Talk:Japan/Archive 14

message: I uncluded the Internatinal Education comparisons of the TIMSS for 1997. A more recent study was made in 2003, which is broadly consistent, but to which most of the European countries did not participate, which limits its interest as an International comparison. The 2007 study should solve this issue however, so let's look forward to its results. In the meantime, 1997 is probably the most pertinent, and anyway educational achievements do not change so much in such a short amount of time. PHG 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1997 numbers are too outdated. It is misleading to use such information and damages the credibility of the article to have it up. You seem to be complaining that the 2003 study isn't "adequate". Sorry, if you want any figures you have to use the most recent ones. Alternatively you can just drop the matter completely and wait until the 2007 figures are out. Personally I wouldn't want to use even the 2003 numbers, as 4 years ago is a bit too long ago in my opinion. John Smith's 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds to me quite intolerant and exagerated. 10 years is no big deal in educational matters, and yes, the 2003 study is less pertinent as an international comparison. This data is quite important as it goes a long way explaining Japan's (and a lot of Asia's) economical and technology successes.PHG 17:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt very much that people reading the article will think figures from 10 years ago are that credible, even if they haven't changed much. You said yourself new figures will be out this year - why not just wait for them? John Smith's 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I hate to see you people arguing.  Can't we wait until the 2007 figures are available?  Also, the same chart already appears in Education in Japan, and we have a link to that article already.--Endroit 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The data is valid, even if it is dated, and its pertinent to the overall trends of Asia vs. many western countries, esp. the US. The figures have not changed that much from the last that Ive heard. As long as the current date is there, there is no valid reason to remove it. I say update it, fine, but do not remove in the absense of nothing better, esp. given that these figures and trends remain relatively current.Giovanni33 19:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I put the 2003 figures in. If someone wants to crop that they can. John Smith's 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This 2003 template is wrong (it is based on data I only partially put in, when I realized most European countries had not participated). The numbers are inexact. Please keep the 1997 Template instead . PHG 06:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why don't you just update the 2003 figures? I don't even know how you drew them up, so if you want it to be accurate it's better for you to address it personally. John Smith's 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Other European countries (apart from the ones I listed) did participate, such as Hungary. But the fact a few countries on the previous list did not participate is somewhat irrlevant, as they were (would be) all below Japan. This is supposed to show Japan's position in the rankings. So although I might accept on the main article on the standards it would be better to use the 1997 figures, I think it's fair to use the 2003 figures to show Japan's position compared to the top countries. John Smith's 14:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm also concerned the 1997 figures damage the credibility of the article too much. Although I can understand these projects are conducted over a long period of time, I don't think many readers will think figures from 10 years ago are terribly relevant, especially when more recent surveys have been carried out. If the abscence of a few countries had boosted Japan's position I would understand, but given that it has actually dropped down it rather suggests they are more reflective of the current situation. It's worth noting, too, that both Hong Kong and Taiwan are missing from the 1997 table. Given they did well in 2003, it seems unfair to leave them out just because 1997 had other countries in it. John Smith's 14:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Educational data

message: Please check-out the new FA nomination, via the link at the top of the page. If there are any minor things raised that can be corrected, please do so and make a note of it there. John Smith's 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the first part, as there is no relevant section in the Constitution. As to the second, it is actually in the Constitution he has no right of veto but has to still approve it. John Smith's 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It has already had a peer review. Also, as I said on the FA page, no one has bothered to actually re-grade it, despite the fact that the problems originally identified have been dealt with. So if it fails the FA nomination, it should be re-graded. But there's no point in asking for it to be re-graded until we know what the FAC result is. John Smith's 20:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Forgot to mention

message: I was just going through the History section and in one place it is mentioned:
The court stopped sending diplomatic missions to China in 838, and the Japanese began to turn increasingly inward.
Is there a specific int.link we could use instead of "began to turn increasingly inward"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WoodElf (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the exact problem? That the phrase sounds wrong, or it's unsourced? John Smith's 22:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small question 

message: IS IT 9 OR 14? MY WATCH HAS TIME NOW 251 PM THERE74.195.5.83 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, 2:54 PM. Neier 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Japan Standard Time (JST) is UTC+9. --Kusunose 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TIME ZONES 

message: Ok, R U Bn, if you want to talk, please do so. You want to add this reference so you should say why it should be used. 
As I've said the figures are 14 years out of date. Saying "it's ok" because the date is put there is not sufficient. The country template is supposed to give current information. You obviously really believe in gini, but that doesn't mean every article must have a reference to it if there have ever been any numbers for it. Also you can't rank countries if the figures were taken as much as a decade apart - Japan has changed a lot since 1993 (the income gap growing much more), which is why I have insisted on it not going in. If you can get updated numbers for the top-ranked countries I might change my mind, depending on when they come from. John Smith's 15:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also worth noting that one can see how unreliable the figures are, because if the CIA sort is used on the Gini-rank page Japan comes a lot further down the table. John Smith's 15:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand, John, but it's the latest figure available.  So, why not give at least the last one available so people can form an idea at least with what was available at that time ?  The year is mentioned, so people cán take this into account.  Additionally, this makes people wonder why there isn't a newer number and that's in a whole what I call usefull information. About the fact that I shouldn't put ranks, I completely agree.  I only did it because someone asked on the talk pages of infobox country, but it makes no sense indeed to rank with so many years apart,if at all.  Something to change once on the infobox (or mention st. like only rank the last and first ten when the years of their measurement is not further apart than 3 years)...Please leave a ring or link on my talk page for further iscussion, I seem to run out of time to browse all my interests...R U Bn (Talk • contrib) 18:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gini figures

message: In the comfort place on the Semarang island in Indonesia, a Japanese army made the prostitute compulsorily do 25 Dutch captives. three Japanese got to the chair by trying Batavia in 1948. However, is this an event of the same scale as Nanking Massacre?　--Azukimonaka 08:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say; are you asking if we should incorporate the above info into the article? Or what? --WoodElf 06:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. This part doesn't exist now. --Azukimonaka 03:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comfort woman in World War II