| Revision as of 10:34, 30 December 2006 editJohn Smith's (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,813 edits →Compromise← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:00, 4 January 2025 edit undoMaxeto0910 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users94,300 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{fac}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{oldpeerreview}} |
|
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
{{WikiProject Japan|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=14 Jan 2004 |
|
{{facfailed|Japan/archive1}} |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2003 to January 2004#Japan |
|
{{DelistedGA}} |
|
|
|
|action1result=failed |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=2158549 |
|
|- |
|
|
| width="40px" | ] |
|
|
| This article is a former ]. Please ''''']''''' to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the ]. |
|
|
] |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{FAOL|French|fr:Japon|lang2=Norwegian|link2=no:Japan|lang3=Vietnamese|link3=vi:Nhật Bản}} |
|
|
{{V0.5|class=B|category=Geography}} |
|
|
{{WPCD}} |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAC |
|
<!--Template:Archivebox begins--> |
|
|
|
|action2date=18 Nov 2004 |
|
{| class="infobox" width="315px" |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2004#Japan |
|
|- |
|
|
|
|action2result=failed |
|
! align="center" | ]<br />] |
|
|
|
|action2oldid=7641321 |
|
---- |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# <!--]--> |
|
|
# |
|
|
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAC |
|
|
|action3date=2006-08-10, 02:41:20 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Japan/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result=failed |
|
|
|action3oldid=68735516 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=PR |
|
== Templates at the end of the article == |
|
|
|
|action4date=28 August 2006 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Japan/archive1 |
|
|
|action4result=Reviewed |
|
|
|action4oldid=72486591 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=FAC |
|
We have nearly a dozen templates at the end of the article. Are all of them desirable? If not, which ones are redundant or of lesser importance? ] 05:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5date=20:17, 9 January 2007 |
|
:The recently added sea articles. They are the biggest but provide the least useful information. Do we need to link Chile and Fiji to Japan - they are on opposites sides of the world? --] 05:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Japan/archive2 |
|
|
|action5result=failed |
|
|
|action5oldid=99606762 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=FAC |
|
==]== |
|
|
|
|action6date=16:41, 26 March 2007 |
|
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Japan/archive3 |
|
|
|action6result=not promoted |
|
|
|action6oldid=118031781 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=FAC |
|
This articles contents should be incorporated into the country article page given that Japan is unique in a global minority of countries that still carry on the practise. Like Norway they have argued to the IWC that it is an integral cultural aspect of their nation, yet it isn't mentioned anywhere on the page. ] 07:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7date=03:22, 12 April 2007 |
|
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Japan |
|
|
|action7result=promoted |
|
|
|action7oldid=122108297 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action8=FAR |
|
:This seems like a relatively small part of Japan to be squeezed into an already cramped article. ''']'''|] <sub>-- I like traffic lights --</sub> 04:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action8date=05:20, 14 April 2011 |
|
|
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Japan/archive1 |
|
|
|action8result=kept |
|
|
|action8oldid=423895108 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|maindate=May 15, 2007 |
|
== Tokyo a city? == |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=FA |vital=yes |1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Asia |importance=Top |japan=yes |japan-importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject East Asia |importance=Top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{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=]}} |
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{All time pageviews|88}} |
|
|
{{Annual report|]|10,063,050}} |
|
|
{{page views}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 21 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Japan/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target= Talk:Japan/Archive index |
|
|
|mask= Talk:Japan/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= |
|
|
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Japan/Index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Japan/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=no |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
There's some contradiction here: |
|
|
|
<!-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Did you know nomination== |
|
:''Its capital and largest city is ].'' |
|
|
|
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Japan}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2024 == |
|
Now, the article on Tokyo says that it is an administrative region, not a city. What was ] existed up to 1943. Please rewrite the sentence to make it clear. --] 11:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Japan|answered=yes}} |
|
::Maybe its like Washington DC where the city controls its own area. Washington DC is not considered to be part of a state its by itself. Maybe Tokyo is the same. ] 13:22, 15 November 2006 (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 == |
|
:::The analogy with Washington, D.C. is an interesting one. The difficulty is that Washington occupies all of D.C. (as the article says, they're "coextensive"). It doesn't illustrate the land that's outside the old city of Tokyo but still inside the present-day Tokyo-To. |
|
|
|
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"> ‥ </span>]</span> 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::For an analogy that shows this difference, look to New York, N.Y. The old Tokyo City was like the City of New York, and the old Tokyo-Fu and the present-day Tokyo-To are analogous to the State of New York. An address would have been in Tokyo City, Tokyo-Fu just as a present-day address is in New York City, NY. Tokyo City occupied only part of Tokyo-Fu, and the rest of Tokyo-Fu had separate cities, towns, and villages; in the same way, New York City occupies only part of New York State, and the rest of the state has its own separate cities and towns. Imagine that the City of New York disbanded, and its five boroughs (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island) were made into cities, each with an individual mayor, city council, and so forth. The five new cities would constitute the former city of New York, in much the same way that the 23 special wards constitute the former city of Tokyo. |
|
|
|
::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"> ‥ </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) |
|
:::An additional difficulty arises in that the word "city" means more than one thing. It could mean the land where a local government has jurisdiction, and it could mean the local government (the corporation headed by the mayor and city council, with authority to hire people, levy taxes, borrow money, enact and enforce ordinances etc.). It could also mean the more abstract pattern of dwelling, communication, transportation etc. that characterizes a city. Tokyo City, having been disbanded, is no longer a local government; there is no corporation headed by a mayor and so on. Rather, there are 23 city governments in the land where there was once one. Similarly, if New York City were dissolved and replaced by five city governments, it would cease to be a single corporation, and five would take its place. But would it cease to be a city as an abstract pattern of dwelling, communication, transportation and the like? No, those would persist; similarly, they persist in Tokyo. So Tokyo continues to be a city in this sense of the word. The difficulty is that the boundaries of such an abstract city are difficult to specify. They differ according to the phenomenon one is investigating, and they change as time passes. Corporate boundaries of cities, in contrast, are clearly laid out, and persist long enough to take a census, measure an area, and report population and density in an encyclopedia. |
|
|
|
::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) |
|
:::But the boundaries of the old city of Tokyo are still there. One can add the populations of the 23 special wards, and the result is what the city of Tokyo would have if it were still a corporate body. Many people do that, and report the figure of eight million. It's up to the Misplaced Pages community to decide if the word city should be used to report that as the population of one city or of 23. |
|
|
|
:::::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) |
|
|
::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) |
|
:::--] 21:58, 15 November 2006 (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 ] (]) 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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
::Technically Tokyo is a ] which is defined as a major city. Going by that I think the use of city is justified. ] 14:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
:::Tokyo's government calls itself a metropolis. What it is is quite different from a major city. It includes a major city, certainly. However, it also encompasses large tracts of forest, tall mountains, active volcanoes, national parks, uninhabited islands and more. If you want additional detail and discussion, you'll find it at ] ] 09:25, 3 December 2006 (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"> ‥ </span>]</span> 06:38, 26 October 2024 (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) |
|
|
:::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"> ‥ </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 == |
|
== Korea was not the only source of Chinese culture for classical Japan == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Chinese writing, Buddhism, advanced pottery were not "all introduced by Korea." Chinese Buddhist monks and commoners also went directly to Japan either by sea or through Korean peninsula. There is a reason why a lot of Japanese kanji have 呉音 (]) pronunciations. Go-on was based on the Chinese dialect (呉方言) spoken around Nanjing/Suzhou in southeast coastal China (呉越地方). The ancient name for ] is Go 呉. There is no way Go-on could have came from Sino-Korean, unless you believe a lot of <u>Southern</u> Chinese lived in Korea during Baekje. If Southern Chinese can reach Korea, they could reach Japan too. Japan's earliest book ] was written based on kanji in the Go-on pronunciations. The idea that everything that Japan got from China had to be first filtered by Korea is not substantiated. More like modern quasi-fascist Korean propaganda. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
While quite a bit of Chinese culture might have been introduced via Korea's Baekje, there is also a lot of evidence suggesting direct communication existed between the Chinese and Japanese during the first millennium, particularly from the Chinese coastal region near the ] (]/Suzhou area), which has direct one-way sea current to ]. --] 18:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Ainu - No mention?== |
|
|
I'm surprised there's no mention of the Ainu people in this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
:] |
|
|
: Shibuya crossing is one of the largest pedestrian crossings and shopping areas.Japan's population is estimated at around 127,463,611. For the most part, Japanese society is linguistically and culturally homogeneous with only small populations of foreign workers, Zainichi Korean and others. Japan has indigenous minority groups such as the <big>'''Ainu'''</big> and Ryūkyūans, and social minority groups like the burakumin. |
|
|
|
|
|
:There is.--] 04:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==FA nomination?== |
|
|
|
|
|
I think we seem to have got most of the problems sorted out, apart from petty vandalism (which we can't do much about). Shall we focus on a general check for grammar, spelling and the like? If it comes out a-okay, would someone like to list for FA? ] 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Give me a break. This article is so POV. It just goes to show how overwhelmingly pro-Japanese Misplaced Pages is... and infested with anime-lovers, Japan nerds, members of the Chrysanthemum Club, etc. There is virtually an article for every little aspect of Japanese society on Misplaced Pages and it is all written POV. Each article is written to maximize a positive portrayal without balance, even deleting facts or twisting the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
:For example, a report by the United Nations has said that racism in Japan is "deep and profound", but look at the following in the Japan article: |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Immigration, however, is not popular as recent increased crime rates are often attributed to foreigners living in Japan both by the National Police Agency and in popular Japanese media. '''''But''' despite public views on foreigners, the Japanese in general do not mind foreigners in their country, and this is pointed out when comparing the increasingly common inter-marriage between Japanese and foreigners, '''but''' opinions on "rebellious" foreigners are still strong. Ethnic issues are improving, so there is a narrow but strong chance that if more foreigners enter Japan, and decide to marry another foreigner or Japanese resident, this may increase the chance of the population growing again.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:Can you say "weasel words"? The use of "but" twice in the same sentence to try to explain away things. What a JOKE of an article... You people should be ASHAMED of yourselves. How can you allow this??? Ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
|
:It seems the Japanese-American-British Alliance still dominates here... Shameful.--] 04:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I wish I could just delete all the contributions I've made to Misplaced Pages. All of it. I can't stand how people selectively pick and choose the content that I've created using it towards their own biases in such a blatant way. Assholes.--] 04:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This used to be an A-Class article. Certain people brought it down to B-Status by twisting facts, using weasel words, and adding convoluted sentences to "explain away" things. It should not be a Featured Article until these issues are resolved. I don't think that's possible with the group that is editing the article right now.--] 00:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I would suggest going for GA status first. If we can get it there, then FA would be a good next step. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 00:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::A beautiful vase that has small holes at its bottom is still a worthless vase.--] 08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Edgar, there isn't that much wrong with the article. Stop making mountains out of molehills! ] 13:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've removed the personal attacks which do not belong here. Please do not use this talk page to bicker back and forth. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]o]</small></sup> 06:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Religion in Japan == |
|
|
|
|
|
Although the original religions in Japan were Buddhism and Hinduism (the two religions borrowed from China), what part of the century was Christianity brought to Japan? --] |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not sure about Hindu, and I'd call Shinto original. Christianity arrived in 1549 with Francis Xavier. ] 07:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Yeah; many elements of Hinduism may have been absorbed into Japanese Buddhism, but the Japanese never practiced Hinduism per se. ] 09:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Christianity was brought to Japan in the 16th century? I don't think so, it was brought to Japan in the 19th century. Shinto is a false religion, am I right? --] |
|
|
|
|
|
:Christianity was definitely in Japan with nationwide spread (07:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)) in the 16th century. (It might have been known to a very few people several centuries earlier, but I've never heard of any converts or practitioners.) As for Shinto, what is your definition of a false religion? ] 07:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::There was a movement in the late Meiji period to absorb Shinto into "traditional culture" and to essentially declare it no longer a religion. To this day, many (most?) Japanese will follow certain ritual traditions of both Shinto and Buddhism while insisting that they're not religious, just traditional. Essentially, Shinto (the Way of the Gods) is ''of course'' a religion, but Meiji-era ideology and other 19th-20th century developments in culture and ideology have turned people's perceptions of it. (PS I don't mean to speak for PJ Pete; I do not presume to know what he was referring to.) ] 09:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
why doesn't this article say anything about the Kirishtan Holocaust during 1596-1597? {{unsigned|74.120.149.188|17:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
::Because (a) this is a very general overview article on every single aspect of the country; Misplaced Pages's not hiding it or anything - see ], ], ], and ] for more. (b) It's simply not as significant an event, considering the whole full range of Japanese history (or world history) as some sources might make it out to be. It was certainly not a ], and was not nearly as systematic and widespread as some sources may indicate. It was still a significant development, absolutely, within the context of missionary history of East Asia, religious history of early modern Japan, etc, but not, I would argue, within the broad spectrum of all that "Japan" or "Japanese history" or even "Edo period history" encompasses. I hope I am not reading too much into your question and am not being too harsh in my response. Simply want to be clear, is all. Merry Christmas! ] 21:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Confirmation? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article ] about a game ingvented in Japan includes the line "Every year, in Japan, August 9 is declared 'Park Golf Day' in hopes of raising the profile of the game." Does anyone know how to confirm this? ] 05:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, 8/9 can be pronounced as Pa Ku; so it is not completely unreasonable. Sorry, no real answer though. Speaking of which, does anyone know if there is an article about some of the other number pronounciations (like, 11/22 is ii fuufu, a popular day for marriage; etc). ] 06:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::There's a little bit in ]. It's not specifically about number pronunciations. Also a bit in ]. If you write an article, you can include May 30 (gomi zero), the usual story about 8-9-3 (yakuza) (whether it's true or not I don't know, but it's repeated often enough to be a good example of a number pronunciation even if it's not the actual derivation of the word), 39 (sankyu, "thank you" which for example McDonald's once used as a promotional price for a hamburger), 42 (shini, "death") and 4219 (shiniiku, "go to death": see ]), くノ一 (a female ninja, "ku-no-ichi": if you put the three together you get 女). Daytime television programs have lots of ads with catchy ways to remember the telephone numbers; these can provide examples. Newspapers and weekly magazines have many of the same. ] 07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There is an article about ]. --] 08:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Thanks, that's a new one on me! ] 08:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I just realized that you probably were asking about an official Japanese gov't declaration or something. That is not likely. I just found http://www.ipga.jp/01/pg-day.html which is not what I would call a solid reference, but, it at least shows that the park golf association refers to it that way. ] 06:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That's what I was looking for. Thank you everybody. ] 13:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== For anyone who knows Japanese history... == |
|
|
|
|
|
Did the Japanese adopt a lot of the culture from China, or is it because the Japanese did originally come from the Chinese, and brought the culture over to the new land? Because someone tells me that Japan has a history of adopting other cultures (whichever is the most dominant) to better themselves; first they take the culture of China, then, when they found out about the dominance of the Europeans later on, they started to adopt their practices (and started using guns, etc). The Japanese also tried to take over other areas and lands (imperialism) during the time of the second World War, to immitate the success the Europeans had -- such as the Rape of Nan King. The person told me that Japanese just have a constant habit of adopting to new cultures -- according to him, it's in their culture AND in their bloodline to imitate the most dominant culture. Any of these theories true? Is it just in their nature and personallity? I would think that all other cultures are guilty of the same thing -- to adopt a more dominant society's culture (it's just survival). I don't know enough of Japanese history, or other World history for that matter. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
::Well, as with any historical subject it is much more complicated than is able to be concisely explained, but I'd be happy to cover the main points. |
|
|
::#The Japanese are ''not'' ethnically originally Chinese. The influence from China came largely after the Japanese were settled in Japan as their own people, with their own culture, etc. China was to Asia in many ways what Greece & Rome were to Europe - the dominant ancient culture which others sought to emulate. |
|
|
::#The Rape of Nanking is by far not the whole story to Japanese imperialism, it's just the one point that racists and anti-Japanese extremists choose to focus on, and has absolutely nothing to do with "imitating the success of the Europeans." Japan invaded China, Korea, and other parts of Asia for, essentially, three reasons: (1) national gain - Japan needed land, natural resources, etc. (2) they sought to prove their power and worth to Europe, so that Europe might view them as equals on the world stage, and treat them fairly politically and economically, and (3) in order to help sweep away European dominance from Asia - motivated allegedly by some sort of feeling of brotherhood with the other Asian nations, and seeking to ally with them to maintain their independence from Europe. |
|
|
::#Admittedly, most of what your friend says is not incorrect in the details, but it sounds as though he is coming from a fairly racist, anti-Japanese (possibly pro-Chinese, pro-Korean) point of view, and has framed the whole thing in the wrong perspective. As you say, every country does what it can to get ahead, including "borrowing" or "adopting" cultural elements, technology, etc, from others. And that's basically what Japan did. Korea borrowed from China, too. China borrowed from Europe, England borrowed from Wales and Scotland... |
|
|
::Um... I guess I've hopefully clarified things a bit. Please feel free to ask further questions... only by understanding the true motivations behind historical events, rather than viewing them through the lens of another culture's basic assumptions and biases can we hope to discover the true story of history. ] 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
Is koku measurement? If it is, then why is it an element of so many names? Particularly regional names? And, most especially, the official national name? |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
This period also saw the first use of the word {{nihongo|''Nihon''|日本}} as a name for the emerging state. |
|
|
|
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
<nowiki> |
|
|
|
|
|
This period also saw the first use of the word {{nihongo|''Nihon''|日本}} as a name for the emerging state. |
|
|
|
|
|
</nowiki> |
|
|
|
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
Can you provide depth to?: |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank You. |
|
|
|
|
|
] | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 17:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Koku~country (国) and Koku~measurement (石 or sometimes 斛) are different characters and have unrelated meanings as far as I know. As to "depth" ... I'm not sure what you are looking for. In the current article, see: '''The characters that make up Japan's name literally means "the sun's origin", thus Japan is also sometimes known as the self-identified "The Land of the Rising Sun", a name that comes from the country's eastward position relative to mainland Asia.''' Nihon and Nippon are alternate readings of the "sun-origin" characters (日本) ... "go" (語) is a character that roughly means language, so Nihongo is literally "sun-origin-language", or perhaps a little more eloquently, "the language of the Land of the Rising Sun". I hope this helps! ] 18:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Also, Misplaced Pages has an article on ]. It has more depth. ] 21:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Style clean-up - Economics section == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've gone in and fixed some of the more glaringly awkward phrases in the Economics section, such as the redundant "For example such as..." But I am not too well versed in financial/economics jargon, and there is one more phrase I think ought to be looked at again. "the Tokyo Stock Exchange, with a market capitalization of over 4 trillion USD." This sounds odd to me, but I have no idea how to fix it. How is "market capitalization" supposed to be used in context? Thank you. ] 10:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Good Article? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think this article should now be nominated as a GA. Any seconders.? |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree it should be nominated. ] 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Is it stable enough? Are we truly done arguing over "China and Korea" vs "continental East Asia", and over the phrasing of references to Korea/Baekje's early cultural influence? ] 18:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::No, and no. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::But Hong, people like you are never satisfied and never try to resolve anything on the talk page. If we have a vote, will you shut up? ] 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I will "shut up" when this article accurately reflects its sources. And please do not personally attack me. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::HongQiGong, you appear to have violated ]. Please also watch for ] violations as well. Everyone, you need to discuss controversial changes beforehand, if it may be against consensus.--] 18:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Yes, I realised that after you mentioned it. My first revert within the last 24 hours was actually before I went to bed last night. I apologise. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::So maybe you should self-revert as a sign of good faith. ] 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Hong, so what you're saying is that you will always push your POV even if every single editor disagrees with you? You're not even willing to respect the views of a majority of editors? I would be. ] 18:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::No. Please don't put words in my mouth. I am saying I will always edit to accurately reflect the sources cited. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::So if you take part in the poll below, will you respect it? Yes or no, please. ] 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::If the poll justifies bad editing and inaccurate information as per sources cited, then I think the poll is meaningless. Please read ]. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 19:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::Then you should have refused to take part. You can't use a poll to push for your own POV and then reject it if you don't like the result. So either strike out your vote and boycott it/comment further, or let it stand and agree to be bound by the result. ] 19:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Again, please read ]. Polls are for probing opinions and are not binding. I wanted to participate in the opinion probe that you initiated, so I voted. And again, please don't put words in my mouth. I am not "pushing my own POV". I am pushing for information on this article to accurately reflect its sources. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::So you won't respect the result of the poll if you don't like it, then. Ok, I just wanted to be absolutely sure on that. ] 19:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Again, please read ]. Polls are not binding, and are for probing opinions. A poll does not justify bad editing and inaccurate information. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 19:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::"The lady doth protest too much, methinks!" ] 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Hey, I only want the article to reflect what its sources say. I believe you were the one that kept harping on me to discuss and to take part in a poll, only to complain, or "protest", about what I have to say. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==How to refer to the spread of "influence" from the mainland to Japan - AGAIN== |
|
|
|
|
|
We've already had a discussion on this, but certain parties are still not satisfied. So I would like to have another discussion on this and a vote. This should be the final time we talk about this, to the point where if any editors try to insert their desired interpretation in we should agree to revert it back even if we secretly might prefer it. This is to be honest a ridiculous argument, so we shouldn't waste much more time on it. ] 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Poll=== |
|
|
|
|
|
This is a poll to resolve the issue of how we can refer to the transition of culture to Japan in the relevant part of the "Jomon and Yayoi eras" section of the article. The one problem last time was that people could vote multiple times for multiple suggestions. This time we should vote once for what we prefer. |
|
|
|
|
|
This poll should last two weeks from publication. For either option to be regarded as having sufficient support, it must have a majority of votes supporting it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign '''underneath''' the option you wish to choose for the disputed part, stating '''Support Option X'''. If you vote ''you are agreeing to be bound by the decision of a majority of votes'' - if you reserve the right to edit as you see fit, do not take part. |
|
|
|
|
|
====Options==== |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Option 1''' |
|
|
|
|
|
''"The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from China and Korea."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Support Option 1''' - Because it accurately reflects the sources cited. And also, I want to point out ]. This poll is meaningless if it justifies bad editing and inaccurate reflection of sources cited. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Comment''' You have waived any complaints over the validity of the poll by voting, as I mentioned above. If you want to claim option 2 is unacceptable, then you should have commented first. ] 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Comment''' Please read ]. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
'''Support'''. - I think "continental East Asia" is a copout. ] 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Comment''' - I'd be fascinated to learn more about potential connections between Japan and SE Asia in the early formative period; but as the vast majority of sources out there say China & Korea, and have very specific things to say about it (so-and-so first introduced Buddhism to Japan in X year in such-and-such a way...); until we have the kinds of sources that back definitive statements about what was brought from Viet Nam, Champa, Kamboja, whatever, in what year, etc, ... ] 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::'''Comment''' - More importantly, the sources do not day that rice farming, iron and bronze making come from "East Asia". ] <small>(] - ])</small> 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::'''Comment'''. You're right; that's why I've voted for this option. But I really must say, since becoming an editor on the 'pedia, I've become increasingly tired of such debates. "East Asia" or "continental East Asia" or whatever is a copout, and a compromise, but it's not wholly inaccurate. I would much much rather see Stability here than to push through my personal opinion of how this should be phrased. Whichever result is agreed upon I will absolutely respect and go along with - it's about time we all got over this, and let it be, so that this article, and others, can be relatively stable. ] 23:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Option 2''' |
|
|
|
|
|
''"The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from continental East Asia."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Support Option 2''' ] 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Support Option 2''' ] 19:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Support Option 2''' shows a possible Mongolian connection. shows a likely Southeast Asian connection. Therefore "''Continental East Asia''" is the most accurate wording.--] 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Comment''' - So we can add Mongolia along with China and Korea as cultures that influenced Yayoi Japan. And if I might note, the sentence in question here talks about how rice farming, iron and bronze making were introduced to Yayoi. Do those sources say that these things were introduced to the Yayoi culture by Mongolians or Southeast Asians? ] <small>(] - ])</small> 20:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Option 3''' |
|
|
|
|
|
