died, many politicians and the media paid tribute to him and held a grand funeral. This was despite the fact that the crime had already been discovered in court in the 1960s. ] (]) 12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I was looking for a place to insert some mention of ], Japan's most popular leisure activity, but it was unclear whether to put it under "Culture" or "Sport and recreation", since it's arguably both (though not a sport, of course). And then I saw that the "Culture" section mentioned things like tea ceremony and flower arranging, which are done as hobbies for recreation in modern Japan. I've therefore made a go at merging these two sections into "Culture and recreation". Sports are arguably culture, and other country articles treat them in that section (see ], for example). — ] (]) 22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
::The topic here is human rights.And while LGBT is described as a problem, descriptions of discrimination against women are not allowed. Japan has been famous for its gender discrimination since ancient times. In fact, many women were discriminated against in medical school entrance exams. It is also not acceptable for a woman to have an abortion without her partner's consent. Please tell me why you can't even describe the gender gap index even though you can write about LGBT. ] (]) 22:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)


:::Do you have a source for the claim that "Japan has been famous for its gender discrimination since ancient times"? ] (]) 00:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
== Vandalism ==
::::If you've ever lived in Japan, you'll understand. More than 70 years have passed since the birth of women as national representatives, but the proportion of women in Japan's House of Representatives has increased from 8.4% in 1946 to 9.7% in November 2021. The proportion of cabinet positions held by women is 10.0% (2 out of 20), ranking 151st in the world. The Minister of Justice once said, ``Women are child-bearing machines.'' By the way CHIKAN, a sex crime committed on a train, involves not only touching but also putting one's hand inside someone's clothes, but even if a complaint was filed with the police, it was not treated as a crime for many years. Moreover, many men say that the problem is not so much the crime of CHIKAN but the false accusation. The BBC reports that CHIKAN crimes are being circulated as cell videos.And Housewives are forced to work only up to an annual income of 1,030,000 yen because they are taxed and don't want to pay their own pension premiums. As a result, women who do not get married also have trouble finding employment.This is Japan.https://hrn-or-jp.translate.goog/eng/news/2024/09/16/cedaw-japan-review-report/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=ja&_x_tr_hl=ja&_x_tr_pto=sc ] (]) 13:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::The part about Kitigawa was only a portion of what was removed. The text stating {{tq|Japan's 2024 gender equality ranked 118th among 146 countries}} and the fact that {{tq|A woman cannot have an abortion without her partner's consent}} is ''exactly'' the sort of information you would expect from a {{tq|high-level summary article}}, and yet some folks are pushing back on that too. ] (]) 05:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::To be clear: my position is simply that the material required some level of preliminary editing and attention before it was added to the article. I hope that comes off in good faith. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 05:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Did you actually read {{noping|流山隆一}}'s edits that did exactly that before reverting them again? The most recent version they tried to include in the article has none of the prose issues earlier versions did. ] (]) 05:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I mean, their most recent addition had {{xt|Johnny Kitagawa, a prominent J-pop agent, committed child sexual abuse. More than 300 people are demanding compensation from their agency.}} How on earth would this be an acceptable addition to this article? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 05:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::It would have been fine to delete that sentence instead of reverting the entire edit. That sentence was also not in their original edit, and is problematic on other grounds that have been raised above. Regardless, would you support a version of their edit without the mention of Kitigawa? ] (]) 05:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, I likewise think that the material on gender equality as most recently articulated would be fine to re-add by itself: apologies for not being immediately forthcoming about that. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 05:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::It should be explained that this ranking comes from the ], but that's an easy fix. The article already cites other WEF rankings, so I support re-adding this paragraph. More broadly, ] seems conspicuously undersized in proportion to its significance to the topic, and in proportion to ]. This is an overview article, so we do expect some redundancy with sub-topic articles. ] (]) 06:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Have redone the section to summarize the main article with new sources.....best keep random stats to a minimum in the article and simply state the facts to sources that explain over general index stats.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 08:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Thank you for your discussion. Last time, I was dissatisfied because the human rights content was limited to LGBT issues, but I now understand that other human rights issues were also covered. ] (]) 13:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)


