Talk:Japan/Archive 12

message: I'm surprised there's no mention of the Ainu people in this article.
:Population
: Shibuya crossing is one of the largest pedestrian crossings and shopping areas.Japan's population is estimated at around 127,463,611. For the most part, Japanese society is linguistically and culturally homogeneous with only small populations of foreign workers, Zainichi Korean and others. Japan has indigenous minority groups such as the Ainu and Ryūkyūans, and social minority groups like the burakumin.
:There is.--Jjok 04:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be expanded. Other nations in Wikipedia, such as the United States, discuss the indigenous people for at least a short paragraph. I have found that understanding the Ainu's experience in Japan is a key to understanding Japanese society. One can hardly brush aside the indigenous races by lumping them together in one paragraph about a shopping area!
Naomichanart 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel the need to expand it, please go right ahead. I think it'll be a valuable addition to the article. However, just for clarity, it's not a paragraph about a shopping area - Shibuya is being used as something of an example to lead into discussion of the population and demographics of the country. It may be interesting/important to mention that official records only regard Ainu living in Hokkaido as being "Ainu", and that official sources therefore severely misrepresent or underrepresent the number of Ainu in the country, and their role in society. LordAmeth 14:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ainu - No mention?

message: I hope nobody's on drugs are all of you smell coffee in the morning???
Is this historical debate or historical discussion???
Via Korean peninsula) Look at the map or GLOBE. You will see closest nation to japan is Korean peninsula. So whats the argument. So all of you argue about " GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION". The history, Human Migration, Culture, War is based on Geographical location of the country. Yes, Japanese history, Japanese population racial migration, Japanese culture, Japanese nationalism and War was based on Korean Peninsula. Japan closest geographical location country is Korean peninsula.
There is a hypothesis that nomad's culture was imported by way of a Korean peninsula. Should I introduce this hypothesis?　--Sir Joestar 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds too specific for this general article on all of Japan (not just history, and not just the routes of flow of culture). Can you identify a more appropriate article and add it there? Fg2 02:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This theory (騎馬王朝征服説) is not general. However, the explanation from which the culture is given to Japan by the Korea route will be able to be helped. --Sir Joestar 01:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What time frame are you talking about?  Korean influence in Japanese history is controversial, so please don't insert anything like that until you're presented here in the talk page.  Also, I know a lot of Chinese-language sources about can be found, and I can help verify them.  But not many of the interested editors here can also verify those sources especially if it's something written in classical Chinese.  It would be a lot more helpful if you used English sources instead so all the editors here can help verify those sources.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This hypothesis is not related to China. This hypothesis was announced in 1970's. If this hypothesis is used, it can explain the root of the Japanese sentence discernment is not China but Korea. --Sir Joestar 14:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The culture of ancient Japan can have been done by the culture of China and the culture of a Korean peninsula being mixed. --Sir Joestar 00:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Via Korean peninsula 

message: Liancourt Rocks is a topic that South Korea and Japan are controverting. I think that I should not use the name of South Korea and Japan. (DOKUTO is not a name of Japan. )　--Sir Joestar 01:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's perfectly acceptable to link to Dokdo and have Takeshima in brackets - few people know what LIancourt Rocks are, so they wouldn't recognise it in the article. John Smith's 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the Japanese doesn't use the name of Dokuto. Moreover, dokuto is called Tokuto. Will you think that Liancourt Rocks is a name that the Japanese and the Korean can share?　--Sir Joestar 14:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Koreans don't want to "share" the name - they want to use their own name. So just have both. John Smith's 18:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the Korean compose the article on Japan?　--Sir Joestar 00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles are not composed based on the nationality of the editors. Otherwise you are telling me to "get lost" as well. How many Japanese wikipedians do you know of that can edit with a perfect understanding of English? This is the English version of wikipedia, so if you want to play the nationality game, I can play the language game - why should people who do not have English as a first language compose articles on the English wikipedia? John Smith's 00:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I questioned whether the name of a place of Japan had to be called in Korean. Please explain the reason to reject Liancour Rocks(Dokuto/Takeshima). --Sir Joestar 03:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The article on South Korea was seen. The Sea of Japan is being written East Sea. In a word, it is necessary to return Takeshima Dokuto. --211.131.247.102 19:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Should I make the article on South Korea the Sea of Japan?　Should I make the article on Japan Takeshima?　(Though Liancourt Rocks is the safest name)　--Sir Joestar 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you are trying to say, thanks for clarifying. Good friend100 23:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Liancourt Rocks

