Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:26, 14 August 2007

Japan NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 02:47, January 12, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

Archaeology NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:FAOL

Archives

till 17 January, 2007

Model for Meiji Constitution

The article in its current form refers to the "quasi-parliamentary constitutional government, based on Great Britain's Parliament," that the Meiji Constitution established. However, it is my understanding that it was very much modeled on the Prussian Diet model, and Ito Hirobumi, the Constitution's author, very consciously avoided the British Parliamentary model.

I am removing this comment because, at the very least, I feel that it is a questionable fact, if not outright wrong. I refer you to James McClain's very well regarded text, "Japan: A Modern History," that has a fine treatment of the constitution. Please comment here further for support or disagreement with my claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metromoxie (talk • contribs) 08:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

You're absolutely right about it being based on the Prussian model, though with elements of the British "constitutional monarchy" which connected the monarch with the parliament & the Constitution. The notion of consciously avoiding a British or American model rings some bells, but I can't really be sure. LordAmeth 13:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-American European

It appears that their was an anti-American European or Misplaced Pages using Commonwealth English, whose primary goal in this article was to denigrate the USA. Some of his sentences were tweaked to make them more neutral--their points ARE still there, just not so pointedly targeted at the United States. Chiss Boy 11:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw another problem.Somebody remove this please: There are some debates over whether Yamataikoku was placed at Hawaii, or even closer near Okinawa, a southern Japanese island. (I mean, come on...a Japanese capital in Hawaii?! That obvious vandalism...) --71.107.217.63 07:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Interest rates

The article notes that the interest rates are 0% in now but this is untrue as recently Japan has raised interest rates slightly. The main article on Japan references a BBC article that discusses the raise in interest rates (BBC:Japan scraps zero interest rates). I believe the interest rates are currently somewhere around 0.5% (Ian Lewis 01:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

Modification made to Asuka Period explained

I have made a small change in the text around the emissary sent by Japan to China in 607. The previous text was not wrong, but I wanted to make it look less (though not completely) controversial on the smallest points.

First point: Since it is commonly believed that Prince Shotoku was the one who proposed and started the emissary to Sui, it may as well be interpreted that letters brought to China was written by him, but it is generally safer to say such official letters were sent, without referring to who wrote it.

Secondly: the "Book of Sui" only mentions that the letter in which "the rising sun" appears made Emperor Yang angry. It is again safer to provide a citation as to how it can be interpreted, although the original text does probably reflect the common understandings today. Therefore I have added one from the Cambridge. --OhMyDeer 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Overlap

User:71.208.183.235 added the following comment to the text "The Jomon period (縄文時代, Jōmon-jidai) lasted from about 10,000 BC to 300 BC.": these overlap please explain/fix

Fg2 07:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hideyoshi's intentions

It is widely believed (and frequently written on Misplaced Pages) that Hideyoshi desired to conquer all of China and even India through his invasions of Korea. However, I get the impression that scholarship tells a very different story. Arano Yasunori, in his article "The Formation of a Japanocentric World Order," from the International Journal of Asian Studies 2:2 (2005), explains that "The Toyotomi regime, however, had far more realistic foreign policies: it sought to have Europe and Ming China as its trading partners, and Korea, the Ryukyus, Luzon (the Philippines), and Taiwan as its subordinate states. However, all through his Korean campaigns, Hideyoshi sought from Ming China, not subordination, but access to the licensed tally trade (kangō bōeki 勘合貿易)."

Given this information from scholarship, along with the just general common sense understanding that conquest of China and India was totally unrealistic, what shall we do with comments in this article and others that "Hideyoshi invaded Korea in an attempt to conquer Korea, China, and even India"?

I would be happy to share the article with others; it's a good read in any case. Thanks. LordAmeth 10:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

BCE/CE

I am reinstating BCE/CE a the prefered date format for this article, as the first significant user (who started this article with a list of Japanese history periods) clearly marked his preferences for BCE/CE (he uses it something like 30 times). It might be arguable whether his contribution was really significant or not, but I tend to think it is, as he created this article in 2002 at a time when most Misplaced Pages articles were still in their infancy. His very clear choice for BCE/CE was disregarded by the immediately following user, but I tend to think this is ground enough to reinstate BCE/CE for this article, especially since it is also the best, neutral format for non-Christianity-related articles. PHG 13:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The first significant user was User:-- April who made his/her first edit here. A list of dates by an anon-IP is not a major contributor. And MoS says major contributor, not significant.

Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

I have asked the MoS community for their views here. John Smith's 13:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Template:RFCstyle

This is a dispute as to whether the date terms BC/AD or BCE/CE should be used.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

• I believe that BC/AD should be used. Those terms were established by the first major contributor, User:-- April, here. A list of dates by an anon-IP is not a major contributor. WP:MOS says that if there is a dispute, that is where you go. BCE/CE was added later, but when that happened the article was inconsistent - I then made it consistent. Comments have been made that BC/AD should not be used because it is "Christian" and Japan is not Christian. That is an invalid argument, as the community rejected the proposal that BC/AD be labelled POV and should be replaced by BCE/CE outside of non-Chrisitan articles here. John Smith's 18:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Support BC/AD — "BC/AD" is more popular in English (and has always been so). It is only recently that "BCE/CE" has come into some usage. I'm inclined to treat "BCE/CE" as a neologism, and recommend not using them to avoid the element of surprise. "BC/AD" is more stable, and encyclopedic. "BCE/CE" is still too new and not yet universally understood. See also this Yahoo Japan dictionary entry for "BCE" (in Japanese). It says BCE is mainly used in the United States. Therefore, I suggest NOT using "BCE/CE" AT ALL unless the topic is restricted to the United States. At least, always use "BC/AD" for any Japan-related topics, and never "BCE/CE".--Endroit 18:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support BCE/CE - No policy against its use, and should be preferred, as the history of Japan is not Christian-related. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. There was a policy proposal as to the same point, that BC/AD should not be used in non-Christian articles - it was rejected here. So there is no problem using BC/AD in "non-Christian" articles - WP:MOS also says that it is fine. John Smith's 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Pointless. The vote was whether to adopt using BCE/CE as policy over BC/AD. The vote doesn't ban the use of BCE/CE, neither does MoS. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, it's quite relevant. My argument has never been that BCE/CE cannot be used. It is your argument that BC/AD should not be used in a "non-Christian" article - that was the proposal that was rejected, so clearly it can be used in an article like this. John Smith's 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. Of course it can be used. The issue is whether or not it should be used. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Misleading. You say that BC/AD should not be used because this is a non-Christian article. Clearly that is not a valid argument, otherwise it would never be used outside of "Chritian" articles. John Smith's 19:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Misleading. The fact that it is used outside of Christianity-related articles does not mean it should be used in those articles. Clearly, my argument is valid. I am not talking about what is allowed to be used, but what is the best format to use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Misleading. I have never said the BC/AD should be used in non-Christian articles. Merely that your argument it should not be used is not relelvant. John Smith's 19:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Misleading. I never said that you said that BC/AD should be used in non-Christian articles. My argument, of course, is very relevant, as we are really talking about which format we should use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. You are suggesting BC/AD should not be used because the article is not Christian. So let's discuss the matter with respect to WP:MOS, etc rather than go into automatic "it's a Christian term so don't use it here" mode. John Smith's 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. WP:MOS does not say BCE/CE should not be used. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Irrelevant again, Hong. I never said it should not be used anywhere. MOS does have various guidelines though that apply to this discussion - so let's discuss them. John Smith's 19:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• This question and many of the arguments raised here concern usage across the encyclopedia. MOS pretty much just says "make it consistent, and if it is consistent, leave it alone," without really specifying which to change it to. If you're looking to modify that, the only logical forum is Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of style. The whole point of the guideline is to avoid revert wars over an ultimately inessential point, so as long as it's consistent, even if it was completely changed over without consensus, I'd suggest everyone just leave it alone. Dcoetzee 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• I would revert to BC/AD, since this edit war began this month, and it appears to have been stable before that. We should go to the m:Wrong Version; disruptive conduct will become less common if it is not rewarded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with User:Dcoetzee. Misplaced Pages's MoS has a statement on this matter, and it's quite similar to the policy on the version of English to use in articles. The person who starts the article makes the decision, and that version stays. Fg2 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  It's not quite the first user - more the first "major contributor". John Smith's 21:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, first major contributor is a fall-back position, for when there is no stable version. This article was stable in AD/BC, and should have been left alone; that's enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I support BC/AD as it is by far the most common dating method used in the world, regardless of whether someone is or isn't Christian. I also agree with Septentrionalis regarding the fact that the article was stable for a long time using the BC/AD format, and should have been left alone. ···日本穣 05:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support BCE/CE, this is not a Christian article. That the article was "stable" with BC/AD is irrelevant, as it clearly is a content dispute now. Seigenthaler's article remained for a considerable time with false allegations of wrongdoing, just because something was not corrected previously is a poor argument for not correcting it now. KillerChihuahua 10:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  What's "Seigenthaler's article"? John Smith's 10:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  Also, should a content dispute be allowed to undermine Misplaced Pages guidelines? Because the only argument I really here is "the article is non-Christian", which WP:MOS would indicate is not really reason enough in this case to change what was a stable article. John Smith's 11:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  Seigenthaler controversy. What guideline (which btw is not a policy, and NPOV is a policy) do you think is being "undermined", and please clarify how you think that a guideline should supercede the core policy of NPOV? KillerChihuahua 12:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how Seigenthaler applies here given that BC/AD is not a point of factual dispute, as it were - that does not invalidate the position that stability is not important.

  As to the rest, I have never said a guideline overrides a policy like NPOV. But NPOV does not state BC/AD is POV. The only time that I know of where the Misplaced Pages community addressed that question was here, where such a policy request was rejected. It may have been two years ago, but unless you can show me a more recent example of where BC/AD has been officially labelled POV, or otherwise in violation of NPOV, we can and should look at the guidelines. John Smith's 12:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  Seigenthaler is about not fixing things because they've been here a while. In other words "It was like this before is no reason to keep it that way. As to the rest, NPOV doesn't say calling Jews Jesus-killers is POV either, but it is. Christian dating does not have to be specifically mentioned by NPOV in order to violate the policy on non-Christian articles. You seem to think if it isn't in sub-paragraph 147-b, spelled out in detail, it isn't policy. I assure you, most NPOV violations are not specifically mentioned. You are unhappy no one implemented rules creep to the point that this is specifically treated, and you are wiki-laywering to no purpose. KillerChihuahua 13:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  Seigenthaler was a problem because the information provided was false - that doesn't apply here given there is nothing factually incorrect about using BC/AD. It's a style point. Also I think you're being unhelpful with your reference to calling Jews names - clearly no one would dispute that. However, as mentioned, there is no consensus that BC/AD is POV - you can't honestly believe that if there was a request for a new policy saying that labelling Jews as murderers be POV it would fail review, can you? As to rules creep and wiki-lawyering, you are not assuming good faith. I am trying to move the discussion on from an unproductive "it's POV", "it's not POV" debate to one that talks about the guidelines. Why are you so reluctant to talk about the guidelines - is it because they would support BC/AD? John Smith's 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support BCE/CE - Japan lacks any significant ties to Christianity, so the assertion that NPOV can be ignored for historical/convenience reasons is irrelevant. If you read the arguments made in the BCE/CE debate (which was a couple years ago) most of the arguments in favour of keeping the mixed system were along the lines of "yes it violates NPOV, but we should keep it for historical/convenience reasons" or called for something new altogether. It's obvious that BC/AD is POV - asserting that Jesus is the Messiah (BC) and that Jesus is God (AD) is inconsistent with NPOV. Two years ago the community split pretty evenly on the issue of whether we should continue to use the system, but it was only a minority who said that it did not violate NPOV. Guettarda 14:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  Yet the majority rejected the proposal. I'm also not sure how you were able to assess only a minority said it did not violate NPOV without a vote on that. John Smith's 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  "Japan lacks any significant ties to Christianity" is a blatant lie. See Religion in Japan. Japanese people often have Christian weddings. Most Japanese people celebrate Christmas. And "紀元前" is usually translated into "BC" rather than "BCE". In fact the use of "BC" is not considered to be related to any religious belief, unlike how some POV-pushers here would like us to believe.--Endroit 14:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• NA-Class Japan-related pages
• NA-importance Japan-related pages
• WikiProject Japan articles
• NA-Class Archaeology pages
• NA-importance Archaeology pages