== Mentions of WWII atrocities in lead ==
Someone foolish enough to know the edit process tampered with the article. I will hopefully revert it back to normal.
]


I {{diff2|1253474675|recently}} introduced a line mentioning the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Japanese Empire to the lead. This is a significant event in Japanese history and failing to mention it here would be like failing to mention the Holocaust in the lead for ]. @] apparently wishes to challenge these changes, but provided no policy-based explanation for their challenge. Moxy, do you care to say more? ] (]) 05:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
== Official Name ==


:Simply ] .....as its not something that is covered in quick summarizes of the country like Germany and the ]. Every major power has crimes attached to them but only a few are defining in nature. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 06:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Is the official name of Japan "State of Japan" or "Empire of Japan"? I couldn't find a reference to the official name. ] 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
::So, I checked Britannica,<ref>{{mref|{{Britannica|231186|Germany}}|{{Britannica|300531|Japan}}}}</ref> and it's a bit complicated since the lead for Germany's is significantly longer than Japan's or either of ours'. However, it seems to roughly equivocate to the present proportion. Are there any other tertiary sources we can be looking at to evaluate lead dueness here?<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 06:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:''Technically'', its neither. When you talk about the Empire of Japan, you're usually talking about pre-1947 Japan. --] 05:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
::But ''why'' is it undue? Contrary to your claim, the Misplaced Pages article for ] ''does'' mention the Holocaust in its lead. ] (]) 23:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::According to the CIA World Factbook, it's just "Japan", not "Republic of..." or "State of..." or anything like that. Shortest country name in the Factbook ^_^ ] 07:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I was under the interpretation that they were making roughly the some observation as me above: i.e. it is mentioned in tertiary summaries elsewhere for Germany more often than for Japan. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::] states that {{tq|Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources}} and not anything specifically about tertiary sources. ] says that {{tq|Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources}}. Could you cite the specific policy that states or suggests we should weight our coverage based on how Brittanica, or another tertiary sources, covers the topic? This runs into all sorts of issues in application, including one that you have already encountered—the Britannica Germany lead being significantly longer than the Japan lead. ] (]) 00:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:I suspect having it in the lead of the ] article (it isn't) might be the bigger priority. As for defining, I note that what happened then is still very much present in many people's minds in nearby countries (see ]) so it affects current regional politics. ] (]) 07:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::This is a good point, I might focus there. The body of that article also has some major holes. ] (]) 00:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:It's already in the lead of the ] article, where they are more closely associated with. Modern Japan is usually not often associated with these acts anymore, if you like that or not. Even in the lead of the Germany article, a country that is still widely known today for its war atrocities and is often regarded as having started both World Wars, the Holocaust is only mentioned in one word. ] (]) 23:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{talk ref}}


== Video game sector ==


I feel like the content about Japan's video game sector in the science and technology section would fit better in the media section since it is more focused on Japan's video game market instead of its video game industry. ] (]) 07:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
==Wildlife==


:I now because placing it in the science and technology section was probably just a mistake by someone. However, I still think the content about the video game sector rather belongs in the media section. ] (]) 07:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Why no one mention this? It's a great point.

Latest revision as of 00:00, 4 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Featured articleJapan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 15, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 14, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 18, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 10, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 26, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 12, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
April 14, 2011Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
This  level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAsia: Japan Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Japan (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconEast Asia (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
          Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 88 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2010, when it received 10,063,050 views.


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 Misplaced Pages 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: rejected by BorgQueen (talk08:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

( )

Created by Letizia Ferhati (talk). Self-nominated at 21:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Japan; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Question - @Letizia Ferhati: Are you sure you nominated the correct article? Japan does not appear eligible for DYK; it was not created by you but by User:Alan D in 2001, and has neither been 5x expanded nor made into a GA recently, and indeed has been a Featured Article since 2007. Japan does not meet the "New" criteria of WP:DYKCRIT, did you mean to nominate a different article? - Aoidh (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Closing. As noted in the above comment by Aoidh this doesn't meet requirements, although it is understandable that the DYK process name causes confusion in this regard. CMD (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

established_event3 = First Developed Adytiaramdani67 (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding human rights issues in Japan

