Talk:Japanese language/Archive 1

message: I am removing all the inappropriate links from here. I recently did the same thing on the kanji page, and put them on a new page learning kanji. Some people objected to this new page as it was inappropriate for Wikipedia. I agree with the objection to the "learning kanji" page, and in the light of that discussion here I have just removed all the spam and irrelevant links. --DannyWilde 00:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Link spam

message: The article looks like still a language guide for English-speakers. While it is not completely wrong, it might mislead people. I don't think for example, Romaji is such a big topic in Japanese language because the Japanese hardly use it in their everyday life. So I will or did already:
* remove romaji section to romaji article with a pointer.
* delete duplication
* add much more examples beyond language learning guide
Or you can help me out to do this if you happen to know something about Japanese language. Cheers! -- Taku 13:32 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
:I would disagree that Japanese don't use Romaji in their everyday life, but I agree that the discussion should be moved to another topic page, along with some of the language-guide type content.  MattH 08:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The language is heavily tied to Japanese culture and vice-versa
-- Well, all languages are tied to their respective cultures. Japanese happens to be tied to only one culture (taking as granted that there is only one culture in Japan). Isn't it so? Marco Neves 03:21, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Structure 

message: I think a direct link to a list of honorific suffixes in the Politeness section would be nice. I don't know if such a list exists on WP. Although I found many mentions of these suffixes on different pages, I couldn't find an exhaustive list anywhere. I'd really like to see such a list, or at least one with the most used ones and their meaning/usage. --Ged (talk) (email) 23:23, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, the most complete list I've found is on the Honorific page. That list is IMHO too long for that page. It should be made a separate page and completed. There is also a (very) short paragraph about these suffixes in the Customs section of the Japanese name page. --Ged (talk) (email) 23:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorific Suffixes List 

message: I've always been told that hiragana was created by women, based on a simplified version of Kanji.  A quick search online elsewhere returned this information:
(Taken from www.takase.com)
During the end of the Nara period and during the Heian period, literary women (who were not allowed access to the male dominated Chinese learning) developed a syllabary that encompassed all 51 sounds of the Japanese language. This syllabary was based on the Sousho form of the Chinese characters and has a very feminine, flowing form. This style was originally called "onna-de" or "feminine-hand" and is now called "hiragana" and commonly called the cursive style of syllabary.
Obviously, the source is not unimpeachable, but it does mesh well with what I've heard elsewhere.  Anyone know a good way to verify this one way or another?
--Beska 16:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The hiragana page discusses the history of the script. As I understand it, hiragana was not invented by women, but being the form of writing accessible to them, came to be associated with them. Buddhist monks did create katakana, through a parallel process, by simplifying some of the same kanji used in man’yogana to a constituent element, rather than simplifying to a cursive form. adamrice 16:43, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhist Monks Create Hiragana? 

message: I'm not a linguist, and I've been taking for granted that Japanese has no diphthongs, however I found out yesterday when trying to explain the "OK" pronunciation to a Japanese that they DO know the concept (二重母音、nijyuuboin. loosely translated, double-weight vowel). As far as I know, Japanese consider things like hyo, byo, pyu, etc, etc. (basically anything that has a small ya/yu/yo) as diphthongs. After some thought, I think it makes sense, but I'm not a linguist. SpiceMan 22:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my understanding is that Japanese has two "diphthong-like" phenomena: monomoraic glide-vowel sequences and bimoraic vowel-vowel sequences. The former, which is like your examples of hyo, byo, pyu, etc., are in fact diphthongs from a phonetic point of view, but underlyingly, they're a sequence of a glide followed by a vowel. Compare English yo, which is a glide-vowel sequence, but isn't considered one of the diphthongs of English because the y sound is considered to be a consonant. The same applies to Japanese. The latter type, bimoraic vowel-vowel sequences, are words like hai (="yes"), which again are phonetically diphthongs, but phonologically are considered to be two vowels in separate morae. Japanese has no monomoraic diphthongs, equivalent to English you or cow. I may be off on some of the details here, but I'm pretty sure this is the reasoning behind the "no diphthongs in Japanese" argument. Nohat 20:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Imho, "having no monomoraic diphthongs" is not the same as saying "having no diphthongs" at all. I'm going to add something about it. Specially when there are cases which could be called diphthong when considering it in some way (ie phonetically). SpiceMan 09:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nohat has summed up the "no diphthongs" argument nicely. However, the definition of diphthong is basically "two vowels pronounced in one syllable," not one mora. So yes, Japanese does have diphthongs, and like English diphthongs, they are bimoraic and monosyllabic. (Oh, and I am a linguist and professor of Japanese.) Squidley 16:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Diphthongs

message: So what made it Euro-centric? The fact that the analysis was free of the restraints necessarily imposed by kana? As Ish mentioned, many scholars think that both "mora" and "syllable" are essential to describe Japanese adequately; read the literature and you'll see that. (Quick examples: long vs. short vowels & consonants requires moras, but accent in verbs requires syllables.)
As I read it, the description of syllables that Steverapaport objected to was trying to be all-inclusive, to describe syllables of both single moras and those of more than one mora. That it did not refer to kana is a good thing, IMHO. However, this all seems moot now, as the current article is brief to the point of terseness--and is better for it. Squidley 23:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: re: "Euro-centric" description

message: I've seen Japanese katakana and kanji written left-to-right on pages, but I've also seen just kanji written top-to-bottom, with the columns right-to-left. I also notice that Japanese books are read back to front. Could information on this be included in the article? --Poiuyt Man (talk) 08:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't really be within the scope of this article -- this article is about the language, not the script. See Japanese writing system for the script. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 13:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left, Right, Top, Bottom? 

message: I was looking for information about which dialects/regions formed the basis for modern Standard Japanese, but the article doesn't appear to cover that. -- Danny Yee 01:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that should probably be added at some point.  The Japanese government of the early Meiji Period did set out on an ambitious project to formulate "standard" Japanese for use in education, based on a survey of the language throughout the country, but, like many such complex and enormous initiatives, this fell by the wayside.  What was eventually adopted for educational purposes was the speech of upper-middle class speakers in Tokyo.  If you can get your hands on a copy of Masayoshi Shibatani's book The Languages of Japan, he gives a decent summary of what happened.  Any good history of Japan of the Meiji Period should also include some mention of this process.  Cheers, --- Eiríkr Útlendi 02:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Standard Japanese? 

message: Is it just me or is the "Learning Japanese" section short on actual information and long on POV?  It seems like it needs to be cleaned up or deleted.  CES 02:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learning Japanese 

message: What is the term for transcribing japanese to english, so that you can read it in english, but pronounce it as if you were reading it in japanese? Edit: and are there any online programs to do this? Babelfish just returns japanese characters.
:It's called romanization.  See romaji for detail.  --Kusunose 13:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcribing japanese to english, not translating 

message: Greetings. Would someone who can speak Japanese be kind enough to have a look over at the Reiki article? There seems to be a dispute over the actual meaning or meanings of the usage 霊気  reiki itself in Japanese. Also, there is no clear provenance as to whether the term is a recent coinage or a term from earlier Japanese history. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Fire Star 04:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my dictionary, 霊 rei (another reading is ryou) means "soul, spirit, departed ghost". It appears in other compounds such as akurei or akuryou "evil spirit", eirei "spirits of war dead", onryou "revengeful ghost", jorei "exorcism" and sourei "poltergeist". So it doesn't mean "universal" as the page states. --Pablo D. Flores 11:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request for assistance. 

message: Would anyone strenuously object to moving the Sounds section to an independent article?  The current article is 40kb, and the phonology section is sufficiently detailed to stand well-enough as an article of its own (IMHO).  Tomer TALK 01:16, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree. The article should be more than just about grammar or phonology. Spliting can create a room for history, culture and people related to Japanese language. -- Taku 01:20, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
:Breaking out the section and leaving a short summary behind would be great.  — Gwalla | Talk 04:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Support--Jondel 05:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Support. I've been doing this myself for a few long article. Remember to leave a  tag. --Pablo D. Flores 11:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move [[Japanese language#Sounds]] to [[Japanese phonology]] 

message: Further to the above comments, prior to actually doing the edits, here I have copied out the grammar section of the article, and written my comments in italics and suggestions for material to be moved elsewhere, simplified, or deleted, which are written like this. Please keep in mind that this section should be a summary of the main article Japanese grammar when commenting - I am not suggesting removing this material from Wikipedia altogether, but from the grammar summary in the top page on the Japanese language. If anyone has any points to make, please let me know and I'll try to keep it in mind. --DannyWilde 05:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major removals to be made