message: The war of the first Japan and China was done in a Korean peninsula. What does "Again" mean?　--Sir Joestar 14:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the editor who put that in meant. Japan invaded China in this period when it occupied Manchuria. It couldn't have invaded China "again" in 1937, because the invasion had already taken place and there hadn't been a withdrawl. I tried to make this a little clearer by making a small change, so that it says "invaded the rest of China", to show that it was already sitting on Chinese territory. John Smith's 18:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, is the expression named Again lost?　--Sir Joestar 00:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did a slight re-wording of the section.  Most importantly, Japan didn't invade "the rest of" China.  I re-wrote that part to say it invaded "other parts" of China.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you --Sir Joestar 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan invaded China again

message: Ok, there's something non-controversial. A fair few number of editors have repeatedly reinstated the sub-headings, despite my attempts to keep them out. I did this because of a complaint raised in the FA nomination. Although the number was cut down, I wondered whether the article needed a subheading when a bold heading would do instead.
What are your views? Does the article need sub-headings? If so, how many and in which sections - can we have even less than the latest page layouts? Or are they completely unnecessary and a distraction to reading the page? John Smith's 23:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel strongly either way, but I usually prefer being able to navigate to a section on the left menu, which means having the sub-headings.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. the subheadings should exist if the the heading material is too vast, as in ther history section. And i dont understand how having subheadings detract from the article's inherent qualities. If anything, the subhgeadings improve the article as far as coherence and presentation are concerned.--WoodElf 11:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is your response to the FA reviewer that said it was one cause to fail the article's nomination? What if it is a problem again - will you change your attitude? John Smith's 17:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely having subheadings is not against Wikipedia policy??? I would suggest the one who thinks otherwise to go soak his head. --WoodElf 09:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-headings

message: Please add Puffy to J-Pop. Perhaps, they are the most famous in the J-pop singer. --Sir Joestar 20:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Puffy

message: Please do not translate Nanban with the Southern Barbarian. (It is inaccurate.)　A correct explanation of Nanban is Nanman of China. --Sir Joestar 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC
:I'm not sure what your point is, but you are incorrect. Southern barbarian is a literal translation of the word. And nanban in Japan took on a different meaning from the original Chinese. It referred to the Europeans (Spanish and Portugese) who arrived in Japan from the South.-Jefu 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making reference to a Chinese term is not the "correct" explanation; explaining or translating into English, for our readers unfamiliar with Chinese concepts, is the purpose here. LordAmeth 08:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Intuitively, I felt this word a discriminatory expression. And, Nabnan was a name of Southeast Asia.　I considered misunderstanding. --Sir Joestar 19:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nanban

message: A fourfold discussion:
:I The administrative heading needs an interactive map. The cities table should be moved to the demographics head.
:II The "culture" subheadings needs to be truncated, and should, if possible, be merged into a single heading.
:III The article needs a thorough spellcheck.
:IV Since the "Japan topics" template is used in this article only, I propose the template be merged with the article itself. 
--WoodElf 09:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Discussion 

message: "This brought the United States into the Pacific Theatre of World War II, having entered the European Theatre when Germany declared war."
I was under the impression that the USA didn't enter WW2 at all untill Pearl Harbour? Is this view incorrect? If so can this be changed to better take into account the true situation with regards American actions in the European Theatre Pre-Pearl Harbour?
TH 14/01/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.253.161.14 (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US was not directly involved, militarily, on either front until Pearl Harbor. That is, we didn't send any troops prior to Dec 1941. But we may have declared war on Germany quite some time earlier, and we were definitely supplying Britain with food, equipment, etc., and organizing embargoes. (see Lend-Lease for one part of this int'l Allied supply system.) LordAmeth 01:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The declaration against both Germany and Italy was December 11, 1941.-Jefu 01:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Issues 

message: Please explain the reason to delete the section of Japanese cuisine. I am preparing it. return the section--Sir Joestar 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese cuisine