Whenever I make edits related to issues of discrimination against women, they are deleted. The fact that abortion can only be performed with the consent of the man and the fact that the gender gap index is poor are always deleted. This is true, and all sources have been disclosed. The gender gap was also included in the Japanese version.I don't understand why they were removed even though these are true.流山隆一 (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please consult the edit summaries explaining why your edits were removed. Remsense ‥  18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
The section should b removed all together...... human rights are not a concern here. Moxy🍁 22:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but the reliable sources disagree. OP has already pointed out some of these human rights issues. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense your edit summary stated that i think these are worth including but the prose needs considerable work, as this is a featured article. Unfortunately, there is no policy that states that sourced changes to an article can be removed or contested solely because they might threaten its rating. If the prose needs rework, then rework it! Reverts should only be used instead of improvements when you are totally unable to improve the text yourself, but we are talking about three sentences here. What's more, @流山隆一 did rework the grammar in subsequent edits, yet you reverted them anyways, perhaps failing to read them and therefore failing to note that the grammar had been improved. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
There is such a policy, it's called WP:ONUS. We're reworking it here: I think maintaining the consistent quality of articles as such is important for readers as a balance/potential WP:NPOV issue, and this will likely result in a better article for the extra attention and collaboration. Remsense ‥  05:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
This is a high-level summary article, meaning that not every fact that is true should be included. Claims that a specific private individual committed offenses is definitely not something that should be included here. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I understand that in the previous edit, I quoted part of the notation from the title of the article because my English was insufficient, and it was pointed out that it was a violation of copyright law, and it was deleted. However, this time I am posting an overview, so I am not quoting the article's expression. Also, if it is inappropriate to post a specific person's crime, it is clearly abnormal that the gender gap index is also deleted. It's not fair. 流山隆一 (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Johnny Kitagawa's crimes were systematic, involving the entire company and media. The United Nations Human Rights and Business Commission has pointed out that Japan needs an organization that protects human rights independent of the government. 流山隆一 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
If the involvement of the entire company can be sourced, that could be something to discuss in the company's article - but still not here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
It was an open secret that the president of Johnny's was committing sexual crimes against men. This has been revealed for a long time through disclosure books and court cases by multiple singers. Sexual crimes were also committed in the restrooms of the national broadcasting station and Asahi TV. When Mr. Kitagawa died, many politicians and the media paid tribute to him and held a grand funeral. This was despite the fact that the crime had already been discovered in court in the 1960s. 流山隆一 (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The topic here is human rights.And while LGBT is described as a problem, descriptions of discrimination against women are not allowed. Japan has been famous for its gender discrimination since ancient times. In fact, many women were discriminated against in medical school entrance exams. It is also not acceptable for a woman to have an abortion without her partner's consent. Please tell me why you can't even describe the gender gap index even though you can write about LGBT. 流山隆一 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the claim that "Japan has been famous for its gender discrimination since ancient times"? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
If you've ever lived in Japan, you'll understand. More than 70 years have passed since the birth of women as national representatives, but the proportion of women in Japan's House of Representatives has increased from 8.4% in 1946 to 9.7% in November 2021. The proportion of cabinet positions held by women is 10.0% (2 out of 20), ranking 151st in the world. The Minister of Justice once said, ``Women are child-bearing machines. By the way CHIKAN, a sex crime committed on a train, involves not only touching but also putting one's hand inside someone's clothes, but even if a complaint was filed with the police, it was not treated as a crime for many years. Moreover, many men say that the problem is not so much the crime of CHIKAN but the false accusation. The BBC reports that CHIKAN crimes are being circulated as cell videos.And Housewives are forced to work only up to an annual income of 1,030,000 yen because they are taxed and don't want to pay their own pension premiums. As a result, women who do not get married also have trouble finding employment.This is Japan.https://hrn-or-jp.translate.goog/eng/news/2024/09/16/cedaw-japan-review-report/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=ja&_x_tr_hl=ja&_x_tr_pto=sc 流山隆一 (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The part about Kitigawa was only a portion of what was removed. The text stating Japan's 2024 gender equality ranked 118th among 146 countries and the fact that A woman cannot have an abortion without her partner's consent is exactly the sort of information you would expect from a high-level summary article, and yet some folks are pushing back on that too. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
To be clear: my position is simply that the material required some level of preliminary editing and attention before it was added to the article. I hope that comes off in good faith. Remsense ‥  05:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Did you actually read 流山隆一's edits that did exactly that before reverting them again? The most recent version they tried to include in the article has none of the prose issues earlier versions did. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I mean, their most recent addition had Johnny Kitagawa, a prominent J-pop agent, committed child sexual abuse. More than 300 people are demanding compensation from their agency. How on earth would this be an acceptable addition to this article? Remsense ‥  05:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
It would have been fine to delete that sentence instead of reverting the entire edit. That sentence was also not in their original edit, and is problematic on other grounds that have been raised above. Regardless, would you support a version of their edit without the mention of Kitigawa? Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I likewise think that the material on gender equality as most recently articulated would be fine to re-add by itself: apologies for not being immediately forthcoming about that. Remsense ‥  05:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
It should be explained that this ranking comes from the World Economic Forum, but that's an easy fix. The article already cites other WEF rankings, so I support re-adding this paragraph. More broadly, Japan#Human rights seems conspicuously undersized in proportion to its significance to the topic, and in proportion to Human rights in Japan. This is an overview article, so we do expect some redundancy with sub-topic articles. Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Have redone the section to summarize the main article with new sources.....best keep random stats to a minimum in the article and simply state the facts to sources that explain over general index stats.Moxy🍁 08:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your discussion. Last time, I was dissatisfied because the human rights content was limited to LGBT issues, but I now understand that other human rights issues were also covered. 流山隆一 (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Mentions of WWII atrocities in lead

I recently introduced a line mentioning the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Japanese Empire to the lead. This is a significant event in Japanese history and failing to mention it here would be like failing to mention the Holocaust in the lead for Germany. @Moxy apparently wishes to challenge these changes, but provided no policy-based explanation for their challenge. Moxy, do you care to say more? Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Simply WP:Undue .....as its not something that is covered in quick summarizes of the country like Germany and the holocaust. Every major power has crimes attached to them but only a few are defining in nature. Moxy🍁 06:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
So, I checked Britannica, and it's a bit complicated since the lead for Germany's is significantly longer than Japan's or either of ours'. However, it seems to roughly equivocate to the present proportion. Are there any other tertiary sources we can be looking at to evaluate lead dueness here?Remsense ‥  06:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
But why is it undue? Contrary to your claim, the Misplaced Pages article for Germany does mention the Holocaust in its lead. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I was under the interpretation that they were making roughly the some observation as me above: i.e. it is mentioned in tertiary summaries elsewhere for Germany more often than for Japan. Remsense ‥  00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:DUE states that Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources and not anything specifically about tertiary sources. WP:V says that Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. Could you cite the specific policy that states or suggests we should weight our coverage based on how Brittanica, or another tertiary sources, covers the topic? This runs into all sorts of issues in application, including one that you have already encountered—the Britannica Germany lead being significantly longer than the Japan lead. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I suspect having it in the lead of the History of Japan article (it isn't) might be the bigger priority. As for defining, I note that what happened then is still very much present in many people's minds in nearby countries (see Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine) so it affects current regional politics. Erp (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
This is a good point, I might focus there. The body of that article also has some major holes. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
It's already in the lead of the Empire of Japan article, where they are more closely associated with. Modern Japan is usually not often associated with these acts anymore, if you like that or not. Even in the lead of the Germany article, a country that is still widely known today for its war atrocities and is often regarded as having started both World Wars, the Holocaust is only mentioned in one word. Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Video game sector

I feel like the content about Japan's video game sector in the science and technology section would fit better in the media section since it is more focused on Japan's video game market instead of its video game industry. Maxeto0910 (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I now moved the paragraph to the industry and services section because placing it in the science and technology section was probably just a mistake by someone. However, I still think the content about the video game sector rather belongs in the media section. Maxeto0910 (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: