Talk:Japan/Archive 9

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan&diff=66786785&oldid=66784734
The Yamato Court which was probably a Baekje colony,PEAKCHE OF KOREA AND THE ORIGIN OF YAMATO JAPAN concentrated in the Asuka region, had the strong influence in West Japan and the southern part of a Korean peninsula. During the 5th and 6th centuries, Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, and ceremonial burial were all introduced by the Korean kingdom of Baekje, to which Japan provided military support.
::It can't be denied. Good friend100 00:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph above has valid references, but it will be difficult to get the wording of the paragraph in a way that won't be vandalized. The inclusion of disregarded theories about tribute or Japanese relation with the southern part of Korea needs to include the current theory of an expedition force from Baekje. Or we can state that the exact nature of the relationship is unresolved. I think the current version were the exact nature of the relationship is not resolved is more neutral and better. --Tyler 13:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: >Tyler111 You know Gwanggaeto Stele? Recent theories of scholars in China, Japan and Western countries usually accept that the epigraphy is genuineness and so they think that Japan had some influece to South Korean peninsula as the epigraphy. Please give us some materials to show "Japan was probably a Baekje colony". I know many materials to give us the reverse interpretaion, such as a hostage of Baekuje's royal family. I don't think that Baekje was Japanese colony, however, hostages must be needed to form an alliance in ancient times. But the  advocacy that Japan was Baekje's colony is ridiculous after studying them. Mythologia 13:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mythologia, you don't know about the conspiracy theories on the stele? Japanese interpretation is highly suspicious because it looked like tempered by some Japanese imperialists around the beginning of the 20th century Ginnre 15:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's Korean POV

message: A user wrote that the motto of Japan is "Peace and Progress". However, the user has no information about it (See Talk:Peace and Progress) and it is really doubtful. I think this should be removed.--Mochi 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Motto of Japan

message: Hi all,
user:220.212.100.227 made a major rewrite of Japan. I thought I should mention this and that I reverted because it was already a FA. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 17:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  massive rewrite 

message: Please do not do a large-scale edit without obtaining consensus. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan&diff=next&oldid=67192147
:The previous version never got "consensus".-- Sir Edgar 23:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. The article's been returned to its "A" quality. The Korea information was always there, but only deleted by immature haters.--Sir Edgar 02:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Edger, Aren't you immature haters?　--220.212.101.110 14:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His purpose is not to write a historic fact but to satisfy their own pride and to look down on Japan. Japanese had better to falsify and exaggerate Korean history. The articles about Japanese is NOT for Japan but for Korea. Gegesongs 15:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How are you so sure about your knowledge on Japanese history? In this article Korean influence is not described in an appropiate way. If you want to insist based on historical facts, learn them first. But not only from Japanese source. Ginnre 21:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My guess is that these anon accounts are all the banned users. If this is true, then that is truly pathetic. This is just a guess though and we must assume good faith. But they're still anon accounts working together and making false accusations which are offensive.--Sir Edgar 01:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sir Edger

message: Who deleted that section, that was major vandalism and someone should've caught that. No sections should be deleted at all without consensus and from spur of the moment. 168.253.12.197 04:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who deleted "Government and politics" section?

message: You are deleting sections that were added to make this article more comprehensive, you are removing these sections. This is absurd. What is your problem? 168.253.14.129
:I am returning to previous version that was more stable longer and was a Featured Article.--Sir Edgar 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask rest of the editors, if that's what they want first. Ask first and then get a consensus. Period. 168.253.14.129 00:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you're all done, please fix the rugby disambig problem that I fixed in the middle of this edit war. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sir Edgar don't do massive revert

message: I would like to officially protest edits that happened more than 6 times by User:Sir Edgar, which is this one . Please sign your name saying protest and no protest below.
He is deleting sections, and his only claim is that this was "featured article" now he is saying it should be reverted back not caring how much edit expansion was added to this article. He is deleting expanded section. We are getting vandalized more because of this previous "featured article" status article. Sir Edgar don't ever think of reverting back, don't even try, it will be reverted back as long as you keep doing it. Don't even try. If you don't like it, then copyedit it, don't be lazy and selfish and keep reverting people's work. 168.253.21.234 05:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Officially protest "Sir Edgar"'s massive reverts and edits

message: Anime was added. --61.209.162.75 18:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anime

message: Japanese cuisine is an integral part of its culture and Japanese cuisine is also famous worldwide. Should it not have section under culture?
WoodElf 10:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a small bit would be a good idea. John Smith's 12:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone please come up with an interesting cuisine lead?WoodElf 10:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuisine? 

message: Please improve Israel-Japan relations. Thanks, Republitarian 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel-Japan relations

message: The section on music of japan is rather iffy and could be improved. Any responses?WoodElf 09:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so i did it by myself. Hope u like the new stuff. If not, c'est la vie! A rather happy WoodElf 11:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lousy music 

message: Any text describing the ORIGIN of the following will be banned from the Japan article, and moved to their respective "main article" according to the manner prescribed in Wikipedia:Summary style:
burial mounds (kofun), burial rituals, Shintoism, shamanism, kanji, gagaku, buddhist chant, "Yayoi pottery" (see Japanese pottery, Korean pottery).
Any banned material may be reconsidered to be included in the Japan article again, if one of the following 2 criteria are met:
# The WP:V problems have been cleared
# The topic is deemed to be essential to the Japan article
==== Discussion (Part 1) ====
Please comment on the above, and discuss any ideas, changes, criticisms, or suggestions you may have.--Endroit 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Japan]] article proposal: Part 1 

message: Please comment on the above, and discuss any ideas, changes, criticisms, or suggestions you may have.--Endroit 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion (Part 1) 

message: There are some weird entries at the end that have appeared - ISO something-or-other and sports/vehicle codes. Anyone know how to get rid of them? It makes the page look terrible. John Smith's 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know how to get rid of them, but I'm sure the Template needs to be edited.  For now, I just filled in the values.  We can delete them later, when they become optional.--Endroit 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mysteriously fixed now. Much better. John Smith's 15:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox broken

message: i believe that the world war 2 section is biased towards the japanese trying to make it seem as if the united states was wrong for retaliating with force after the attack on world war 2 and that their tactics during the war were wrong.  i dont believe this is a discussion of what should of happened, just what happened so i believe the bias should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.112.31 (talk • contribs) 
:If the United States did not cut off Japan's oil supply, Japan would be forced to attack Pearl Harbour. Japan suffered the most from World War II. Look at atomic bombings. Japan is the only country to suffer from such tragedies. You must be more forgiving and understanding. Japan did not want war with the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.233.205.158 (talk • contribs) 
::If they didnt want war with the United States, why did they attack?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malevious (talk • contribs) 
:::This is a really lovely discussion on the philosophy behind japanese actions during ww2, but may i please remind you to sign (four tildes) when you want to say something? a conscientous WoodElf 10:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A liar is worse than a thief. During WW2, Japanese are brutal man. Corean2006 15:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Since Japan has little natural resources, and oil is required for industry, an oil embargo became the primary reason for an attack on the U.S. To the confused: a blockade is considered an act of war. A simple search will help you: oil+embargo+japan or blockade+act+war.Falsedef 17:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The American, British, and Dutch refusal to trade oil and steel was a response to Japanese aggression in China and was not the same as a military blockade. An embargo is a ban on trade, a blockade is a sealing off of a place. Oil and steel were required for the continued war effort, not "industry," and the attack was an attempt to preemptively restrain any American response in the region. Thedukeinjapan 14:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well an embargo on oil and steel would have affected Japanese industry too - you can't build or run an economy on "war". That said "embargo" is the correct term to use, as Japan would have been able to import materials from other suppliers had they been available. John Smith's 20:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  The only other way to get oil was through Euro and American controlled or influenced trade routes, also making it a blockade, although not an actual military blockade. Falsedef 13:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  world war 2 

message: Korea is a so not important topic for the Japanese. Please do not use energy for such a Korean. 
Please think about the introduction sentence of the Anime, the Manga, and the video games.
Nintendo is a priority that is far higher than Korean's boast. 　--220.212.102.162 09:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Korea is a colonial master of Japan in ancient times. We should write the historic fact. Almost all Japanese culture originate from Korean culture. But they were stripped from Korea by Japanese people in the era of the Japanese occupation. You had better study the historic fact. Corean2006 15:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know thus you have been told in school but that's only Korean's dream to cure your ressentiment against the Japanese. --Ypacaraí 07:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The saddest part of this article is that some of the Japanese editors keep deleting information that has to do with Baekje, Japan's influence of Korea, and the Japanese language. Instead, they keep and protect the section of "Japanese occupation". This is the most dirtiest part of the article and it is the reason why the article is not improving as it should. Good friend100 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Korean repeated a large-scale advertisement by the article on Japan by using SocksPapet. The South Korean insists that South Korea influenced the Japanese culture. But A lot of facts prove a Chinese culture is influencing Japan. (The Korea culture is included in a Chinese culture. ) A lot of Japanese will not permit the propaganda of Korea that uses Japan. Thanks! --61.23.10.205 08:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every country in the world has influenced, and has been influenced by, another country. Korea and Japan, being next to each other, have obviously had strong influences on each other. Why boast, argue or be ashamed over who influenced the other 1000, 100 or 10 years ago? DOES THE REST OF THE WORLD CARE? The answer is no, so please stop embarrassing yourselves and your respective countries.  Phonemonkey 23:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: True, there are a lot of things that you may not know about Korea that has influenced Japan and vice versa for me. Thats old. Everybody knows that Korea,Japan, and China are heavily influenced by each other, whether you like it or not. Oyo321 22:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Topics that are far more important than Korea

message: There is an image :Image:Hasekura in Rome.JPG in Japan#Medieval era and another :Image:RedSealShip.JPG in Japan#Edo era. I like those two images themselves, but they have not much to do with the article, where neither Hasekura nor the ships are mentioned. They are fine in the other article Edo period where readers can find what they are, but I am afraid they are not adequate to be put here. Minamoto no Yoritomo would suite better than Hasekura for "Medieval era". I am not sure about what would suite for Edo era, but an image of a daimyo gyoretsu might be nice if there is any. While I cannot find any, :Image:Hiroshige le pont Nihonbashi à l'aube.jpg may also be nice. --LittleTree 14:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: actually i think the history has too many images. perhaps we should not have any images for medieval and edo.WoodElf 09:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in Medieval and Edo era 

message: This is for the sake of record:  -  -  -  -  --Bhadani 16:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For record

message: I dont think it should have been changed to Continental East Asia yet.  If you read the consensus above, "Korea and China" have six votes while "Continental East Asia" has eight.  However, Komdori's vote should be stricken see as how s/he is a "Likely" sock of LactosteTI as confirmed by checkuser  and I think its weird that the seeming troll 222.233.205.83's vote was allowed to count when that user's comments have all been deleted from this talk page.  Tortfeasor 17:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes you just have to not quibble over little things for the good of the whole. I don't think we're ever going to get a large consensus, so why not just leave it as it is? Besides people have been having multiple votes, whereas some have voted once. More people support something with "Asia" in it than China/Korea. Just move on and make some helpful changes to the article, rather than quibble over unimportant points. John Smith's 08:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John Smith's:  I think its interesting that you find this topic so "unimportant" that you don't want to "quibble" over it but you felt the need to make comments in the discussion, vote, and then change it from "Korea and China" to "continental East Asia" without consensus.  Since "Korea and China" was chronologically first, technically, "leav[ing] it as it is" would be reverting back to the "Korea and China" language, which I have done.  If this is a minor point to you I respectfully suggest that perhaps you should follow your own advice and "just move on" instead of feigning disinterest in a topic you obviously have great interest in.  Thanks for your comments.  Tortfeasor 16:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a clear problem because people were not happy with what there was before. Various suggestions were made, but no one was willing to "process" the results or move them on. So I simply put in an edit that I thought had the most support, if not a clear majority. It went in, there were no complaints - and then you turn up, deciding that the original had to go back. Well sorry, but I don't think that's enough. My edit was up there for I can't remember how long. If you want to now make an issue of it, have a formal vote on it with proper time-lengths, etc. If you don't then you're not serious about resolving the dispute, just pushing your POV. You were the one person quibbling with my suggestion - no one else has. John Smith's 17:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The results are not clear cut.  There is continued discussion below.  Your first edit could be seen as surrepticious because you didn't even put in the edit summary what you changed the wording but wrote "let's try this" or something to that effect.  It seemed to me as if you were pulling a "fast one".  The Korea and China wording was there far longer so I don't see how relevant your point is about how your edit stood the test of time.  I have reverted to the original version until consensus decides otherwise.  Please follow your own suggestion about a proper vote, etc. if you want to change the original wording.  I'm not sure what the problem is.  I would just ask you follow your own advice.  Thanks.  Tortfeasor 20:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hm, you're right, I hadn't thought of the fact that "continental East Asia" is more inclusive. But did Viet Nam or Thailand or anywhere else (prior to European contact) really have any significant influence on Japan? I stand by my assertion that "continental East Asia" is too vague and too PC - why not talk straight and say what you mean? When you talk about the cultures that had the most influence on Japan, you can call them any number of different things, but in the end, they are China and Korea. So why not simply say that to begin with? Why obfuscate the issue? The only reason I did not comment earlier was because I was busy with moving overseas and all sorts of things related to that, and because I knew others would speak up for my position. LordAmeth 19:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vietnam, Thailand, etc are not part of East Asia - they are part of South East Asia. There is a difference. And the continental East Asia also disincludes the Philippines, etc. John Smith's 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the definition of East Asia before making statements such as the fact that Vietnam is not part of it.  Thanks.  Tortfeasor 20:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's important to include a wikilink to East Asia when mentioning "Continental East Asia".  "Continental East Asia" includes Mongolia and Manchuria, which are areas which may not necessarily be included in the "Korea and China" designation depending on the definition.  For example, most English dictionaries define "Korea" to be a formerly united nation whose area is restricted to the Korean Peninsula, whereas Wikipedia's article Korea defines it to be a "civilization" whose area expanded into Manchuria.  Manchuria may or may not be considered part of "Korea and China" during the Yayoi times depending on the interpretation, but "Continental East Asia" unambiguously includes Manchuria.  For the record, I think either wording is fine, and I agree with John Smith's that the consensus was in favor of "Continental East Asia" at the time.  If anybody doesn't like that conclusion, we need to do a poll.--Endroit 20:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe a poll is neccesary. "Continental east asia" however can be too vague when just glanced at. It doesn't include southeast asia islands, but it can be misleading and ambiguous. I think we should set up a poll again. Good friend100 20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have a poll, we need to know what to change it to - otherwise we will merely know we need a new term. As I pointed out, we need clearly defined terms as to length, voting procedure, etc. John Smith's 20:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, "maybe India", eh? Well that's clear. Besides one problem is that the states of "China" and "Korea" didn't exist then like they do now. So are we going to have a massively long list of every state/kingdom/whatever that once influenced Japan? Why not just have a very brief point like "continental East Asia", "parts of continental Asia", or whatever? John Smith's 20:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem is that "Japan" didn't exist then like it does now.  So are we going to have a massively long list of every polity that existed on the Japanese Archipelago during the Yayoi migration plus the Ainu polity?  Also, if you think "continental East Asia" is okay I would suggest it be changed to "geographic continental East Asia minus Mongolia" because A) the term right now is ambiguous to whether it refers to geographic or cultural East Asia and  B) Mongolia was not a source of the Yayoi migration.  India too for that matter.  Tortfeasor 22:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, tort, start a proper poll or give over. Trying to score points isn't going to get you anywhere - it just makes you look like you're throwing your toys out of the pram. John Smith's 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JS: No discussion on the merits?  Please at least try to make a good argument as to why you're trying to be PC in this one instance.  Tortfeasor 22:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, tort, please discuss away. I really don't mind what you have to say. But any discussion taken place that is not part of a poll is irrelevant as to whether or not we change the current wording. That's all I meant to say. If you just want to have a theoretical discussion then that's fine. John Smith's 23:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measuring consensus of Continental East Asia versus Korea and China, etc. 

message: Koreans want to put Korea in the history in Japan. The evaluation of the article on Japan was lowered to B class because of their puppet and hijack. And, the Korean tries to throw away the article on Korea, and to enter the article on Japan. How should we treat these arrogant refugees?
I hate Korean to use my home country to advertise Korea. 
--219.66.45.30 09:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about "advertising" Korea, it is about providing accurate historical information. And it is truly inappropriate, and borderline racist, of you to assume that the people editing this page are Koreans. I happen to be a white American working on his master's in Japanese Studies, and someone who has never studied Korea at all. If you want to continue to push your nationalistic, anti-Korean agenda, you can expect to be banned from editing articles entirely. LordAmeth 14:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please remain civil and not attack others with terms like "arrogant refugees".  Korean influence on Japanese history is well supported by many credible sources.  What do you mean the "evaluation" of this article is lowered to "B class"?  What does that mean?  And to the best of my knowledge, there is no sockpuppetry or "hijacking" here.  What do you mean "Korean tries to throw away the article on Korea"?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not fair how the attitudes around these talk pages revolve. I don't understand why some of you vandalize the article by removing information about Korea, then accuse Korean people that they are hijacking the article. This is not the right attitude to work on an article. This has been going on for a long time. Its getting ridiculous. Good friend100 21:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the entreaty from Korean