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.
::::] 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)
::::] 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)
: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)
{{talk ref}}
{{talk ref}}
Revision as of 00:41, 27 October 2024
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.
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.
This 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
This 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
This 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
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.
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)
First of all, point out what is wrong
I am Japanese. This is my first time seeing the English version of the article, and there are quite a few mistakes. First, the Yayoi period dates back to the 3rd century BC, and the Japanese language existed even before that. Second, Emperor Jinmu was not a grandchild of Amaterasu Omikami, but a further grandchild of Amaterasu Omikami. I think it would be a good idea to include information on the Japanese people and their ecology that appeared in ancient history books of neighboring countries. Kou83949588383 (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
No, the Yayoi period is undisputedly from the 3rd century BC to the 3rd century AD. This is a common understanding among scientists from all walks of life, but who claims that it began in the 7th century BC? Kou83949588383 (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2024 (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)
@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 ‥ 论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)
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)
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 ‥ 论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 ‥ 论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 ‥ 论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)
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 ‥ 论06:38, 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 ‥ 论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)
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 unclear what you mean. Alexeyevitch 13:40, 10 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)