message: the see also list was flagged as long. as many of the entries in the list are in the category Japanese Language, shld they be removed from the see also list, while only retaining a link to the category?
following are the links in the JapLang see-also list also present in JapLang category.
# Four-character idiom
# Henohenomoheji
# Japanese language and computers
# Japanese literature
# Japanese pitch accent
# Japanese pronouns
# Japanese proverbs
# Japanese Language Proficiency Test
# Kanji kentei
# List of Japanese learning resources
# Rendaku
# Japanese titles
Doldrums 19:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to check "What links here" for those pages? For example does "Henohenomoheji" have any links except the category and the Japanese language page? "Rendaku", "Kanji kentei", are well linked pages, and "Japanese titles" is linked from other another place in Japanese language. I'll chop out some obvious bad guys and then if it is still a problem, please discuss here again. --DannyWilde 22:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  long see also list 

message: Does anyone besides me find the glosses to the following phrases in the grammar section confusing?
"Negatives are formed from verb conjugations. For example,
    大学にいく。 Daigaku ni iku. "Go to university.",
becomes
    大学にいかない。 Daigaku ni ikanai. "I don't (he doesn't) go to university."　(Indicative, not imperative.),
with iku "to go" changing to the negative form ikanai."
If I didn't understand the Japanese phrases, I'd really have little idea of what exactly is going on in these sentences.  It seems like part of the problem is in the translation itself (the first phrase is not even a complete sentence and sounds like an imperative, the two translated phrases aren't really parallel in meaning, and the "(he doesn't)" in the second phrase is certain to confuse many people).  Part of the problem is that the word "university" is used in a non-standard manner for US English at least.  Finally, part of the problem is the fact that the phrases can indicate going to school in the general sense (as in "she goes to school at State U.") or in a specific sense ("she went to school today").
It seems like the point of this section should be to simply show how "X (Verb)s" becomes "X doesn't (Verb)".  How about replacing the above example with something simpler like:
Pan o taberu. "I will eat bread."
Pan o tabenai. "I will not eat bread."
I realize these sentences could be translated different ways, but for our purposes as an intro to Japanese grammar, doesn't something like this make more sense?  If someone has a better example, that would be great.  But the phrases we have now are downright confusing. CES 14:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been Wikifiddled since I wrote the original example, but admittedly it wasn't very good originally. I'd suggest sticking to simple things here; the point is to illustrate how the negative is formed rather than to get into future tenses. --DannyWilde 22:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and changed the example. CES 01:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar Glosses

message: : Nouns have no grammatical number, gender or article aspect.
By loose analogy with verb aspect I guess that "article aspect" means definiteness; but is that a standard term? —Tamfang (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't mean anything. I assume it's a translation problem. I'd just say "and there are no articles". — kwami (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't understand this either, and I can't find any evidence that it is a known term. I have changed it per Kwami's suggestion. 86.160.221.80 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  article aspect 

message: :"Latin script is used in a limited way, often in the form of rōmaji..."
There is debate and uncertainty elsewhere about whether "romaji" refers only to Japanese words transliterated into the Latin alphabet (e.g. konnichiwa) or whether it also includes embedded use of Roman characters within Japanese text, such as the adoption of acronyms like "DVD". Whichever definition is accepted, I'm not sure that "often in the form of rōmaji" actually makes sense. I'm tempted to remove it, but does anyone else have a view? 86.160.221.80 (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romaji 

message: 10= dew  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.155.222 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: While the language has some words that are typically translated as pronouns, these are not used as frequentforly as pronouns in some Indo-European languages, and function differently. Instead, Japanese typically relies on special verb forms and auxiliary verbs to indicate the direction of benefit of an action: "down" to indicate the out-group gives a benefit to the in-group; and "up" to indicate the in-group gives a benefit to me dic
.
"Instead ... typically" gives the impression that such special forms serve to disambiguate in most cases where pronouns are omitted. In fact, this is not true, as far as I understand it. These special "giving"/"receiving" forms apply only in a relatively small number of cases, and, of course, normally only with human subjects. 81.159.105.254 (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

