Talk:Japan/Archive 7

message: :Yes, omitting Korea is often the Japanese bias, even in academic circles in Japan. We try to offer a more balanced and accurate perspective based on facts in Wikipedia.--Sir Edgar 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (sigh) Didn't you get the memo that only the winners are allowed to write history? - Sekicho 09:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:%E4%B8%89%E5%9B%BD%E9%80%9A%E8%A6%A7%E5%9B%B3%E8%AA%AC%E4%B8%80%E9%83%A8.jpg --LittleTree 22:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: *Yayoi Period History Summary 　http://www.bookrags.com/history/worldhistory/yayoi-period-ema-06/ <BR> 
Bronze and iron appear to have been introduced simultaneously into Yayoi Japan. Iron was mainly used for agricultural and other tools, whereas ritual and ceremonial artifacts were mainly made of bronze. Some casting of bronze and iron began in Japan by about 100 BCE, but the raw materials for both metals were introduced from Korea and China. Han-dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) bronze mirrors were the most important prestige items imported from China.<BR> 
*Jared Diamond　http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Japan/History/roots.html　
After about 100 B.C., separate parts of cemeteries were set aside for the graves of what was evidently an emerging elite class, marked by luxury goods imported from China, such as beautiful jade objects and bronze mirrors.The Genetic Origins of the Japanese. The culture identified with the Japanese was not brought to the islands of Japan until about 300 B.C. It was brought by a people called the Yayoi from the Korean peninsula.　<BR>
*History to 1900 (from Shinto) Encyclopadia Britannica　http://cache.britannica.com/eb/article-8481
Much remains unknown about religion in Japan during the Paleolithic and Neolithic ages. It is unlikely, however, that the religion of these ages has any direct connection with Shinto. Yayoi culture, which originated in the northern area of the island of Kyushu in about the 3rd or 2nd century BC, is directly related to later Japanese culture and hence to Shinto. Among the primary Yayoi religious phenomena were agricultural rites and shamanism.<BR>
*The Yayoi period (c. 250 BC–c. AD 250)," Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-23121?query=Yayoi&ct=%20 
These colonies served as a base for a strong influx of Chinese culture into Korea, whence, in turn, it spread to Japan.  The fact that Yayoi culture had iron implements from the outset, and bronze implements somewhat later, probably indicates borrowings from Han culture. Since iron rusts easily, comparatively few objects have been found, but they seem to have been widespread at the time. These include axes, knives, sickles and hoes, arrowheads, and swords. The bronze objects are also varied, including halberds, swords, spears, taku (bell-shaped devotional objects from China), and mirrors. The halberds, swords, and spears seem not to have been used in Japan for the practical purposes for which they were evolved in China but rather to have been prized as precious objects.
* Korean Buddhism Basis of Japanese Buddhism," Seoul Times, June 18, 2006 http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=580
*Buddhism and the Trade Routes　http://www.asiasocietymuseum.org/buddhist_trade/koreajapan.html
A major, long-established East Asian route of trade and influence ran from northern China down the Korean peninsula and across the Korea Strait to Japan. Traveling along this route, Mahayana Buddhism was introduced into Japan from Korea in the sixth century (traditionally, in either 538 or 552), as part of a diplomatic mission that included gifts such as an image of Shakyamuni Buddha and several volumes of Buddhist texts. As in Korea, the religion had a lasting effect on the native culture; today, Buddhism is the dominant religion in Japan.
*Kanji http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2046.html　
Kanji, one of the three scripts used in the Japanese language, are Chinese characters, which were first introduced to Japan in the 5th century via Korea. 
*MSN Encarta; "History of Japan" 　http://www.japanvisitor.com/index.php?cID=359&pID=334&cName=Japanese
Kofun period
Under the Soga a new wave of cultural influence hit Japan in the 6th century AD. The kofun burial mounds from that time suddenly began being filled with weapons - not just mirrors and jewels. This indicates that a militarized aristocracy had come into the ascendant. At this time Korea was at its cultural peak despite - or thanks to - being split into three feuding kingdoms. The kingdom facing Japan, Paekche, formed a strategic alliance with Japan. As part of the deal it made some revolutionary inputs into Japanese history, 
namely:
a stream of various craftsmen, among them metal workers who introduced more sophisticated armor and weapons 
Buddhist treasures 
a scholar who taught writing and Confucian thought. 
With the political state of things in Korea, Japan had gained control of some territory. However late in the same century, with the breakdown of the alliance, a huge number of Koreans who had been living on Japanese territory migrated to Japan.
===Requesting everyone to discuss and build consensus / Pre-history section===
:I'd like to make it clear that I don't agree with Kamosuke's unilateral deletion of citations and the stuff about Baekje, etc.
:However, some of Kamosuke's edits and comments are starting to show some progress, and I'd like to elaborate further on one of it.  Above, I think Kamosuke is trying to show that the cited sources refer to both "China" and "Korea".
:With respect to the "Pre-history" section, we have:
::The start of the Yayoi period around 300 BC marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from the Korean Peninsula.
:I know Sir Edgar already compromised by using "...from the Korean Peninsula".
:But I see that Kamosuke tried changing it to "... from Chinese Han Dynasty and Korean Peninsula".
:I think what he meant to do was use a variation of "...from China and Korea".
:Sir Edgar prefers using "...from Korea, and possibly China".
:My previous compromise, therefore, was to use "...from Korea and China (via Korea)".
:I am assuming that we all agree on the "China --> Korea --> Japan" path in addition to the "Korea --> Japan" path, with respect to Yayoi technology transfer and migration.  Furthermore, various cited sources (including "mainstream" ones) specifically mention the word "China" as well as "Korea", moreso than any other areas such as "Manchuria".  I believe Kamosuke insists on using the word "China" somewhere.
:I am asking everyone to think of the wording, which specifically includes the words "China" and "Korea" here.  You guys obviously need to compromise here.
:Once we have some candidates, we can discuss further and gain consensus.  If that fails, we can try RfC or Mediation.  I am really hoping that Sir Edgar, Sekicho, Onetwo1, Tortfeasor, Tensaibuta, and others help out here.
:Also, I see that many of you (on both sides) are revert-warring without any discussions.  Please stop that, and don't break any rules in WP:3RR and maybe Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.  You should be discussing here instead.--Endroit 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I certainly agree with Sekicho that "...from Korea and China" is accurate, and we can build a consensus around this wording.--Endroit 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * There must be consistency in the article. Should it be edited to "from Korea and China", then the introduction should say "east of Korea and China" and the Culture section should also say "Korea and China", not "China and Korea". It is evident that Korea is closer to Japan and brought culture to Japan first, but others continue to put China ahead of Korea. We know that the Yayoi came from Korea. There is evidence that they MAY have originally come from elsewhere, possibly China. That is why the current "from Korea, and most likely China" or some variation thereof is appropriate. Another option is that it can read "Korean Peninsula" to appease those who insist "there was no Korea".--Sir Edgar 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Everyone, please try to restrict your arguments to the "Pre-History" section, and read WP:Consensus.  OK, so Sir Edgar suggested "...from Korea, and most likely China" (or variations) but will agree to use "...from the Korean Peninsula".  Any other suggestions or comments?  BTW, there IS sufficient evidence for a dual Korea/China origin of the Yayoi, and Sir Edgar refuses to accept it.--Endroit 05:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *  My suggestion is "primarily via Korea and secondarily via China" or something to that effect.  The reason being that wet rice farming and japonica had to be adopted from northern climes to southern ones before it could make the jump to southern Japan so the predominant theory, from what I understand, is via the Korean route.  Also, bronze mirrors and the like could be attributed to the Chinese commandaries in Korea.  So even if they were "Chinese" they came by Korea.  Shamanism too suggests an ultimate origin in Scytho-Siberia, and I'm not too sure of how much of a connection China has with shamanism.  To be honest, Endroit, I don't understand a word from the pdf you cited a couple of months ago so I'll take your word.  I do know that I don't like the use of "Korean peninsula" and "Korea and China" seems fine although I think Sir Edgar's point is that Korea seems to be the main route and I would agree.  Tortfeasor 05:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: :I'd like to make it clear that I don't agree with Kamosuke's unilateral deletion of citations and the stuff about Baekje, etc.
:However, some of Kamosuke's edits and comments are starting to show some progress, and I'd like to elaborate further on one of it.  Above, I think Kamosuke is trying to show that the cited sources refer to both "China" and "Korea".
:With respect to the "Pre-history" section, we have:
::The start of the Yayoi period around 300 BC marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from the Korean Peninsula.
:I know Sir Edgar already compromised by using "...from the Korean Peninsula".
:But I see that Kamosuke tried changing it to "... from Chinese Han Dynasty and Korean Peninsula".
:I think what he meant to do was use a variation of "...from China and Korea".
:Sir Edgar prefers using "...from Korea, and possibly China".
:My previous compromise, therefore, was to use "...from Korea and China (via Korea)".
:I am assuming that we all agree on the "China --> Korea --> Japan" path in addition to the "Korea --> Japan" path, with respect to Yayoi technology transfer and migration.  Furthermore, various cited sources (including "mainstream" ones) specifically mention the word "China" as well as "Korea", moreso than any other areas such as "Manchuria".  I believe Kamosuke insists on using the word "China" somewhere.
:I am asking everyone to think of the wording, which specifically includes the words "China" and "Korea" here.  You guys obviously need to compromise here.
:Once we have some candidates, we can discuss further and gain consensus.  If that fails, we can try RfC or Mediation.  I am really hoping that Sir Edgar, Sekicho, Onetwo1, Tortfeasor, Tensaibuta, and others help out here.
:Also, I see that many of you (on both sides) are revert-warring without any discussions.  Please stop that, and don't break any rules in WP:3RR and maybe Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.  You should be discussing here instead.--Endroit 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I certainly agree with Sekicho that "...from Korea and China" is accurate, and we can build a consensus around this wording.--Endroit 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * There must be consistency in the article. Should it be edited to "from Korea and China", then the introduction should say "east of Korea and China" and the Culture section should also say "Korea and China", not "China and Korea". It is evident that Korea is closer to Japan and brought culture to Japan first, but others continue to put China ahead of Korea. We know that the Yayoi came from Korea. There is evidence that they MAY have originally come from elsewhere, possibly China. That is why the current "from Korea, and most likely China" or some variation thereof is appropriate. Another option is that it can read "Korean Peninsula" to appease those who insist "there was no Korea".--Sir Edgar 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Everyone, please try to restrict your arguments to the "Pre-History" section, and read WP:Consensus.  OK, so Sir Edgar suggested "...from Korea, and most likely China" (or variations) but will agree to use "...from the Korean Peninsula".  Any other suggestions or comments?  BTW, there IS sufficient evidence for a dual Korea/China origin of the Yayoi, and Sir Edgar refuses to accept it.--Endroit 05:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *  My suggestion is "primarily via Korea and secondarily via China" or something to that effect.  The reason being that wet rice farming and japonica had to be adopted from northern climes to southern ones before it could make the jump to southern Japan so the predominant theory, from what I understand, is via the Korean route.  Also, bronze mirrors and the like could be attributed to the Chinese commandaries in Korea.  So even if they were "Chinese" they came by Korea.  Shamanism too suggests an ultimate origin in Scytho-Siberia, and I'm not too sure of how much of a connection China has with shamanism.  To be honest, Endroit, I don't understand a word from the pdf you cited a couple of months ago so I'll take your word.  I do know that I don't like the use of "Korean peninsula" and "Korea and China" seems fine although I think Sir Edgar's point is that Korea seems to be the main route and I would agree.  Tortfeasor 05:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting everyone to discuss and build consensus / Pre-history section

