Talk:Japan/Archive 13

message: I updated the populations of the top ten cities and provided ref for the "citation needed" tag. As far as I can see, there are no other "citation needed" tags in the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last "citation needed" link gone 

message: The baseball player's first name should read Ichiro, last name as Suzuki.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6615  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.36.172 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-11 09:40:31 
:Done, thanks. Fg2 09:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ichiro Suzuki? 

message: There are those who wish to hide all Japan's wrongs, slight its neighbors, and present only the positive, to serve their own biases. There are also many who nurture their hatred of Japan like a cherished family heirloom, and are incapable of ever conceding anything positive about the country. Both groups are free to use their own blogs as soapboxes for their causes, but, according to WP's NPOV stance, neither group should be allowed to shape any Wikipedia article. It seems obvious that editors of both camps constantly attempt to use this article to further their cause. It also seems obvious that one camp has the upper hand here because they are a little more literate, a little less oafish, and much more subtle in their POV-pushing. People like this think that they win when their offensive bias, and their childish "You're with us or you're with them!" accusations drive off people who really want Wikipedia to present a good, unbiased article, rather than to serve as a conduit for their bias. What they succeed in doing, however, is showing Wikipedia's weakness. I see no welcome here to editors who don't wish to push one bias or the other, and who have no desire to engage in childish edit wars with the childishly biased. Good luck to those who do. Dekkappai 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the proselytizing.  But I'm sure I speak for many of the editors here, probably even the ones I've had arguments and disagreements with, when I say that we're all constantly trying to achieve a NPOV state for the article.  We only disagree on how to achieve this.  None of us, including you, exactly have a monopoly on what NPOV means for this article.  This last comment of yours seems like something better put on your userpage or on the Talk pages of official WP guidelines and policies.  Your childish "better editor than thou" comments are kind of pointless, in my opinion.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. It's pretty laughable to see edits that try to put silly, useless comments like "Japan is a great power" and then delete important and relevant historical facts like the Nanking Massacre.--Sir Edgar 23:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may also get a laugh out of this, Sir Edgar. When, in accordance with Wikipedia policy I have edited and created articles related to Korea, and opposed POV-pushing from the Japanese side, they called me a "Korean nationalist." You commented how pitiful it was that if someone did not share their bias, they were automatically labeled a "Korean nationalist." Now, when I express concern that bias may be coming from the other side, you see nothing wrong with labeling me a "Japanese nationalist," even after I shared the fact that both my wife and myself had family killed by the Japanese. You may find it funny, but I find it quite disappointing that is is not the bias per se that you and the other editors object to, but only other people's bias. I'll leave this pit of vipers to spew hatred back and forth to each other. You only succeed in making your own side look as bad as the other to outsiders. Regards. Dekkappai 00:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never labeled you a "Japanese nationalist". I was only agreeing with Wikiment's comments about rampant whitewashing. Do you see anything wrong with what he has stated? I don't know anything about your editing on other articles and, I'm sorry to say, but I don't care to know about your personal tragedies. What I am concerned about is that you've just made a passive-aggressive attack on other people. It's clear who you've identified as "POV-pushing children", but know well that you have violated Wikipedia:Assume good faith by accusing others of being in two "camps" who "constantly attempt to use this article to further their cause". What cause? Personally speaking, I am trying to restore balance to articles and add content. What are you doing, but whining on the Talk page and taking a "holier than thou" attitude without anything to back it up? I don't see any recent edits by you at all in this article.--Sir Edgar 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-pushing 

message: Observation from an uninvolved bystander here: I'm wondering why "Japan is a great power" is removed as "POV," when Japan is listed at the article on the great powers. If that's a POV statement, then Japan should be removed from the Great power article. If Japan is a great power, one would think that deserved mention in the Japan article. These political argument articles are not my area of interest, I'm just wondering about the neutrality of this particular one. Dekkappai 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From great power: Despite initial gains, Japan suffered defeat and occupation at the conclusion of World War II, events regarded as signalling its loss of Great power status.[73] Opinion is divided as to when this status was regained.Apparently it is disputed. siafu 04:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure someone will think of the children, don't worry. siafu 19:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "great power" an outmoded term now anyway, I thought is went out of fashion after world war 2, when everyone started caring about the "super powers" (USA ans USSR), despite the fall of the USSR I don't think the term great power has really come back into use. Noting that Japan is one of the G8 (so a defacto "great power") should be enough to demonstrate Japan's international clout as a developed nation and is without question a FACT so not a POV statement at all. Tomgreeny 21:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Power is POV? 