text: I don't think the special "giving"/"receiving" forms are even remotely related to pronouns, but this unreferenced paragraph implies they are.  Where did this come from?  Is this OR? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the supposed connection with pronouns is that the "giving/receiving" forms can clarify the subject and object/target of a verb (e.g. whether it's "he gave me" or "I gave him") when pronouns are absent. I didn't think that in itself was unreasonable (correct me if I'm wrong), just that the wording made it seem like a more widespread and general-purpose mechanism than it really is. 81.159.105.254 (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

text: * Note, too, that the so-labeled "giving/receiving" forms are used outside of what is generally thought of in English as "giving/receiving" -- things like "I did XX for YY", which could be stated without using pronouns in a manner such as "XX してあげた" ("XX shite ageta", informal), or things like "let me do XX", stated as "XX させていただきます" ("XX sasete itadakimasu", formal).  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: あげる should be compared with やる and it has nothing to do with formal/informal. Usually, あげる is used when the speaker talks about older people like "母に歌を歌ってあげました/I sang a song to my mother" and やる is used when the speaker talks about younger people or non-human like "弟の宿題を手伝ってやった/I helped my younger brother to do his homework" and "犬に餌をやる/I feed my dog". "させていただく" is another matter and a lot of people use it incorrectly in these days. As for "giving/receiving", this might be helpful.  Oda Mari (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Oda-san, "informal" is just in reference to ageta as opposed to agemashita -- i.e., to indicate that this is the informal plain form, and not masu/desu.  Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

text: The real problem is that there is no omission of pronouns in Japanese.  Japanese simply doesn't use pronouns where European languages do; it's not like anything has been left out.  — kwami (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not actually the problem at all.  While it certainly could be reworded to be more clear, the text does say that Japanese "has some words that are typically translated as pronouns", which is true.  Even people who have demostrated that they know better typically describe these words as pronouns.  The "instead", though, strongly implies ther's a relation between these "not-pronouns" and the "up" and "down" verbs (a description that itself is gibberish to anyone who doesn't already know the the text is talking about).  The whole paragraph (and much of the article) needs a thourough re-think before a re-write.  Also, the text quoted above isn't the only mangling of the "pronoun" issue—check out "Japanese speakers tend to omit pronouns on the theory they are inferred from the previous sentence".  What "theory"?  "inferred from the previous sentence"? ... except when there was no previous sentence, but still the "pronoun" (or other subject) was never made explicit?  Again, no source, of course, because no reliable source would spout this gibberish. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying there are no cases in which the "giving/receiving" forms help to identify the subjects and objects of verbs when they are omitted? 86.160.221.48 (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the examples in the article, if I said oshiete moratta, how could you tell if the person being taught/told was "me" and not "my mother"? Or "you",  for that matter? Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My knowledge of Japanese is not good enough to answer that, or to answer my own question. 86.160.221.48 (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Omission of pronouns

message: The Phonology section makes the statement that:
However, consonant clusters across syllables are allowed as long as the two consonants are a nasal followed by a homorganic consonant.
In the orthography, and in careful speech, this is the case -- you only ever encounter intersyllabic clusters based on ん (the moraic nasal), such as:
* : : “this time”
* : : “a print, a printed picture”
* : : “easy, simple”
* : : “piggyback”
However, in everyday speech, other clusters also occur with the sibilant sounds, such as:
* : : “did”
* : : “is that so?”
Japanese-language references about Japanese phonology, such as the NHK日本語発音アクセント辞典 (NHK Japanese Pronunciation Accent Dictionary, ), describe certain vowels as being unvoiced in particular words.  This is often indicated in Japanese phonology texts by circling the kana containing the unvoiced vowel with a dotted line, as in した (shita, “did”).  In careful speech, the unvoiced vowel is realized by speakers making that mouth shape but just omitting the voice, indicated in IPA by an under-circle, as in .  However, in more casual speech, the sibilant alone is pronounced, with the unvoiced vowel so foreshortened as to be effectively omitted, producing  instead.
I think this bears mentioning in the article.  Has anyone run across published materials describing this phenomenon?  I thought Shibatani might have, but I cannot find my copy at the moment.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonology and consonant clusters 