message: Should japan be added as a superpower?--Blog Mav Rick 17:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless they get rid of Article 9.-Jefu 23:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan as [[superpower]]

message: *This sentence in the Imperial Japan section is at worst wrong, at least misleading.  <I>Japan invaded China, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, occupying Manchuria in 1931</I>.  ----Abaddon 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed following your guidelines. Thank you.--Sir Edgar 23:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change Imperial Japan

message: The Korean often criticizes a Japanese bias. However, Korean's bias is stronger....
I am getting the impression that the Japanese are total ingrates. Please prove me wrong by changing your attitude on Korean contributions to Japanese civilization. Baekje played a key role in Japan's development. If not for Baekje, Japan would likely remain a backwater in Asia for many more centuries and become probably something of a mix of Mongolian and Southeast Asian cultures. --Sir Edgar 00:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't continue the Japanese-Korean ethnic issue. This is not about differences between our countries; it's about writing an accurate article. - Sekicho 18:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: our countries？ Please do a more detailed explanation. --HaradaSanosuke 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Japan your country, Sekicho? Not that it matters, but I thought that "our countries" was an interesting comment.--Sir Edgar 01:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I love natto and sea urchin, I am not Japanese. I only meant to say that it's wrong to discount anyone's opinion solely based on where they come from. Our countries of origin have no relevance so long as our explanations are reasoned and supported by evidence. - Sekicho 13:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean Bias

message: *552? Introduction of Buddism to Japan
Buddism introduced by Baekje, Korea
*607 Ono no Imoko appointed leader of the second embassy of sui dynasy in china.  
Japan was declared to be a nation equal with China. "日出處天子致書日沒處天子無恙云云"　
Didn't Japan declare itself to be equal to China. I can declare myself to be emperor of China if I wanted.
*645 Taika Reform Introduction of Chinese political system
*712&720 Kojiki&Nihon shoki completed.
*759 manyoshu completed.
*805 Saicho introduce the Tendai buddism (The founder of most Buddhism sects in Japan trained in Tendai. )
*1008 Murasaki Shikibu the tale of genji is writen.
*1180-1185 Taira-Minamoto war.
*1192 Minamoto Yoritomo asuumes the title of shogun
*1274&1281 Mongol invasions of Japan
*1338 Ashikaga Takauji asuumes the title of shogun
*1497 onin war (Start of Sengoku period)
*1543 Arquebus are introduced to Japan by portuguese on Tanegashima
*1549 Francis Xavier propagates　Christianity
*1573 Oda Nobunaga ended Ashikaga Shogunate
*1582 Oda Nobunaga assainated at the Honnoji by Akechi Mitsuhide
*1590 Toyotomi Hideyoshi pacifies all of Japan
*1592&1597 Invasions of Korea
*1600 Battle of Sekigahara
*1603 Tokugawa Ieyasu asuumes the title of shogun
*1639 Sakoku completed. (1637-38 Simabara Uprising) 
...Is there an added event?--HaradaSanosuke 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? - Sekicho 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Event of important history of Japan

message: I think that the history that is written in the introduction like two paragraphs really should be in the history section of the article. It does summarize the "history" real well so that's why it should be in "history" section. It doesn't summarize the whole article in the introduction Does anyone agree? 168.253.19.124 23:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding history into the introduction wasn't my idea. I just helped expand and edit it. In fact, I prefered the zen-like short summary. However, I think every country article should have a good historical overview in its introduction.--Sir Edgar 00:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting a list of a few specific events up top is bad. Take Murasaki Shikibu and Tale of Genji. Yeah, people call it "the first novel" and all, but it really doesn't have much historical significance except that it's a good record of its era. Likewise Commodore Perry: people say he "opened" Japan, but Japan's closure had been unraveling for some time; Perry's role could be better described as "pushing the process forward." Certainly some of the broad historical themes are worth a note for understanding Japan: the country developed a strong imperial bureaucracy, then went through a lengthy feudal era, was closed off, reopened, Westernized, tried to take over Asia, failed, and ended up developing into an economic superpower. Picking certain people or events for their importance is kind of POV. When we do so, it should be in the "History" section where it's actually possible to list most of the really important figures side by side. - Sekicho 12:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that I should explain the flow of the history of Japan to explain a special national character of Japan. I am not a patchwork of a big event, and hope for the article based on "Reason and result". For instance, The Tale of Genji is useful for explanation of "Mono no aware". This is a Japanese, special, important sense of values. This thought might be a reason why countries of the sense of values of the Confucianism conflict with Japan. Moreover, there are a lot of mysteries of an ancient history. It is necessary to avoid concluding article. (especially, South Korean's editors)　--HaradaSanosuke 18:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the fact was "All other Chinese character found in Japan prior to the 8th century were of foreign origin." , you must prove it. If you can't it. You only propose a hypotesis. And the chinese character in 2nd century was written on a pottery as you see. The pottery is yayoi type. I think your hypotesis is  practically impossible. Mythologia 12:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History should be in history section

message: Here are the criteria:
A featured article has the following attributes.
# It exemplifies our very best work.
# It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. Read Great writing and The perfect article to see how high the standards are set. In this respect:
#*(a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant;
#*(b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details; 
#*(c) "factually accurate" includes supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). For articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged;
#*(d) "neutral" means that  an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view); and
#*(e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.
# It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having:
#*(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
#*(b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
#*(c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section).
# It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.
# It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles.
I'd like to see Japan get nominated and approved. The previous FA nomination comments are not very useful, so I'd like to discuss here exactly how closely this article matchesd the attributes above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tuned out during the recent edit wars (#2e) but prior to them it was really pretty darn good! We were able to get a very good lead section, mostly thanks to Sekicho, and we did some cleanup on the article as a whole. I noted on the talk page some sources for some statements, but didn't put the citations in the article. More citations are certainly needed. The edit wars remain a problem to be solved... Fg2 07:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone cite a source for the statement "96% of high school graduates attend a university, junior college, trade school, or other post-secondary institution"?  Is it factually accurate? Fg2 10:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I can find is a reference that states that 95% graduate from high school . ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What citations needed are you talking about? I've already put the sources for all the "citation needed" parts, especially in the Economy section. My opinion is that the article should not be nominated until people stop reverting it back and forth. The pared down version is not up to standard. Should things remain stable and stay as they currently are, then I can support a nomination.--Sir Edgar 07:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a one-man show, Sir Edgar.  You have obviously failed to come to consensus with the others, and have deleted my citation.  Everybody, just take a look at the discussions above and the edit wars.  Now this needs to be solved with a wider consensus, before we go into FA nomination.--Endroit 07:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is you who has failed to come to "consensus with the others". As far as I recall, you alone kept reverting that one sentence while I and others edited it back to the original prose.--Sir Edgar 07:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it's your word against mine, Sir Edgar.  That's why we need a wider consensus, to determine the points of contention.  Unless others step in here, this may go on forever.--Endroit 07:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really.  That edit was reverted by none other than Sir Edgar at 01:57, 18 May 2006.  Look carefully.  And who else reverted me besides Sir Edgar?  Seems more like a one-to-one battle between you and me, Sir Edgar.--Endroit 08:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make it seem like I failed "to come to consensus with others" and now you retract to saying it's "a one-to-one battle between you and me". I think you should be careful with your statements.--Sir Edgar 08:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir Edgar, I just corrected you by saying that that particular edit (revert-war) was a one-to-one battle between us, rather than my one-man battle; that's an old story.  I haven't "retracted" from my statements about the need to reach consensus now, etc., at this point in time.  My main point is that everyone needs to evaluate the situation WRT the revert-wars by discussing and reaching consensus.--Endroit 09:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for Featured Article?

message: This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because The article fails to meet Criterion 5: "It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars." The ongoing edit war is now a month old. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fg2 (talk • contribs) . (Apologies for forgetting to sign! Fg2 22:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. The Japanese ruined their own article. LMAO!!! Only people in the world that would vandalize their own country's page. This is hilarious.--222.233.205.228 01:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, A lot of Japanese came because the Korean had hijacked the article on Japan. --61.209.162.93 05:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: At least to say the formerly version made a clear mistake. For example the begining of the writing. See this. The chinese charactor in 2nd century and others in Japan.(This page is Japanese only sorry.)[]Mythologia 08:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is impossible to begin revert war with oneside writers only. Do you know who is otherside?>222.233.205.228  Mythologia 08:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You think the vandals are Koreans in this areticle?  About Dokdo conducts,it looks like that Korean's surprise atatack preceded the events. But,talk about this article. You look like saying a poor excuse. Mythologia 11:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I know several problem around the Japan-Korea relations, so we have many points of controversy. For the reason we must talk about this article not others. Mythologia 17:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Japan article is very broad, considering all the information we can write in it. Tsushima Basin or Dokdo are subjects under the Japan article as well as the Korea article. They are points that are controversial and its not going to be easy to solve them. This is one reason why its not going to be easy putting the Japan or Korea article up as a featured article. Good friend100 12:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article removed from [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]

message: A few months ago people kept deleting information about Korea and their interaction with ancient Japan. So various people started asking why they were deleting this info. The users that were deleting the info stated they wanted more references. So a few other users came back with multiple references over 30 and re-entered the information about Yayoi and Baekje and other cultural influences. Then someone modified the multiple references to only show up as one footnote saying it was taking up space and looked ridiculous to have a sentence with footnotes going out the 7 or 8. Then the references brought to the discussion sections were archived. Now we are having the same arguement we had months ago and someone keeps deleting referenced and cited material from the article about Baekje and some one completely deleted the original paragraphs about Chinese and Korean culture. I know other users went thru this arguement a month ago, but I think it is time for this question again.
Why are referenced material being deleted without any logical explaination.
::Ok first of all, whoever wrote this needs to sign their username. Some users are not signing their username and Wikipedia asks you sign your name. 
::Some Japanese users just cannot admit that they are partly descendents of Baekje and Korea. The deleted the info because "they wanted more references". That quote? That's just an excuse to delete the information. So, literally, I could delete all the information on the Japan article that are not referenced? What kind of logic is that? "Without any logical explanation"? Yes, no logical information. Deleting information without any good reason can be considered vandalism and I can refer you to a coordinator if that keeps happening.
::Some of you need to change your attitude toward Korea. If you want to mess things up, go do it on a forum or something. This is Wikipedia and the talk pages are there for discussion. Good friend100 15:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting referenced material

message: Late Tokugawa shogunate is currently being considered for deletion because of possible copyvio. Can anyone either revert this article to an earlier non-problematical version, or start a new good stub? If you do either of these, please leave a note in the article's Talk page. Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Late Tokugawa shogunate]]:Possible copyvio:Possible deletion 

message: I just can't stand some people when they pronounce Korean words incorrectly.
Below shows how to pronounce some Korean words (in a better way).
Baekje: Baek-jeh
"Baehk", not "Baik"
Goguryeo: Goh-goo-ryo
Silla: Shil-la
not "Cilla"
Koryeo: Goh-ryo
Sorry, if you still have a hard time with this stuff, I'm not a linguist. Good friend100 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciating Baekje, Silla, etc 

message: But Ming China came to Korea's aid and after several defeats and following Hideyoshi's death, Japanese troops were quickly withdrawn in 1598.
I can't believe that I have to repeat this again. Peoples!!! Japan did not retreat from Korea during the Imjin War because Hideyoshi died! Some users keep writing like this and it seems like an excuse to cover defeat at the hands of the Chinese and Korean forces. 
The Japanese lost the Imjin War because firstly, China's manpower and military was a match for Japan, secondly, the Koreans were ready for the second invasion, and thirdly, Admiral Yi's naval victories in 1597 and 1598 prevented Japanese supplies and reinforcements from reaching Japanese troops in the north. 
Hideyoshi's death did have a profound effect on the Japanese commanders, and they hurried to keep it a secret so Japanese morale wouldn't drop. The Japanese commanders were already planning to retreat from Korea, and Japanese armies began moving south before Hideyoshi died. Good friend100 18:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After the Hideyoshi's death, Council of five regents ordered army to reteat from Korea. Commandants of  expeditionary force had no such power to decide the retreat. Admiral Yi's victories in 1597 were after the armistice agreement with Japan and Ming for evacuation . And in the battle Japan navy had big damage, but the evacuation was completed without problems. So the article would be  But Ming China came to Korea's aid and following Hideyoshi's death, Japanese troops were quickly withdrawn in 1598. . Mythologia 19:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence misleads that because of Hideyoshi's death, Japan retreated. Japan retreated because of losses on land and from Admiral Yi. Good friend100 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imjin War 

message: The recent edits and changes to the content of the Japan article is making its quality drop quickly. The introduction is too vaguely written and not helpful at all. More importantly, there are sentences that run unnecessarily. You should not write sentences like that for a concise article that is supposed to focus on only the most important facts. For example, you don't say: "During the morning school break, Jane gave Mary the first piece of peppermint candy she ever had, but Mary already had gotten a lot of other types of candy that she bought at the store earlier in the day. The latter part is secondary and almost irrelevant. Don't write like that, especially for political purposes. This article is supposed to get to the point, not explain side notes.--Sir Edgar 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction is concise and neutral. And, it is liberated.The number of characters that can be used has been limited. We will make a concise article.  --Kamosuke 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are too many controversial issues during Japan's history between other countries for the article to be truly agreed by everyone. Good friend100 02:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your not helping this article by aggravating the other users with name calling. Good friend100 21:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of this article keeps going down.