message: I feel that the last bit of the Demographics section needs a little re-write, but I'm not sure how to re-write it.  This is how it reads at the time of my comment here:
:Demographers and government planners are currently in a heated debate over how to cope with this problem.[29] Immigration and birth incentives are sometimes suggested as a solution to provide younger workers to support the nation's aging population.[30] Immigration, however, is not popular as recent increased crime rates are often attributed to foreigners living in Japan,[31] and there are indications of racial discrimination and xenophobia as well.[32] [33][34] The World Factbook of the CIA estimated 0 migrants per 1000 population as of 2006.[35]
#  This paragraph is trying to tie in two issues that are arguably only peripherally related: an aging population, and ethnic issues in Japan.  Should we split this up?
#  Take a look at source [31], it only verifies that a recent increase in crime is attributed to foreigners, but it does not verify that "immigration is not popular".  Should we take out the part about immigration not being "popular"?
Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics section 

message: It seems like about a decade is missing at the end. Japan's economy is recovering and there has been much that has happened since the 1990s. I suggest we add another paragraph to this section. What do you think would be appropriate to put in here?--Sir Edgar 00:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there really a definitive opinion that the Japanese economy is recovering?  Every once in a while I'd read a news article about how it's recovering, then a few days to a week later I'd read another news article about how it's not.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it's recovering doesn't matter. I think we need post-1990s content in there.--Sir Edgar 02:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, nothing really exceptional has happened in the last two decades in Japan, so one or two lines is ok.--WoodElf 07:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm. A nuclear incident at a nuclear-fuel processing plant, major financial scandals, the arrival of holding companies, the trend toward a two-party system and collapse of the Socialist/Social Democratic Party, new airports here and there, Shinkansen extensions, breakdown in the education system, the renaming of MITI, the legalization of the dollar, and --- who'd have predicted it? --- the return of black hair. Fg2 08:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good one! :D  But lets try to keep it real, kay? --WoodElf 08:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-1990s content for the Modern Japan section 

message: Unit731 is a word that the anti-Japan ideologist frequently uses. For instance, Novel that writes that Korean people persecuted Japanese after World War II So Far from the Bamboo Grove, the newspaper of South Korea was written that father of the author of this book was a staff of Unit731. (Her father was a staff of South Manchuria Railway.)
Unit731 has little precise data. Therefore, a lot of anti-Japanese ideologists exaggerate and quote Unit731. --Sir Joestar 18:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong:  I didn't see any part of the passage on Unit 731 that was inaccurate.  Some members of Unit 731 were not part of the trial because they were off the list to begin with, were they not?--Endroit 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact remains that the only part of Japanese WW2 history you think is important are the "atrocities". All is fair in love and war, and what is and is not an "atrocity" is quite arbitrary. Is not the murder of a human being an atrocity enough? Anyway, these are simply my personal views. About this article: a single mention of the war crimes is more than sufficient. Those of you who wish to dig up every shred of evidence about Japanese "crimes" may do so in the respective articles. 
I do not support what the Japanese army did; i simply wish to point out that speaking solely about the negative effects Japan had on its neighbours as purely POV. They have been blown out of proportion. 
Further, such specifics have no place in a main country article.
--WoodElf 06:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Having...  what, 3 or 4 sentences about Japan's war crimes in the article is "speaking solely about the negative effects"?  From what I'm seeing, better mention of Japan's war crimes actually brings more balance to this article.  Those crimes are a big part of Japan's modern history, and it's something that's still snagging Japan's relationships with its neighbors today.  Reducing its mention would be a disservice to the article.  And hey, there are main articles for many of the sections in this article.  Why not just say, "Japan allied with Germany and Italy, then the US dropped the atomic bombs, and Japan surrendered."  I mean, I don't see anybody suggesting that any number of the non-controversial sections be cut down because they don't belong in a main country article.  Under your logic, there's a bunch of stuff that can be cut out from, for example, the Economy section, or the Government section, or the Geography section.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support LordAmeth's latest edit , which doesn't include Unit 731.  All the material we omitted can be moved to the Japanese war crimes article.--Endroit 08:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unit731 and anti-Japanese

message: Is there an admin we can report this Hitec81 character to in order to stop him/her from repeatedly vandalising the article?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's Wikipedia:Vandalism. Fg2 05:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: He's blocked. If he does it once he gets off his block (24h), report him to WP:AIV, or WP:ANI if the AIV people don't think it counts as simple vandalism. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitec81 

message: At this time, Takauji was a partial commander. Ashikaga Takauji attacked Rokuhara Tanndai by the Emperor Godaigo's instruction. (Nitta Yoshisada attacked Kamakura.)
1333年、鎌倉幕府は後醍醐天皇によって滅ぼされました。このとき、足利尊氏は後醍醐天皇の指揮官の中の1人でした。
（厳密に言えば、足利尊氏は京都の六波羅探題を攻撃しましたが、鎌倉幕府の本拠地を攻撃したのは新田義貞でした。）
After Takauji had moved to the Kanto region, Godaigo did the declaration of war to Takauji. As a result, Godaigo was defeated at Takauji. And, Takauji started the shogunate. 
足利尊氏が北条氏の残党を討伐するため関東に向かうと、後醍醐天皇は新田義貞に足利尊氏を討つように命令しました。その結果、尊氏は後醍醐天皇に反逆し、後醍醐天皇を捕虜にしました。その後、尊氏は足利幕府を開きました。
Please point out the part where this information is wrong. 
私のこの情報の間違っている部分を指摘してください。--ShinjukuXYZ 17:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Copied from my talk page) Thank you for illuminating this. The part that is wrong is where you wrote that Go-Daigo overthrew the Kamakura shogunate in order to suppress Takauji. As you explain here, Takauji served the Emperor, not the Kamakura shogunate, and thus his "suppression", which never succeeded, was not connected directly to the fall of the Kamakura shogunate. LordAmeth 17:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.--ShinjukuXYZ 18:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Emperor Godaigo

message: Edgerさん。あなたはLordAmethがCleanupした文章を削除しました。 
Edger, You deleted sentences to which LordAmeth had done Cleanup. 
Edgerの削除理由は「基本のバージョンに戻す」でした。Edgerさん、基本のバージョンは誰が決定したのですか？ 
Your deletion reason was "Revert from biased version. " Who decided a basic version? 
私はEdgerが日本歴史の素人ではないと信じています。Edgerは鎌倉幕府の滅亡を正確に説明してくれるでしょう。 
I believe that Edger is not an amateur of a Japanese history. Edger will accurately explain the ruin of the Kamakura Shogunate.  
Edgerさん、それでは説明をお願いします。
Edger, Please start explaining.　--ShinjukuXYZ 18:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Edger

message: In response to a request for additional information about Japan since 1995, I added the following:
Japan's reputation for quality, reliability, and safety has been rocked by a number of recent developments. One was an incident at a uranium-enrichment plant in Tōkai, Ibaraki in 1999. Failing to follow established procedures, workers placed seven times the allowable limit of uranium-containing chemicals in a bucket, resulting in a release of radiation leading to two deaths. The 1996 Great Hanshin earthquake revealed that on major construction projects, companies had ignored important safety regulations. The Construction Accounting Statement Forgery Problem cast similar doubts on the safety of some high-rise buildings when it was learned that architects had falsified documents on earthquake resistance. Maintenance problems have plagued Japan Air Lines. The food industry, too, has been hit by scandals at famous companies such as Snow Brand Milk Company (2000) and Fujiya (2006).
If anyone wants to do anything with it, please feel free.
Fg2 11:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about comments about the economy?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's just a completely one-sided account of bad things that have happened in Japan. Accidents and the like occur in every country in the world - I'm not sure why that needs to be discussed. Plus the article has more than enough content already. It needs the citations to be formatted more than anything else. John Smith's 15:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you suggest should be mentioned about Japan in the past 10 or so years?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the economy? Don't know that anything special has to be said at all. Maybe a slight expansion of the crash/recovery bit. But only if it's going to be properly referenced. John Smith's 17:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not just the economy.  Aside from the economy, which probably deserves mention, there must be something that's worth mentioning in the past 10 years.  As for the economy, I know that a news article basically gets published everytime the stock exchange had a great day or inflation hit a record low, but I don't know of any sources that cover the economy of Japan in the past 10 or so years in a more general context.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should work on formatting the current citations before we move onto new information. John Smith's 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Economist has a great archive of articles by country that goes back quite a bit, but you have to have a subscription to access them online. Let me know specifically what kind of stuff you want to source, and I'll see if I can find it.-Jefu 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Japan