Talk:Japan/Archive 5

message: ====Text====
Is the lead section concise? Does it summarize the entire topic and prepare the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections?
:I rewrote the lead section with the topics in sequence according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead section). I tried to avoid being redundant. To make the introduction smooth, I did not put in the writing/pronunciation template. The link to Names of Japan is clearer, and by putting the template there we can make the lead-in read more naturally. I removed the statement about being an economic giant, since that's irrelevant to the information about islands, which followed in the same sentence. And added one fact, about Honshu's rank by area, to dispel the notion that Japan is a tiny country, but refrained from providing similar information for the other islands, because all that information is only a click away in List of islands by area. Any comments or edits to the lead section? Fg2 06:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section?

message: Is the lead section concise? Does it summarize the entire topic and prepare the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections?
:I rewrote the lead section with the topics in sequence according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead section). I tried to avoid being redundant. To make the introduction smooth, I did not put in the writing/pronunciation template. The link to Names of Japan is clearer, and by putting the template there we can make the lead-in read more naturally. I removed the statement about being an economic giant, since that's irrelevant to the information about islands, which followed in the same sentence. And added one fact, about Honshu's rank by area, to dispel the notion that Japan is a tiny country, but refrained from providing similar information for the other islands, because all that information is only a click away in List of islands by area. Any comments or edits to the lead section? Fg2 06:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Text

message: History: Japan's section checks in at 1500 words. For comparison, Great Britain has 360, USA: 1300, France: 500, China: 2400 (multiple sections). If we could cut this section to 750 or 1000 words, we'd make major progress toward a concise article. 
:I've trimmed it down, almost to a thousand words. The guiding principle was to list only extremely important facts, leaving all discussion of analysis, cause and effect etc. for the daughter articles. Fg2 06:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably still too long and should be cut in half. WP:C suggests four to six paragraphs. We have that many third-level heads!Fg2 06:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: History sections in featured articles on countries: Australia (1,000 words, no third-level sections); Belgium (700, no third-level heads); Bhutan (1100, no third-level divisions); Cambodia (1900, with heads); India (525; no heads); Nepal (850 words, no heads); People's Republic of China (1000, no heads) (as examples). Perhaps it's brief enough as it stands. Fg2 07:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: The current text in the Modern era history says (with repeated sentence in boldface):
By 1910, Japan controlled Korea, Taiwan, and the southern half of Sakhalin. World War I enabled Japan, which fought on the side of the victorious Allies, to expand its influence in Asia, and its territorial holdings in the Pacific.
The early 20th century saw a brief period of "Taisho democracy" overshadowed by the rise of Japanese expansionism. World War I enabled Japan, which fought on the side of the victorious Allies, to expand its influence in Asia, and its territorial holdings in the Pacific. In 1936, however, Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, joining with Germany and Italy to form the Axis alliance.
Now, which of these redundant sentences should be deleted? --Tachikoma 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out! I took the first one out. It was in a paragraph that started in Meiji, so WWI is a bit of a reach. Fg2 01:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  which redundant sentence should go? 

message: I'd like to keep the previous introduction which was clear and concise. The revised introduction seems POV and too long.--Sir Edgar 07:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you not understand the beautiful simplicity of a Zen-like introduction? :) All kidding aside, sure, the Japan article should have a similar length introduction as other country articles. But one of the reasons why it was selected to be a featured article was because it was well-written. One of the new paragraphs seems to overemphasize foreign influence on Japan, especially that from China. It reads as if Japan is a Westernized Chinese country. Most of the POV seems to have been edited out now, but I still think this introduction needs some work. Many people will read this and it needs to give the right impression of Japan.--Sir Edgar 06:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Germany article is only three paragraphs and about 160 words long. It looks fine to me. Anyhow, since the Japan article has been recently undergoing so many changes, especially in its introduction. Unless there are some real inaccuracies or misportrayals, I am going to wait out until the dust settles before commenting/editing.--Sir Edgar 01:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction is too long now.  