message: The infobox says that Japanese is the "official" language in Japan, but the main text says it "has no official status". Something not quite right there. 86.151.119.98 (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, whatever suits you. 86.169.36.101 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I'm not sure how this source and this source support "and the Philippines (particularly in Davao and Laguna)" at the end of Japanese language#Geographic distribution, so I have removed them per WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:SYN. Both links are dead, but archived versions can be found here and here. 
The first source is about pottery in the Philippines. There is no mention of either "Davao" or "Laguna" at all in the article and no mention of "Japanese" as a language or its spread to the Philippines. The phrase "Japanese texts" is used quite a bit, but I don't believe this is in reference to the Japanese language. Rather, I believe it is referring to materials written in Japanese about pottery in the Philippines. I just don't see any direct connection between this source and the "geographic distribution" of the Japanese language. 
The second source "The Cultural Influences of India, China, Arabia, and Japan" only makes reference to "Japan" twice throughout the entire article. Once in the title and once in the sentence "The Japanese made some important contributions to Philippine life too. They taught the early Filipinos certain industries such as the manufacture of arms and tools, the tanning of deerskin, and the artificial breeding of ducks and fish." Again, there is no mention of "Davao" or "Laguna" or "Japanese language" and its spread to the Philippines. Whatever connection there is between this source and the "geographic distribution" is very flimsy at best in my opinion and unacceptable per "RSCONTEXT".
I think it's possible that the IP who added these sources with  was acting in good faith, but was also interpreting them in a way that is not acceptable per WP:SYN. I normally don't delete links just because they are dead, but instead try to fix them per WP:PLRT. If another editor can figure out a way to make these links work, then please do, but I think this is a problem that cannot be fixed. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic distribution: Philippines 

message: What are you trying to say ? General Ization Talk    14:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I understand now (though this could stand some further explication and/or references in the article, with a ref linked to the infobox entry). General Ization Talk    14:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Official language

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Japanese language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141019011022/http://www.seapots.com/home/index.php/production-centers-pottery-groups/philippines to http://www.seapots.com/home/index.php/production-centers-pottery-groups/philippines
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121203213846/http://www.philippinealmanac.com/2010/07/528/the-cultural-influences-of-india-china-arabia-and-japan.html to http://www.philippinealmanac.com/2010/07/528/the-cultural-influences-of-india-china-arabia-and-japan.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In section History#Old Japanese: "Old Japanese does not have /h/, but rather /ɸ/ (preserved in modern fu, /ɸɯ/), which has been reconstructed to an earlier */p/."
This statement appears to state that Old Japanese had the phoneme /ɸ/, while */p/ was present in an earlier stage. The article on Old Japanese is fairly clear in reconstructing the phoneme as */p/ during the Old Japanese period, which ended in the 8th century.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vimitsu (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Japanese /p/ vs /ɸ/ 

message: In the infobox in the beginning of the article "Japanese language" (nihongo) is written in Japanese script. It looks like a semi-cursive script but the shape of the bottom part of 言 (口) is quite unusual. There is a lot of semi-cursive styles in China and Japan, so I am not telling that this is absolutely wrong, but I think that this shape is too rare to be chosen as the representative shape in this introduction. --Maidodo (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it appropriate because the style looks uniquely Japanese. There are few kanji fonts that look clearly non-Chinese, and to my eye this one does. MJ (t • c) 21:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox language picture 

message: As there is no accepted classification and the official japanese side say it is isolated, we should change the color to isolated. adopting from japanese wiki, 
actually there are no japanese linguists that support the altaic theory anymore. also most or all modern western linguists say japonic and koreanic are not altaic,
so the japanese support mostly the isolated or austronesian theory and koreans the isolated or dravido-koreanic theory, but also the paleo-asian theory made by Vovin alexander. the altaic theory is dead. no genetically connection. so it is sooner or later clear that the altaic theory, if true, only include turkic, mongolic and tungusic. 
--이준성 오스트리아 (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language family color 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Japanese language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121119132009/http://madeinjapan.uol.com.br/2008/06/21/ibge-traca-perfil-dos-imigrantes/ to http://madeinjapan.uol.com.br/2008/06/21/ibge-traca-perfil-dos-imigrantes/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303233011/http://www.asiasocietymuseum.org/buddhist_trade/koreajapan.html to http://www.asiasocietymuseum.org/buddhist_trade/koreajapan.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5kwPni5fJ?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568150_4/Pottery.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568150_4/Pottery.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568150_4/Pottery.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121221212636/http://www.kanken.or.jp/bjt/pdf/statement-e.pdf to http://www.kanken.or.jp/bjt/pdf/statement-e.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The last two are broken. —MRD2014 18:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified