Talk:Japan/Archive 3

message: From the article: 'The Koizumi government is attempting to privatize Japan Post, one of the country's largest private banking and insurance institutions, by 2007.'
That phrase doesn’t make sense, how do you privatize a private institution? And are we sure that Japan Post is a banking and insurance institution?? My guess is that instead of a ',' there should be a 'and', but in that case what is the name of that 'largest private banking and insurance institutionE  Could someone with the correct knowledge on the topic fizz this? Thank you.
:Japan Post is not a private company yet, it is a public company operated by the government. It is now planned to divide the company into four, which are postal services, postal savings services ("Yucho"; banking), postal life insurance services ("Kampo") and window networks (post offices), and privatize each on April 2007. ref: http://www.japanpost.jp/top/profile/english/3.html   However, I am doubting if this phrase should be in this place (too much in detail, isn't it?).  NOR 12:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification request 

message: In the interests of precision of language, I'd like to start a discussion about the following line on culture.
  'The start of the Yayoi period around 300 BC, marked the influx of new technologies
   such as rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making, brought by migrants from 
   Korea. These formed the basic elements of traditional Japanese culture, still seen 
   today.'
I'm not sure it's entirely helpful or informative to say that shamanism, iron and bronze-making form the basic elements of traditional Japanese culture.  There probably is some connection between Shintoism and shamanism, and probably iron and bronze-making do contribute to Japan's modern mighty manufacturing industry, but it seems a rather vague and undefined connection.  I have to comment that probably a lot of early civilizations went through a shamanistic phase, and went through the iron and bronze making, and such things have an effect on the basis elements of that culture.  But to go as far as to  definitively say that the basic elements of a culture are from "rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making" seems not befitting.  I suggest changing it to 
  'The start of the Yayoi period around 300 CE marked the influx of new technologies such as rice   
   farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making, brought by migrants from the Korean peninsula.    
   From archaeological evidence, these had an impact on early cultural developments on the islands of 
   modern Japan.'
Another possibility is that the author intended to write that the "new technologies" formed the basic elements of traditional Japanese culture.  I'm open to these possibilities. Wilgamesh 21:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I removed those links (one was repeated twice); I don't object (or hold a strong opinion, for that matter), but I think the sexual cultural influences need to be better qualified, rather than somewhat mechanically added to that particular passage (itself a bit problematic). El_C 08:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact of Yayoi-period Imported Technology 

message: Japan is an empire same as that Sweden is a kingdom, since Japanese Emperor system still exists.   But Japan's Government has called Japan "Japan" as the formal name and will do so.   Perhaps Japan's Government wants to avoid that Japan may become "notorious" as an empire.    [17:00, 05 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is certain that Japan is still an empire formally at least. 

message: This section does not conform to widely accepted and proven theories on Japan's origins. That's why I'm going to edit it.--Sir Edgar 00:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-history 

message: Like the issue of 'Unique' in Japan I feel that there is a something incorrect about this paragraph of the geography section:
:"However about 73% of the country is mountainous and unsuitable for agricultural, industrial or residential use due to the generally steep elevations, climate and risk of landslides due to earthquakes and heavy rain".
I think this (like unique culture or the unique four seasons) is another myth: that japan is subject to uniquely severe forces of nature. There are other countries in the world with similar geological and climatic conditions yet with many hill/mountain top towns and extensive agricultural development. Italy, California (San Franscisco), Chile and Peru jump to mind.
:You seem to have something against Japan when you so fervently argue that "Japan is NOT unique." First of all, the paragraph never even mentioned that "japan is subject to uniquely severe forces of nature." It NEVER boasted that Japan is in any way special, or that "Japan is superior because it has to endure harder climatic conditions." All it said was that "the Japanese people do not find the mountains suitable for development because of what they deem to be sufficient reasons." Yes, there are many mountain top towns in Italy, San Francisco, Chile and Peru, but how is that relevant? The people of those countries chose to build on mountains, but the Japanese believe it is risky, and that is all there is to it. Are you going to force the Japanese to build on their mountains? Also, in case you were not aware, the geological and climatic conditions of the regions you mentioned (Italy, San Francisco, Chile and Peru) are not exactly similar to those of Japan. True, the regions you mention DO experience earthquakes like Japan, but they do not experience the monsoons and the accompanying heavy rainfalls that swipe across Asia (Some may argue that California experiences the North American monsoon, but anyone who has visited California and Japan would know that San Francisco is much drier and Japan is much more humid). So please, let Japan make its own judgements about whether or not to build on its mountains --- I think the people living there would know enough about their own land and climate to make their own decisions.     
What evidence is there that 73% of Japanese land is really unsuitable for development?
The reasons for Japan's lack of development in the hills and mountains I believe are as anthropological as they are geographical and I feel this is not being represented. 
There are of course many steep and volcanic mountains in Japan which are not suitable for development however there are also many small hills which are but remain untouched.
I changed this before to mention the cultural idea (from the Shinto religion) that the mountains were where the gods lived, this was deleted. Perhaps it was too simplistic... 
I think something a bit less cliched needs to be said about this.
:I will have to disagree with you on your idea that "Japan's lack of development in the hills & mountains is due to their cultural belief (in particular Shinto) that the mountains are the dwelling places of the gods." I am Japanese, and my grandparents on my mother's side follow Shinto to a great extent. It is true that Shinto emphasizes respect and reverence for nature. It is also true that there exists a Shinto belief that deities reside in natural objects or places (i.e. rivers and mountains). However, having lived in Japan, I find it hard to believe that these religious beliefs are the chief reasons why the mountains are undeveloped. According to Shinto, deities also resided in the plains, but that did not prevent the people and industrialism from building huge cities (ie. Tokyo) on top of them. I am not implying that the Japanese have completely lost respect for nature and their religion; I am simply saying that religion nowadays is not a strong enough force to fight off industrial development (as is the case with most industrialized nations). In other words, if the Japanese could safely and effectively build atop these mountains, they probably would have done so by now. In my personal opinion, I think there are more realistic reasons why the Japanese do not develop atop these mountains --- i.e. cost, danger, steepness, elevation, distance from cities, etc.
What does everyone else think? 
--Gorgonz
:It's very good idea to eliminate writings from the point of view that Japan is unique. In writing a travel guide or introducing Japan to people from other countries, it is helpful to stress the differences, how Japan differs and most importantly, how it is unique. But in writing an encyclopedia article, it cannot be right. -- Taku 12:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
::to the editer above please sign your comments or at the very least indent them so we can clearly see what your point is and what you are responding to.
:That Japan is "unique" is one of those national myths, like Germany the "Land der Dichter und Denker" (land of poets and thinkers), America the "home of the brave and the land of the free". Don't take it as a scientific fact, take it as a cultural self-definition and means of identification. Then you will understand what "Japan is unique" means. The discussion about Japans uniqueness belongs to the article Nihonjinron (a term that roughly translates as "Japaneseness debate"). -- Mkill 19:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography of Japan (AGAIN)

message: The section on language states:
Modern Japanese is written in a mixture of hiragana, katakana, and kanji. Modern Japanese texts may also include rōmaji (the way of writing Japanese with the Latin alphabet), eimoji (non-Japanese words written in their own script), and various special symbols.
What are eimoji? 英文字?? I don't recall ever hearing it in the context described here, and it would be a total misnomer anyway, as there are no such things as "English" characters. Neither the Japanese wiki nor my 広辞苑 know such a term. Ianb 15:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that eimoji here is inadequate.  However, the term 英文字 (eimoji), or more commonly 英字 (eiji), does exist (the former has 199,000 google hits and the latter has 2,570,000 google hits) and means the alphabet used in English i.e. Latin alphabet.  :ja:英字 redirects to :ja:ラテン文字, which is interwikied to Latin alphabet. --Kusunose 01:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  eimoji? 

message: Until recently, both Nippon and Nihon redirected to Japan.  Now only Nihon does and Nippon has been made into a stub article.  I believe this should be reverted as it would become more consistent with other countries such as Hellas and Bharat --Grmagne 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: In light of the growing amount of linkspam being added to this and other articles, I have trimmed down the external links section to essential sources only, all links to private fourms and guides have been removed. Please feel free to let me know if you think this is a bit drastic. -Loren 07:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SPAM|Linkspam]] 

message: Several weeks ago someone deleted my additions to the introduction with the remark "no need for all the seas and oceans surrouding Japan". I while I can understand the desire for elegance/simplicity, I have to disagree here. The precise location of a country is an essential element of its definition. Consider the introductions for other countries here on wiki:
United States" has land borders with Canada and Mexico, and territorial water boundaries with Canada, Russia, and the Bahamas. It is otherwise bounded by the Pacific Ocean, the Bering Sea, the Arctic Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. "
United Kingdom is "a country (or more specifically a constitutional monarchy or unitary state) off the north-western coast of continental Europe, surrounded by the North Sea, the English Channel, the Celtic Sea, the Irish Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean."
Russia "shares land borders with the following countries (counter-clockwise from NW to SE): Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland (only through Kaliningrad Oblast), Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia and North Korea. It is also close to the United States and Japan across stretches of water: the Diomede Islands (one controlled by Russia, the other by the United States) are just 3 km apart, and Kunashir Island (controlled by Russia but claimed by Japan) is about 20 kilometers from Hokkaido."
People's Republic of China "borders 14 nations (counted clockwise): Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, India, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Mongolia and North Korea."
India " has a coastline which stretches over seven thousand kilometres, and shares its borders with Pakistan to the west, the People's Republic of China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the northeast, and Bangladesh and Myanmar on the east. On the Indian Ocean, it is adjacent to the island nations of the Maldives on the southwest, Sri Lanka on the south, and Indonesia on the southeast. India also claims a border with Afghanistan to the northwest"
You get the picture. There is an overwhelming standard on wikipedia to precisely locate a country through its geographically bounded regions, and that is missing here. Overall it would serve this site well to ensure consistency across parallel categories, such as nation-states.
:Hi, and thanks for your comment. Wikipedia has considerable variation in the location of such information. It's difficult to strike a balance between the information in the main article and that in the more precise, detailed subject articles. The article on Japan is already strained to the limit. Why not place the precise geographic location information in Geography of Japan? That sounds to me like a great place for it. Fg2 11:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Fg2. Wikipedia has variation in the location of much information, but the property of precisely locating articles on nation-states is overwhelmingly consistent, as the above examples show. If you would like more examples, France, Germany, etc. you will find it all the same. The article's lower content may be strained to the limit, but the article introduction is not; in fact, the introduction section of this article compared to others is very sparse. I hope that helps answer your question. 18.251.5.106 19:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: First of all, please register. In my opinion, anyone without a User ID should not be actively editing or expecting to engage in a discussion here. I don't want to bother talking to any more anonymous users. Anyhow, your introduction makes Japan seem apart from the rest of Asia and only surrounded by bodies of water. Yes, it is an island, but it is also only 50km away from the continent. Unlike other country introductions, the article on Japan has no mention of its neighbors. It's like they almost didn't exist. I tried adding that Japan is close to North and South Korea, Russia, and China, but it was edited out. So we left it at "East Asia". Also, when you put it in the bodies of water surrounding Japan, you are inviting regular edit wars involving the "Sea of Japan/East Sea" naming debate. Any mention of the Sea of Japan is better left in the geography section to avoid that problem. I am going to go ahead and leave your edits in, but add more as a compromise. But you go ahead and deal with any editing of "Sea of Japan" reverting, okay?--Sir Edgar 23:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I am not really any more anonymous than I would be if I signed up with a screen name since you know my identity from my IP, it's just replacing a name with a number, there's no difference. I don't spend enough time on Wikipedia to justify maintaining an entire account, though I do look through the country pages occasionally... I've no problem with your edits. Also, either Sea of Japan or East Sea or any combination is fine with me. 18.251.5.106 12:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography/Precise Location of Japan 

message: Japan does not have an official national anthem. "Kimigayo" (His Majesty's Reign) is only considered to be the anthem. Similarly, the "Hinomaru" (sun disk) has gained worldwide recognition as the 'national flag' of Japan, although it has never been officially designated as such. Perhaps these facts should be added to the article.
:The Law Regarding the National Flag and National Anthem of August 13, 1999 made those designations official. Many sources that predate the law are still current. As new editions are published, they should reflect this change. Fg2 00:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors Found