message: Here's the text I put in as the lead section. I'm copying it here to make discussion easier. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Fg2 11:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original text is clearly inadequate- it make no attempt to summarise the article.   Fg2's is better, but the history section is so short as to be pointless, while the 'year 57' date is given too much prominence (more than it has in the actual article).  Could I suggest an expanded history section, with some mention of a) the prehistorical period, b) the important 5th/6th century date, c) something like the existing 'Later history sentence'; and d) a mention of Japan's emergence as a major economic power.   We can then remove the separate economy paragraph in the interests of concision. Markyour words 17:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions, Markalexander100. Concrete directions for improvement can put us on track quickly. I agree with your note about the year 57. Regarding "so short as to be pointless," it might have come out that way. I hoped to mention things that are often associated with Japan (as Wikiproject Countries suggests), i.e. emperor and shogun, and to draw the reader into the article where they could find more detail (as Lead section suggests), but Sekicho has accomplished that more capably than I could (see below) while also avoiding mention of the year 57. Sekicho also mentioned Japan's status (but not emergence) as a major economic power; if the word "emergence" is crucial, can you find a way to incorporate it into Sekicho's text? And that leaves only the fifth/sixth century to work on. With your suggestions and Sekicho's lead section (a vast improvement over mine), we may be within a whisker of nailing this down! Fg2 20:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section proposal

message: anyone know the source for the data in the infobox? cia world factbook says gdp ppp is 5th, not 3rd , & gdp pc is 22nd, not 12th . i'm sure there are other reliable sources besides the cia, just wondering where. Appleby 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rankings on Wikipedia are by country. In the World Factbook, dependencies, the world, the EU, etc. are added to the list, moving the real countries down a few notches. - Sekicho 23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox source 

message: This section seems both awkward and wrong. 95% of the Japanese I've met merge Shinto and Buddhism in their lives. And the weddings are faux-"big Church" style as they are entirely free of religious doctrine. - Sparky
:I think the best example of Japan and religion comes from a story told to me by a penpal in Oji.  When she was younger, her mother would walk her to school.  As they passed the butcher shop in their neighborhood, her mother would always make the sign of the cross.  When she asked her mother why, she said because her mother (my penpal's grandmother) had always done it as she passed a butcher's shop.  So she was using a Christian symbol to ward off Shinto's concept of the ritually unclean brought about by Buddhism's prohibitions against killing for entirely non-religious reasons. - Kuzain 04:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion 

message: Full disclosure, I am not a Japan expert in anyway, whatsoever. Surely, all of you who have worked on this and other Japan related pages are the experts and have done a great job! The intro to the Japan article, as well as the full article, looks well-written. I've a two questions. 
1. > and one of the world's leading industrialized countries.<
Is that necessary? If people understand what nominal GDP & purchasing power are, surely, they'll know that Japan must be an industrialized country, a world-leading one at that.
2. >Its capital, Tokyo, is the largest metropolitan area in the world with over thirty million residents.<
I think this causes some confusion. The capital isn't the entire metro area is it? Also, the Tokyo page mentions the Tokyo pop and the metro pop. The metro pop is given at 33-35 million. 30? 33? 35 million? Shouldn't we be a little more specific with that figure (on both the Japan and Tokyo page)?
:Well, there are lot of discrepancies regarding populations of any metropolitan cities in the world; it's just simply too hard to set a boundary as to where the city begins and ends. I'd like to hear more about experts on census systems and classifications of Japan. Deiaemeth 06:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro thoughts 

message: :Image:LocationMapJapan.png is totally wrong, it shows that two of the southernmost Kuril Islands belong to Japan. Unless the miracle that Russia has finally given back stolen territory has happened, the map is wrong. Please, someone change that and make sure that propaganda and POV stay out of Wikipedia. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is wrong, wrong, wrong 

message: Some random idiot deleted the whole Japan article <.< —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.4.75.127 (talk • contribs) .
:It's been fixed. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 18:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argh 

message: The article asserts that "most of the people are not atheists". According to Adherents.com, 64-65% of the Japanese are "Atheist/Agnostic/Nonbelievers in God" ; it seems that most do in fact fall under the "nontheist" category. - 68.33.120.32 22:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: does "atheist" specifically mean someone who doesn't believe in the christina/jewish/muslim god, or does it mean someone who does not believe in deities in general?  i think if taken in a broad sense, then it's safe to say most of them are not atheists.
Useless statistics. Go elsewhere on that site and you'll see that they have wildly varying numbers for the number of "Shinto followers" in Japan, ranging from 70 million to 115 million. I would say that practical agnosticism is fairly prevalent in Japan—religion is more ritual than spiritual—but that doesn't make the people atheists, just different. - Sekicho 00:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheists 

message: In this page many pro-koran vandalism were writtn. Ex. the influence of china was weak than that of korea. It was err without no explanation. Chinese character, Buddhism, Japanese envois  to Tang Dynasty China,and so on.Polaris36 21:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-Korean vandalism

message: *Superceded by the citations in the next section below.--Endroit 15:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, of the two links you provided, only one uses the term "mainland Asia". The other does not even mention it.--222.233.205.185 02:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Mainland Asia" includes "the lower basin of China's Yangtze River" as well as "Korea".  But being specific is fine too.  I just found a citation for a more comprehensive DNA study by Hammer below, rather than our generarizations and speculation so far.--Endroit 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for "Yayoi culture was brought to Japan by migrants from mainland Asia" (both Korea and China) 

message: I liked to say that this article is well written in an objective manner. Other articles I have seen in the past have displayed subtle but obvious bias, nevertheless this article does well. However, how important is the denial of Jappanese immigrants to the U.S., denial of ownership of land, power over their own kids recognized by their government, and other rights both Japanese Americans and Japan declared were necessary for fruitful Japanese-American relations. In other words, domestic policies effecting immigration of Japanese to the U.S. and rights of Japanese Americans pre-World War II were stressed over and over and over, uncountable times by Japan as a harbinger to the foreign relations between the two countries. Also, Japan asked immediately after the first World War that race be not considered an issue in creating foreign policies within the league of nations, but western nations turned this down. Japan interpreted those messages the wrong way if western nations at that time were not intentionally racist. Thus, nationalism based on race or (Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere) was created in response ( a form of the white man's burden and manifest destiny combined).
Most importantly, if a country suffers from overpopulation, what does it do? 
1) Create strict laws controlling population (one child per family policy in CHina)
2) Raise the economy to support this extra load of population (China is doing now with the help of the U.S. and other nations)
3) allow massive immigration to other countries (Japan tried to do this with the U.S. before World War II, Hispanic countries are doing this method now)
4) War by gaining living space (countries like ENgland, Germany,Japan,and the U.S. through imperialism)
Japan was not willing to committ harsh policies on its own people, Japan tried massive immigration to the U.S. (what other place would be easier for a westernized nation under the initial influence of Commodore Perry), and inevitably because it was not allowed to control population through immigration, engaged in imperialism. Rarely have I ever seen these facts asserted in any paper I have read within a western nation pertaining to Japan. However, I stated these facts as a informative purpose, to keep your objectivity as an author would probably mean not including these facts, so only consider but do not implement these aforementioned premises. Without these facts included within your paper, you have done well to keep both these preceding perspectives and western perspectives seperated from the objective facts. Good job.
:Thank you for your comments. Trust me, this article is under constant attack by vandals and, less frequently, rightists, sympathizers, or just plain misinformed Wikipedians. It has taken a lot of work to bring it up to the standard it has reached now. So, speaking on behalf of the many people who have actually contributed to this article's progress, I appreciate your kind words.
:To address the issues you have brought up:
:1. The U.S. denied access to not only Japanese immigrants, but all non-European immigrants through The United States Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins Quota Act. It established a system of national quotas which limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people who were already living in the United States in 1890, according to the census of 1890. 
The aforementioned immigration act banned all asians from immigrating to the US, however, the exclusion of Chinese immigration occured in the 1890's  while through a "gentlemen's agreement" between Japan and the US, Japanese immigration continued. Therefore this is why the academic community including collegiate textbooks on US history state that this act effected the Japanese more so than any other Asian immigration group, so this is why Japan had the most friction with the US over immigration. 
:2. Japan's statements to the Western world about racism during the first half of the 20th century were hypocritical, considering the abhorrent treatment of Japanese colonial subjects in China and Korea (see Nanking Massacre and Korea under Japanese rule). It's not like Japan was a champion of Asian rights in the international scene, just its own rights as a major power from Asia. So, I'm not sure if this really belongs in a main article on Japan.
Japan's military treatment of civilians and POWS has nothign to do with Japanese americans and Japanese immigrants. Because Japan committed atrocities against other people has no relevance in the assertion that Japan cared for Japanese immigrants and Japanese americans. Lets not commit jingoism by applying this idea to Japan but not remembering that the original colonies of the US expanded westward with horrific treatment on the indegenous population, this expansion does not indicate that the US did not care for their own Americans. Then why does horrific treatment of POWS and civiians by Japan indicate so? The above statement, I hope is now aware, is a fallacy.
:3. Overpopulation is not known as having been or being a big issue in Japan. Neighboring South Korea and Taiwan have higher population densities (Japan 337, South Korea 491, Taiwan 636 persons per square kilometer). See List of countries by population density.
The overpopulation statistics you provide are from 2005 and hence not relevant for this assertion applied within the context of before and during World War II. TO strengthen your refutation, please provide population statistics from the preceding dates mentioned. Also, none of the countries you used were world powers, the unstated assumption you list is that because the aforementioned countries suffer from similar or worse overpopulation, then they have equitable losses if this problem goes unchecked.
:4. I think you might be referring to a sort of Japanese Lebensraum, but I don't recall this ever being mentioned as a reason for Japanese expansionism in Asia. I'm sure it was discussed as a justification for occupying places like China and Korea at one point, but not significant enough to be discussed as in the article on Hitler (where Lebensraum is mentioned in the second paragraph). 
:--Sir Edgar 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article critique 

message: This discussion pertains to the following text in the Classical era section:
:The Japanese did not start writing their own histories until the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, ceremonial burial, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea.
In reading Tortfeasor's citations, I was particularly moved by how much the Baekje (Paekche) and Goguryeo (Koguryo) contributed to jump-starting Japan's culture, particularly the introduction of Buddhism.
See Korea - A Religious History
by: James Huntley Grayson p. 33
*372 Buddhism is introduced to Korea and Goguryeo (see Korean Buddhism for this)
*384 Buddhism is introduced to Baekje (see Korean Buddhism for this)
*538 - 552  Buddhism is introduced to Japan, as King Song of Baekje sends Buddhist statues and scriptures to Japan under Emperor Kimmei and Soga clan
*560 Goguryeo monk Hyep'yon (Keiben in Japanese) goes to Japan
*577 King Widok sends more artisans to Japan
*607 Empress Suiko of Japan sends an envoy to Sui Dynasty of China to copy Sutra (see Buddhism in Japan)
In the span between 538 and 607 (and perhaps before that too), Korean influence was great in Japan.
;Misinformation
Although I tried to be 100% NPOV, I was using over-generalized wording, "mainland Asia", and ended up making the article less accurate.
I don't blame others for accusing me of misinformation for doing so, and I do appologize.
If it wasn't clear from my most recent edits though, I have retracted my intention to insert the words "mainland Asia" (or "continental Asia") into this article.
(Actually, I only tried that for a couple of days, then gave up.)
;Perceived misinformation
Although Sir Edgar strived to be 100% accurate, he ended up using wording which implied that Korea was the original source (and inventor) of all the culture.
In reality, Korea acquired a significant portion (at least 30% to 50%) of this culture from Northern Wei Dynasty's China, and somehow we seem to be short-changed if this information is missing.
;Accuracy
I propose to use wording which explicitly specify who did what:  Baekje Korea, Goguryeo Korea, Wei China, etc.
And yes, Baekje (百済) appears in Nihonshoki.  And yes Baekje and Goguryeo appears in Tortfeasor's citations.
And yes, Northern Wei (of China) also appear in Tortfeasor's citations.
I believe that Korea (mostly Baekje, some Goguryeo) was 100% responsible for the culture, etc., being introduced to Japan, and we need to word it that way.
But at the same time, we should use wording which mentions that China (particularly Northern Wei) was a significant source (but not necessarily the inventor) of these culture.
I request Sir Edgar and others to cooperate with me in accomplishing this.
--Endroit 17:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation vs. Perceived misinformation vs. Accuracy in the "Classical era" section 

message: Buddhism　- Chinese Buddhism
Buddhism introduced to Japan. Dharma character schoolRitsuKegon, They are Buddhisms of China.   
advanced pottery -
advanced pottery was introduced into Japan by the prince of Silla "Amenohiko"
  
ceremonial burial　-
Ceremonial burial of traditional Japan started in the eighth century. 
Immigrant of Wu
Emperor Yuryaku sent forth an emissary to China, and requested the immigrant.  
If you write a really neutral article 
 
"when the Chinese writing system, chinese Buddhism, advanced pottery, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Korea's Baekje and Goguryeo and shilla Kingdoms or Wu which in turn derived some of that culture from China's Northern Wei Dynasty." 
It will be able to write simply. --Kamosuke 23:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Details

message: If you can fill in any of the cite needed tags then please do so so we can get this to FA. Country articles need lots of references. Skinnyweed 16:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I dont know if it is my computer or something but there is a format problem with prime minister and emperor in the infobox tableHektor 09:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format