''"The Yayoi period, starting around the 3rd century BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from the Chinese mainland and the Korean Peninsula."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Support Option 3''' Talking about China and Korea in this time period is a clear anachronism and "Continental East Asia" does sound like it is trying to hide something. This article shouldn't be about promoting nationalist agendas, it should be about accurately reflecting what historian currently believe to be the case. If people think there is clear evidence that there was a significant number of immigrants from other areas (although I live in Japan, have read lots of books on the subject in Japanese by serious Japanese scholars, and they are all pretty much in agreement (and do not try to deny) that the influence was from the mainland and the Korean peninsula), I would be open to adding "primarily" before the word "migrants", although I don't think it is necessary at all.-] 23:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:First of all, was there such a thing as the "Chinese mainland" then? What overseas territories did China have? Second I don't think that is actually a valid vote, as you've just stuck this in the comments section. I have modified the title until we can clear this up. ] 23:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Of course there was. It is a geographical term (like Korean Peninsula). Note the distinction with "Mainland China", which is a geopolitical term. And I don't understand why this isn't a valid vote. Are you the only person who can decide what options we have to choose from?-] 23:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Misplaced Pages actually redirects "Chinese mainland" to "Mainland China", so it might be confusing - maybe you could think of something else, given people have raised questions about other Asian influences as well. Also the vote was in some respects invalid because you put the new option in the comments section - which made it look like you were arguing for a third option to be included. I was not "deciding" you couldn't have another option, I was trying to make things clearer. ] 23:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Okay. Sorry for misplacing the new option. That was unintentional. And if someone can think of a better term, I would be open to it. But I think Misplaced Pages's redirect is wrong and should be fixed. Mainland is the noun and Chinese is a modifier, and this term refers to a geographical location. Geographical names are retroactive, but geopolitical terms (like Mainland China, where the noun is the political entity known as "China") are not, and I think there is a very clear difference between the two. In Japan it is just referred to as "the mainland" and everyone knows what you mean. Outside of Japan, however, you need to add a modifier to distinguish it from other mainlands. The question is what that modifier should be. "Chinese mainland" gets over 1 million hits in Google. "Continental East Asia" gets about 800. And rather than tryin to catalog where all of the influences came from (all of which will almost certainly be minor, compared to the mainland and the Korean peninsula), I think we could just add "primarily", although, like I said, above, I just don't think this is necessary.-] 00:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The thing with google hits is that "Chinese mainland" is often used casually - sometimes in the way you think it shouldn't. ] 00:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Agreed, which is why I only quote them to show relative frequency among alternatives, and only when the difference is as significant as one million to eight hundred. But Google quotes or no, nothing changes the fact that the noun here is a geographical term and not a political entity. Do you have a different suggestion as to how we should refer to the geographical location? You even use the unmodified word "mainland" yourself in the title of this poll. I just think mainland, without some modifier, could be considered misleading to some. I continue to believe there is nothing wrong with Chinese mainland, but how about Asian mainland.-] 02:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::You could have mainland Asia - but in that case why distinguish the Korean peninsula? Why not just say mainland Asia and be done with it? ] 10:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Comments''' |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll opened. ] 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hong, the article you actually added to the reference says ''"A new wave of migration from the Asian continent began arriving on the island of Kyushu and islands in the Tsushima Strait beginning around c. 200 BC."'' Note "from the Asian continent". It does not say "China and Korea" all the time. So it does rather suggest you can say from Asia in a more general respect - option 2 is even more specific than that. ] 19:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The statement that is sourced is not specific about migration, but about how rice farming, iron and bronze making were introduced to the Yayoi culture. And if you read the next paragraph down from what you've quoted here, it said "The sudden emergence of the Yayoi culture had a profound impact on Japan, an impact that far surpassed even the transition imposed by the Industrial Revolution. Japanese culture changed almost overnight, as 8,000 years of cultural serenity was suddenly replaced by a very advanced culture that bore all the marks of China's Qin/Han culture. The three major symbols of the Japanese Kingdom: the bronze mirror, the sword, and the royal seal stone are exactly the same as symbols used by the Qin Dynasty." |
|
|
:And I want to add, I really don't understand the resistance in noting specifically China and Korea as sources of influence on Yayoi culture when so many sources specifically mention the two, instead of noting an ambiguous "continental East Asia". ] <small>(] - ])</small> 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hong, I don't understand why you consistantly refuse to accept any opinion other than yours gaining precedence on the article. The edit was adopted because of a dispute some time ago. It was thought better to have a more general term that was not just limited to China and Korea. That was what was thought then, maybe people have a different opinion now. It is unfortunate you are being so stubborn when others here have shown they are happy to accept a consensus and move on. ] 22:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's not my opinion of anything. The sources specifically mention both China and Korea. That's what the article should reflect. You seem to be skirting this issue and using a non-binding survey poll to justify an inaccurate edit. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You are correct that China was the most important influence to Japan. The credits '''Chinese colonies in Korea''' for the introduction of Chinese culture into Korea and Japan. It says: |
|
|
::::*''These colonies served as a base for a strong influx of Chinese culture into Korea, whence, in turn, it spread to Japan.'' |
|
|
::::] (''Lelang'', also called ''Lo-lang'', ''Luolang'' or ''Nangnang'') was the most successful of these Chinese colonies. Read more on "Chinese commanderies" . |
|
|
::::In fact the technology transfer was specifically '''"from China via Korea"''', and NOT "China and Korea" (ie: it didn't originate in Korea).--] 15:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Just as a side-note, I would like to stress that any consensus arising from the poll can of course be modified subsequently. At the moment I am trying to resolve a very specific conflict to improve page stability. LordAmeth has very graciously said he will respect the poll result - I wish other people would do the same. ] 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This has already been discussed, after much revert-warring and disruption. See the following: |
|
|
:*Previous discussion: ] |
|
|
:*Previous poll: ''']''' |
|
|
:If anybody is interested, there is an older discussion during the revert wars: |
|
|
:*Old discussion: ] |
|
|
:Pay particular attention to the "Previous poll" above. A consensus for "continental ]" had been reached previously. If anything I believe that wording that uses the word "mainland" or "continental" had consensus over specifically mentioning "China" and "Korea". And I believe that's still the consensus.--] 15:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Once again, please read ]. Polls are meant to be surveys and they're not binding. Having said that, the sources specifically say "China" and "Korea", not the ambiguous "continental East Asia" or any of its derivatives. That's what the article should reflect. It's more specific and accurate. It's really very straight-forward. Read the sources. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It says "Chinese colonies in Korea", NOT "China and Korea". As I stated above, "China and Korea" would be inaccurate.--] 16:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Out of the three existing sources for the statement in question, only the first one listed makes mention of colonies in Korea. Two other sources were taken out by ], and I don't believe they mentioned colonies either. But sure, if you feel it's more accurate to make mention of colonies, we can include that, also. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I agree with you that mentioning the colonies would be a good idea, and more encyclopedic. I really believe that the "from China via Korea" wording would be most accurate. However, editors from previous discussions wanted to include possibilities of "directly from China" and "directly from Korea". And there ARE citations saying rice farming may have reached Japan directly from China. Also, some editors denied that Korea existed back then because Korea was in its formative years. (Also, although not previously mentioned in any discussion, but stated in the Gina Lee Barnes citation above, North Korea denies that Chinese colonies existed in Korea.) So in conclusion, we ended up choosing the vague wording. Out of all the vague wordings, "Continental East Asia" was the most accurate, because ] is clearly defined in Misplaced Pages, and the word "continental" is unambiguous.--] 17:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::"East Asia" is problematic because that includes more than just Korea and China. Especially since we're talking about more than two thousand years ago, who knows what other cultures existed? The sources, however, specifically mentions Korea and China. That is a lot more accurate. Whether it's "China and Korea", "China via Korea", "China via Chinese colonies in Korea", etc etc, all these make specific mentions of China and Korea. |
|
|
::::::I do remember some editors saying that China and Korea did not exist back then. Unfortunately for them, in the face of existing sources, that would be ] and we can't use that. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 17:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::To say that China and Korea did not properly exist is not original research - it's common-sense. It's also widely apparent to anyone who reads Chinese/Korean history. ] 17:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Let me add that, there WERE extensive discussions before, and the previous poll WAS linked to discussions, in accordance with ]. HongQiGong, if you strongly believe that combining English words from dictionaries is original research (ie: "continental" and "East Asia"), I think you are in the minority.--] 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::No, not combining words from dictionaries. Saying Korea and China did not exist is original research - because sources overwhelmingly contradict that. And in accordance to that twisted logic, "Japan" did not exist either, only ''Wa'' did. That logic would entail that the history of Japan on WP starts when the English word "Japan" became common usage. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Anyway, again, ] states that polls are meant to be surveys, and are not binding. The sources specifically mentions "China" and "Korea". It's very simple. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::If ] was a Chinese commandery in Korea, a sizeable portion of Korea was part of China. Or arguably, an independent Korea perhaps didn't exist, or was very weak, or was still in its formative days. There are many interpretations. It is NOT original research.--] 18:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::That really doesn't matter. WP editors are not supposed to put their own conjectures into their edits. Again, that's original research. If there are reputable sources that claim "Korea did not exist" back then, then we might be able to include that in this article. We're only supposed to reflect what the sources say. And once again, sources specifically mentions China and Korea. The sources we have right now do not say Korea did not exist. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Like I said, "China and Korea" is wrong. It's "China via Korea" (or "Chinese colonies in Korea") per cited sources. It was made more vague due to discussions.--] 18:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Sure, we can certainly change the text to reflect that. But let me suggest something else. See the section below. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::We have to honor the consensus regardless. If you want change, you should consider building a new consensus, or try something else in ].--] 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Compromise== |
|
|
I still don't understand at all why we should use the ambiguous "East Asia" or "continental East Asia" when our sources specifically make mention of China and Korea. It flies against the rules on original research and polling. But whatever. Let me offer the obvious compromise - don't mention where the Yayoi influences come from at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
At present, there is only one single sentence about Yayoi, and that is not very informative at all. I suggest replacing this: |
|
|
:''The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from China and Korea.'' |
|
|
To this: |
|
|
:''The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery. Replacing the Jomon culture, Yayoi society became more complex and developed distinct social classes. Yayoi people wove cloth, lived in permanent farming villages, constructed buildings of wood and stone.'' |
|
|
All that information was taken from the Yayoi article. We can leave the issue of where these influences come from on the Yayoi article, which covers it in a lot more detail. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:My opinions follow.... |
|
|
:The status quo is: |
|
|
:*''The ], starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as ] farming and ] and ]-making brought by migrants from continental ].'' |
|
|
:The sentence may be changed to: |
|
|
:*''The ], starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as ] farming and ] and ]-making.'' |
|
|
:The pottery may be from ], ], etc. during the Kofun period. The other stuff are not necessary in the Japan article.--] 19:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::You're talking about a different controversy, that of the influences of Yamato culture. I think it's safe to assume that the pottery associated to the Yayoi culture has been dated to the Yayoi period, and not the Kofun period. |
|
|
::At any rate, why not include a little more information, like the re-write I suggested? The Yayoi period could use more than just one measly sentence in this article. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 19:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The pottery should be included if you have definitive sources. The other stuff are subjective comments, suggesting that some of those advancements never existed during the Jomon peiod. It's not solid knowledge, therefore not important enough to be included. That's what the main article ] is for. All the stuff we omit here should go there, and should go into more details there (not here).--] 19:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The three existing sources in the article concerning the Yayoi do cover these facts. One of those sources is specifically about pottery. They're only subjective if there are reputable sources to say that these practices are ''not'' new to the Yayoi period, because regardless of ''where'' these practices came from, sources agree that Yayoi practices were distinctly new and different from that of the Jomon. Here is a specific paragraph from one of the sources: |
|
|
::::*''The new mode of living appeared first on the north coast of Japan's southwesternmost island, Kyushu, just across the Korea Strait from South Korea. There we find Japan's first metal tools, of iron, and Japan's first undisputed full-scale agriculture. That agriculture came in the form of irrigated rice fields, complete with canals, dams, banks, paddies, and rice residues revealed by archeological excavations. Archeologists term the new way of living Yayoi, after a district of Tokyo where in 1884 its characteristic pottery was first recognized. Unlike Jomon pottery, Yayoi pottery was very similar to contemporary South Korean pottery in shape. Many other elements of the new Yayoi culture were unmistakably Korean and previously foreign to Japan, including bronze objects, weaving, glass beads, and styles of tools and houses.''. |
|
|
::::] <small>(] - ])</small> 19:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::HongQiGong, you haven't explained why these additional stuff (including pottery) are important enough to be included in this article. Why are they really so important to Japan? |
|
|
:::::Why not just put them in the Yayoi article?--] 19:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I just thought the Yayoi period could use more than one measly sentence, that's all. And its important because sources say that all those practices were introduced to Japan in the Yayoi period. I think it deserves mention. I mean, your question could be applied to basically anything and everything in the article. Your contention with the inclusion of that information is that it's subjective - but this is clearly not true unless we can find contradicting evidence to say that none of those things were new to the Yayoi. That the Yayoi style pottery existed in Jomon, that large-scale rice farming existed in Jomon, etc etc, that basically there was no such thing as a Yayoi period. |
|
|
::::::And the origins of those practices and influences would not be mentioned at all. So what's the problem? ] <small>(] - ])</small> 19:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::There's a simple reason for that: revert-warring. My question is applied only to areas in the ] article with proven potential for excessive revert-warring: Why introduce stuff with proven potential for excessive revert-warring, if they're not so important to ] as a whole, to begin with? For example, who cares if ''Yayoi pottery'' replaced ''Jomon pottery'', in terms of Japan as a whole? The details can be put in the ] article. We have a link to it, don't we?--] 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::If revert-warring is a good reason to leave out information, half the articles on WP would not exist. The Yayoi culture introduced entirely new practices to Japan, that's why it's important. Besides, like I keep saying, the information I mentioned is not subjective, so there's hardly any chance for revert-warring. According to your logic, a whole bunch of information could be taken out of this article. I mean, who cares if "Japan is the sixty-second largest country by area"? That can be put in Japan geography articles. Who cares if "The Jomon people made decorated clay vessels, often with plaited patterns"? That could be put in the Jomon article. etc etc. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 20:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Actually, I believe that you may be in violation of ] if you knowingly start a revert war by introducing disputed material. (Actually, you already DID start one and broke ].) The dispute is over "whether Korea existed" back then, and whether the word "Korea" should be used in that particular instance. Therefore, unless you have consensus regarding this topic, I suggest you don't make any changes to the "Yayoi" section of this article.--] 20:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I'm not sure how I violated ]. I edited the article to accurately reflect its sources. But yes, I realise I did violate ]. That was not my intention and I apologise. My first revert in that 24-hour period happened to be right before I went to bed that night and I neglected to count how many hours had lapsed. |
|
|
::::::::::But anyway, I'm offering my suggested re-write to see what other editors think. I haven't actually put the re-write in the article yet. 1) It leaves out where Yayoi influences came from, and it 2) expands information about the Yayoi period beyond the one measly sentence. I think it's a good re-write. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 20:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think we need to talk about it more on the talk page, before we insist it be used. ] 10:34, 30 December 2006 (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.流山隆一 (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
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)
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)