Talk:Japan

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

---

• Archive 1 (2002-2003)
• Archive 2 (2004)
• Archive 3 (2005) (More will be moved after the beginning of the year, but this page is too long right now, so I'm moving most right now)
• Archive 4 (up to March 16, 2006)

---

Toward Featured Status

Being the flagship article of Wikipedia's Japan-related content, this article should be improved to featured status. Wikipedia:What is a featured article? outlines the criteria for this standing. These are the major topics for discussion.

Best work?

Does Japan exemplify Wikipedia's best work? To answer this question, and discover directions for improvement, we can look at featured articles. Especially, the Geography and places section has many examples that are relevant.

Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable?

Well-written?

Which prose can we correct, or tighten? Can we make a passage compelling, or brilliant?

Comprehensive?

Have we omitted any important topics?

Factually accurate?

With all the recent vandalism, it's time to check the facts of the article as it stands.

Neutral?

Are any passages biased toward Japan, one of its neighbors, the West, or another point of view?

Stable?

Apart from vandalism, does the article contain any passages that because of factual inaccuracy or selective reporting, or other cause, bring excessive editing?

Style manual and Wikiprojects?

Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) are relevant. Members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries will scrutinize the article when eventually it comes up for peer review and featured-article candidacy.

Lead section?

Text

Is the lead section concise? Does it summarize the entire topic and prepare the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections?

I rewrote the lead section with the topics in sequence according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead section). I tried to avoid being redundant. To make the introduction smooth, I did not put in the writing/pronunciation template. The link to Names of Japan is clearer, and by putting the template there we can make the lead-in read more naturally. I removed the statement about being an economic giant, since that's irrelevant to the information about islands, which followed in the same sentence. And added one fact, about Honshu's rank by area, to dispel the notion that Japan is a tiny country, but refrained from providing similar information for the other islands, because all that information is only a click away in List of islands by area. Any comments or edits to the lead section? Fg2 06:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:C says "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article)."

Wikipedia:Lead section says, "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:Summary style and news style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of ...' and similar titles).

"To get a better understanding of what a great lead section should do, the perfect article: 'Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. So we aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—we are eased into it.'"

It further gives a guideline for length of the lead section, suggesting 3 or 4 paragraphs for an article of this size.

To follow these guidelines, I've made some substantial changes to the lead section. These include the following:

1. The first sentence. It was over 50 words long. For accessibility, I divided it into smaller pieces.
2. Subject matter. The lead section formerly had only two topics: geography and name. I've added history, economy, and culture. These are the most extreme distillations of the topics I could provide, as I hoped to "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
3. The "world power" sentence. It returns to the lead section as an excellent introduction to the new economics paragraph.
4. The things that Japan is known for. Like the windmills of Holland, the shoguns, poetic and dramatic forms, manga and J-pop are icons of Japan, so I gave them a place in the lead section.

Please let me know any concerns you have. Fg2 05:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact box

Comparing the article with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Facts table ("WP:C") (bold indicates issues to investigate or discuss): We have the official name and the English name. We have the flag and the nearest thing to a coat of arms. If Japan has no motto, should we specify "none" to clarify the fact, or simply omit it — if a part of WP:C is irrelevant, must we include it? WP:C specifies next the national language (our box has it, although lower down). Political status: our box does not state that Japan is a sovereign state. Capital city: We list Tokyo, which is probably the best compromise. Even if it's not a city, it's the capital (for all practical purposes). Formation: WP:C does not ask for this information, and so does not specify what types of facts to include or exclude. Remove this section? Largest city: We name Tokyo and detail it as 23 Special wards, but we don't include the population of the wards (one number, not 23!). Land area and percent water: we have it. Population, density and ranks: we have recent data in the box. GDP, per cap, and ranks: It's in the table. HDI and rank: It's there. Currency, time zones, anthem (out of sequence), calling code, TLD: all present.

WP:C specifies a sequence slightly different from the one in the article.

Hierarchical headings?

Can we improve the heading structure? Add or delete a level in some sections? Aim for consistency in grammatical structure, relationship to content?

WP:C specifies the following sections:

• History
• Politics
• (Subdivisions)
• Geography
• Economy
• Demographics
• Culture
• Miscellaneous topics
• External links - Links to (official) websites about the country.

Japan has the following second-level heads:

• History
• Government and politics
• Geography (I just removed "of Japan")
• Economy
• Society
• Military
• References
• Further reading
• Miscellaneous topics
• External links

Our article (1) has Government and politics (which I prefer to Politics); (2) is missing Subdivisions (as a second-level header); (3) has Society instead of Demographics and Culture sections (again, I prefer our section organization); (4) has Military (Can we find another place for this, e.g. a link to it from Miscellaneous topics?) and (5) has References and Further reading sections.

History

History: Japan's section checks in at 1500 words. For comparison, Great Britain has 360, USA: 1300, France: 500, China: 2400 (multiple sections). If we could cut this section to 750 or 1000 words, we'd make major progress toward a concise article.

I've trimmed it down, almost to a thousand words. The guiding principle was to list only extremely important facts, leaving all discussion of analysis, cause and effect etc. for the daughter articles. Fg2 06:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's probably still too long and should be cut in half. WP:C suggests four to six paragraphs. We have that many third-level heads!Fg2 06:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

History sections in featured articles on countries: Australia (1,000 words, no third-level sections); Belgium (700, no third-level heads); Bhutan (1100, no third-level divisions); Cambodia (1900, with heads); India (525; no heads); Nepal (850 words, no heads); People's Republic of China (1000, no heads) (as examples). Perhaps it's brief enough as it stands. Fg2 07:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Our Miscellaneous section has 26 links that seem quite random. They range from List of Japan-related topics (huge and all-encompassing) to Japanese wolf (a single extinct species). Does anyone want to unify the list (and perhaps include an internal comment stating a principle for inclusion or exclusion in the list)?

I've followed Sekicho's lead (thank you, Sekicho!) and organized Miscellaneous topics in a table. The guiding principle was to link to umbrella articles on the left (matching section titles in the article above) and specific articles on the right (omitting words like "Japan"). I tried to link only to "big" topics to keep it reasonable in length. Some links got omitted... such as the (second of three) link to the Portal. Please help by moving articles from one row of the table to another, or rearranging within rows, etc. Fg2 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to External links: 17 of them, heavily oriented to government and politics (can they be moved to the daughter article, one click away?) Finally, does anyone have layout skill to make some visual sense of the boxes at the very bottom of the article?

"Japanese Wolf" is supposedly extinct? Then where did those wolves in my part of Japan come from? They come down from the mountains every winter!

Table of contents?

Does Wikipedia:Section have any advice that pertains to our ToC?

Images?

We have lots. We can ask if any are redundant, if they're in the best place, if they relate directly to the content, if they're visually strong. Also, we can check the copyright status, and improve the captions in accordance with Wikipedia:Captions.

Length?

Is the length appropriate to the subject? Is the article tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail on a subtopic that's in (or should be in) a daughter article? Does the article use summary style to provide a survey of topics that those daughter articles discuss in detail?

Referencing

It would help to footnote, as we only still have two references, and none of them are linked to any part of the article.

Consider supplying footnotes for these statements:

• Lead section: 3000 islands
• Fact box: population, area, GDP
  • population: CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
  • area: CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
  • GDP amount: CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
  • GDP rank:
  • HDI: 2005 UN Human Development Index Report: Human development indicators Retrieved March 20, 2006
• Pre-history: Dates for earliest artifacts, start of Jomon, earliest pottery
• Geography: Percent mountainous; climatic zone classification of Japan
• Economy: Growth figures; rank
  • "small defense allocation (1% of GDP)"CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
  • "Usually self sufficient in rice, Japan must import about 50% of its requirements of other grain and fodder crops." CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
  • "Japan maintains one of the world's largest fishing fleets and accounts for nearly 15% of the global catch." CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
  • "For three decades, overall real economic growth had been spectacular: a 10% average in the 1960s, a 5% average in the 1970s, and a 4% average in the 1980s. CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
• Agriculture: Numbers
• Service sector: the 3/4 assertion
  • "GDP - composition by sector: agriculture: 1.3% industry: 25.3% services: 73.5% (2005 est.) CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
• Demographics
  • "Ethnic groups: Japanese 99%, others 1% (Korean 511,262, Chinese 244,241, Brazilian 182,232, Filipino 89,851, other 237,914) note: up to 230,000 Brazilians of Japanese origin migrated to Japan in the 1990s to work in industries; some have returned to Brazil (2004)" CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
• Religion, Education: Numbers
• More...

which redundant sentence should go?

The current text in the Modern era history says (with repeated sentence in boldface):

By 1910, Japan controlled Korea, Taiwan, and the southern half of Sakhalin. World War I enabled Japan, which fought on the side of the victorious Allies, to expand its influence in Asia, and its territorial holdings in the Pacific.

The early 20th century saw a brief period of "Taisho democracy" overshadowed by the rise of Japanese expansionism. World War I enabled Japan, which fought on the side of the victorious Allies, to expand its influence in Asia, and its territorial holdings in the Pacific. In 1936, however, Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, joining with Germany and Italy to form the Axis alliance.

Now, which of these redundant sentences should be deleted? --Tachikoma 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! I took the first one out. It was in a paragraph that started in Meiji, so WWI is a bit of a reach. Fg2 01:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction is too long now.

I'd like to keep the previous introduction which was clear and concise. The revised introduction seems POV and too long.--Sir Edgar 07:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sir Edgar,

As I wrote above, Wikipedia:Lead section suggests three or four paragraphs, and I wrote four, so it doesn't seem too long. If we can shorten it while still meeting the needs, so much the better. So let's work out a new lead.

Please tell me what seems POV or cluttered to you we can improve it. I tried to stick to facts but if I expressed a point of view, I'm eager to correct it.

"Lead section" says that the "lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in the article." The summary you posted doesn't address history, government, or culture; yet these comprise three of the major sections of the article. Can you help me write a lead that summarizes the article? I'm trying to bring it to featured status, or at least featured quality, so when I read in "Lead section" that "Wikipedia articles should heed these rules" I bow and obey! What can we do to improve the lead?

Fg2 08:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's some additional information that you might find relevant. I looked at featured articles about countries and found the following:

• Australia: Three paragraphs; 201 words
• Belgium: Two paragraphs; 276 words
• Bhutan: Three paragraphs; 268 words
• Cambodia: Four paragraphs; 207 words
• India: Three paragraphs; 322 words
• Nepal: Two paragraphs; 326 words
• People's Republic of China: Three paragraphs; 297 words
• South Africa: Five paragraphs; 294 words

For comparison, my edit of 14:38, March 21, 2006

• Before: Three paragraphs; 135 words
• As a result: Four paragraphs; 271 words
• After your subsequent edit: Two paragraphs; 101 words

I agree that conciseness is a virtue, but I'd like you to consider conciseness in the light of other featured articles on countries. I invite you to visit the articles and evaluate my lead section by comparison to them.

Fg2 11:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you not understand the beautiful simplicity of a Zen-like introduction? :) All kidding aside, sure, the Japan article should have a similar length introduction as other country articles. But one of the reasons why it was selected to be a featured article was because it was well-written. One of the new paragraphs seems to overemphasize foreign influence on Japan, especially that from China. It reads as if Japan is a Westernized Chinese country. Most of the POV seems to have been edited out now, but I still think this introduction needs some work. Many people will read this and it needs to give the right impression of Japan.--Sir Edgar 06:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come now. Japan didn't become Japan by meditating alone in a rock garden. Do you have a better way to sum it up? - Sekicho 23:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Germany article is only three paragraphs and about 160 words long. It looks fine to me. Anyhow, since the Japan article has been recently undergoing so many changes, especially in its introduction. Unless there are some real inaccuracies or misportrayals, I am going to wait out until the dust settles before commenting/editing.--Sir Edgar 01:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Lead section proposal

Here's the text I put in as the lead section. I'm copying it here to make discussion easier. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Fg2 11:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Japan (Japanese: 日本, Nihon or Nippon, literally "sun source") is a country in East Asia. It is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, the Sea of Japan, the Philippine Sea, the East China Sea, and the Sea of Okhotsk. To the west lies Korea (North and South), to the north Russia, and to the southwest, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The largest of its 3,000 islands are, from north to south, Hokkaidō, Honshū, Shikoku, and Kyūshū. Honshū ranks 7th in the world by area. The nation has 47 subdivisions, the prefectures. Nicknamed the "Land of the Rising Sun, the country's English name "Japan," and similar names in European languages, are derived from an old Chinese name for the country.

The earliest records of Japan chronicle expeditions from China in the year 57. Later history includes periods of rule by the Emperor and regents, by shoguns, and recently by elected officials.

A major global power, Japan has an economy built on a strong service sector and an export-oriented manufacturing sector. Its agricultural sector meets its needs for rice, under tariff and quota protection; the nation imports 50% of other grains and most meats.

The culture of Japan includes indigenous and imported elements. The writing system and early forms of music come from its East Asian neighbors, while its long tradition of poetry and early novels are native developments. Buddhism spread from the continent, whereas the Shinto religion developed in the islands. The nation has its own Noh and Kabuki dramatic forms. Recently, artists in media like motion pictures, J-pop and manga have found world-wide acclaim.

---

The original text is clearly inadequate- it make no attempt to summarise the article. Fg2's is better, but the history section is so short as to be pointless, while the 'year 57' date is given too much prominence (more than it has in the actual article). Could I suggest an expanded history section, with some mention of a) the prehistorical period, b) the important 5th/6th century date, c) something like the existing 'Later history sentence'; and d) a mention of Japan's emergence as a major economic power. We can then remove the separate economy paragraph in the interests of concision. Mark^{your words} 17:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Markalexander100. Concrete directions for improvement can put us on track quickly. I agree with your note about the year 57. Regarding "so short as to be pointless," it might have come out that way. I hoped to mention things that are often associated with Japan (as Wikiproject Countries suggests), i.e. emperor and shogun, and to draw the reader into the article where they could find more detail (as Lead section suggests), but Sekicho has accomplished that more capably than I could (see below) while also avoiding mention of the year 57. Sekicho also mentioned Japan's status (but not emergence) as a major economic power; if the word "emergence" is crucial, can you find a way to incorporate it into Sekicho's text? And that leaves only the fifth/sixth century to work on. With your suggestions and Sekicho's lead section (a vast improvement over mine), we may be within a whisker of nailing this down! Fg2 20:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Sekicho's text: Japan (Japanese: 日本, Nihon or Nippon) is an island country located on the Pacific Ocean, east of China and Korea, stretching from the Sea of Okhotsk in the north to Taiwan in the south. It is composed of over 3,000 islands, the largest of which are Hokkaidō, Honshū, Shikoku, and Kyūshū. Most of Japan's islands are mountainous, and many are volcanic; the highest peak is Mount Fuji.

Japan is the third-largest economy in the world and one of the world's leading industrialized countries. It is a unitary constitutional monarchy with an emperor and an elected parliament, one of the oldest legislatures in Asia. Despite its rugged terrain, it is one of the most populous countries in the world, and one of the most densely populated. Its capital, Tokyo, is the largest metropolitan area in the world with over thirty million residents.

Historically, Japan adopted many Chinese customs and institutions beginning in the 7th and 8th centuries. From the 12th century to the mid-1800s, Japan was a feudal country led by clans of warriors. After the Meiji Restoration of 1868, Japan adopted many European and American customs and institutions. Its culture today is a mixture of these influences.

Japan's name in Chinese characters is often translated as "Land of the Rising Sun", and comes from the country's location on the east coast of Asia. Its English name is derived from Chinese names for Japan.

---

infobox source

anyone know the source for the data in the infobox? cia world factbook says gdp ppp is 5th, not 3rd [1], & gdp pc is 22nd, not 12th [2]. i'm sure there are other reliable sources besides the cia, just wondering where. Appleby 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC) oops, sorry, found it by, um, clicking on the link. Appleby 18:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The rankings on Wikipedia are by country. In the World Factbook, dependencies, the world, the EU, etc. are added to the list, moving the real countries down a few notches. - Sekicho 23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

religion

This section seems both awkward and wrong. 95% of the Japanese I've met merge Shinto and Buddhism in their lives. And the weddings are faux-"big Church" style as they are entirely free of religious doctrine. - Sparky

I think the best example of Japan and religion comes from a story told to me by a penpal in Oji. When she was younger, her mother would walk her to school. As they passed the butcher shop in their neighborhood, her mother would always make the sign of the cross. When she asked her mother why, she said because her mother (my penpal's grandmother) had always done it as she passed a butcher's shop. So she was using a Christian symbol to ward off Shinto's concept of the ritually unclean brought about by Buddhism's prohibitions against killing for entirely non-religious reasons. - Kuzain 04:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

intro thoughts

Full disclosure, I am not a Japan expert in anyway, whatsoever. Surely, all of you who have worked on this and other Japan related pages are the experts and have done a great job! The intro to the Japan article, as well as the full article, looks well-written. I've a two questions.

1. > and one of the world's leading industrialized countries.< Is that necessary? If people understand what nominal GDP & purchasing power are, surely, they'll know that Japan must be an industrialized country, a world-leading one at that.

2. >Its capital, Tokyo, is the largest metropolitan area in the world with over thirty million residents.< I think this causes some confusion. The capital isn't the entire metro area is it? Also, the Tokyo page mentions the Tokyo pop and the metro pop. The metro pop is given at 33-35 million. 30? 33? 35 million? Shouldn't we be a little more specific with that figure (on both the Japan and Tokyo page)?

Well, there are lot of discrepancies regarding populations of any metropolitan cities in the world; it's just simply too hard to set a boundary as to where the city begins and ends. I'd like to hear more about experts on census systems and classifications of Japan. Deiaemeth 06:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Japans GDP

I updated Japans GDP based on the IMF 2006 list. This link will take you directly to the list: Report for Selected Countries and Subjects (IMF Retrieved April 1, 2006)

Map is wrong, wrong, wrong

Image:LocationMapJapan.png is totally wrong, it shows that two of the southernmost Kuril Islands belong to Japan. Unless the miracle that Russia has finally given back stolen territory has happened, the map is wrong. Please, someone change that and make sure that propaganda and POV stay out of Wikipedia. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Argh

Some random idiot deleted the whole Japan article <.< —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.4.75.127 (talk • contribs) .

It's been fixed. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 18:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Add Smithsonian Education link?

Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "Japan: Images of a People" is available at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/japan_images_people/introduction.html

It contains a background essay and lesson plans. The focus is on Japanese paintings from the Smithsonian's Freer Gallery of Art, and the clues to culture and history that they contain. If you think the audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention.

Immortality and Origin

Isn't there a "legend" that the first japanese settlers came from china, and they were in search for the "grand elixir of life" or "pill of immortality/philosopher's stone"? 128.6.175.86 20:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of this, but if there is I'd love to see an article on it. I do not think though that it would be appropriate in the main Japan article. This is for generally accepted, broad facts on the country, not obscure (though interesting) trivia.--Sir Edgar 23:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of this too. first time i've read this was in an aricle on qin shihuang and the terracotta army in a very old edition of "national geographic".

Atheists

The article asserts that "most of the people are not atheists". According to Adherents.com, 64-65% of the Japanese are "Atheist/Agnostic/Nonbelievers in God" [3]; it seems that most do in fact fall under the "nontheist" category. - 68.33.120.32 22:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

does "atheist" specifically mean someone who doesn't believe in the christina/jewish/muslim god, or does it mean someone who does not believe in deities in general? i think if taken in a broad sense, then it's safe to say most of them are not atheists.

Useless statistics. Go elsewhere on that site and you'll see that they have wildly varying numbers for the number of "Shinto followers" in Japan, ranging from 70 million to 115 million. I would say that practical agnosticism is fairly prevalent in Japan—religion is more ritual than spiritual—but that doesn't make the people atheists, just different. - Sekicho 00:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

etymology

hi, just want to point out that in at least two chinese dialects or at least in accents within these dialects, the inital consonant of "sun" is quite close to a "j". Not quite the english j, but close to say, a french j (ʒ i think). you can hear this in mandarin, chaozhou, maybe hokkien and shanghainese

Pro-Korean vandalism / anti-Korean vandalism / anti-Chinese vandalism.

Anti-Chinese vandalism (Anti-Chinese vandalism is not found.)

Anti-Chinese vandalism is not found.
Neither a Chinese user nor a Japanese user are fighting in this article.
In the article on Japan, Japanese and Chinese are making up a good relation.

Pro-Korean vandalism

In this page many pro-koran vandalism were writtn. Ex. the influence of china was weak than that of korea. It was err without no explanation. Chinese character, Buddhism, Japanese envois to Tang Dynasty China,and so on.Polaris36 21:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It can't say if Japan adopted chinese customs ,culture and socal system and part of it through Korean Nations, she adopted 'Korean ones'. Bright888 22:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder which major cultre adopted form Korea. Sorry. Please list some of it. Bright888 23:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Japan introduced chenese cultre and a part of it were throgh Beakje in 6th century. But Japanese envois to Tang Dynasty China in 7th were avoid korean peninsula for dangers. And formal Buddism system were introduced directly after the 7th. Many chinese systems and chenese came from China to Japan directory. One of them was Jianzhen. So we can't say Japan introduced chinese culture by Koreans only. It was one of Pro-Korean vandalism.Bright888 14:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Korean vandalism

I would like to ask people to:

1. Please stop removing references to Korea in this article. 2. Please stop changing "Korea" to "Korean Peninsula" or "Asian Mainland".

There is overwhelming archaeological, historical, genetic, and other evidence of massive Korean influence on Japan (perhaps even more than Chinese influence). We have discussed this issue over and over and provided links, etc.

I am one of the people who have brought this article to the quality that it is now, so that it could be listed as a "good article". I will not allow vandals and those uneducated in the basics of East Asian history to dilute its quality.

Most of the edits have been from anonymous users, but anyone registered who engages in this behavior will be reported as a vandal.--Sir Edgar 00:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am very astonished at the Koreans' patronising request.The Koreans ask people to describe the Korean influence on Japan, however , the Korean deleted the description on their rapid economic growth since 1960s owing to the soft loan from Japan as the result of the Basic Treaty in 1965,in the South Korea Page.Japan owes Korea ANYTHING,but Korea owes Japan NOTHING??? --Trilozengy 14:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

At the cost of our own culture, resources, people, terrority and pride. Koreans were forced to be guinea pigs for Japanese projects, koreans and chinese were sent to fight for Japan (frontline), korean and chinese women were indiscriminately "used", stealing of Korean islets and claiming it as their own (Dokdo is closest to Korea and Korea owned it before the Japanese annexation of Korea, COME ON), and not to mention, the resulting deaths because of Japanese participation in World War II, GOD, I wonder why these Korean pricks don't feel they owe anything to Japan? I mean, rapid economic growth based on Japanese post-analysis of WW2 should be good enough! BECAUSE MONEY SOLVES EVERYTHING RIGHT? Not to mention, they have yet to formally apologize for Japanese atrocities during WW2. Seriously, them Koreans (& Chinese) have no reason to be angry with Japanese folk. Let's not forget that Japanese are trying to erase what happened during WW2 in student textbooks! It's like they are trying to teach their students that what they did during the war was right for heaven's sake? Furthermore, erasing such historical facts and teaching selective history prevents Japanese repentence and learning from their mistakes, god forbid if Japanese repeat their actions in the future. What more do you want? So what if Japan allied with racists nazis responsible for the death of millions of Jews and other ethnic minorities? I think Korea and China should be nicer to Japan no? Haha

Hey,coward Korean,write something new.Sick and tired of your silly talk.Already full of delusions in your old hard disk of the brain?--Trilozengy 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me add that it is vandalism to remove the words "China" and "Chinese" also.--Endroit 15:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

:In response to Sir Edgar, with respect to the Yayoi people, "mainland Asia" (or "Korea and China", or variations thereof) is more appropriate. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. See discussion at Talk:Japanese people#Satoshi Horai data cited incorrectly.--Endroit 17:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is considered vandalism as 1) no reason for deletion is given 2) Any mention of Korea is deleted and replaced with "China", not even "Mainland Asia", and 3) Properly cited information is deleted. It IS an act of vandalism, but the cause of vandalism stems from content disputes. What difference are there between this case and Neo-Nazis frequently vandalizing the Holocaust page and blanking sections just because they believe such actions did not take place? Well, yes, I agree that the Korea/mainland thing is more of a content dispute, but what the anon IP user does as a whole is considered vandalism in Wikipedia. Well, I guess all we can do is try to [Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]], as I've seen even the most heinous internet trolls come around =). Deiaemeth 23:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of users are not Neo-Nazi. Will you think that it is a nationalism that the South Korean steals the activity of China?　Why are they evaluating the Netherlands and China if they are exclusive patriots?　--Kamosuke 00:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Chinese doesn't demand the Tang dynasty of the word. The South Korean demands the name of Begja kingdam. This is not POV. --Kamosuke 04:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:NPOV to actually grasp the policy of NPOV. Deiaemeth 06:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

TAKESHIMA IS JAPANESE!!!!!!#%#$FHGWHGADS - Sekicho 08:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Deiaemeth 08:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Translation: This debate is getting so absurd it's comical. Like, uh, every other debate between Koreans and Japanese, basically. - Sekicho 08:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay.... I thought for a moment that your account was hijacked or something.. Deiaemeth 08:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As Sir Edgar indicated, this article is a Wikipedia:Good article. But the criteria for good article requires that there be no problems with factual accuracy (verifiability), NPOV, and edit wars. I'm afraid we have an active edit war here, because people have been adding and deleting the words "Korea", "China", "Chinese", and "Korean" without much discussion. I believe there is can be a legitimate content dispute in most such cases, despite both parties accusing each other of vandalism. Here's a 3-part proposal to resolve this problem....

1. In each disputed case, proper citations are needed to show whether Korea (only), China (only), or both are historically involved.
2. When both Korea and China are involved, in each case we must determine the wording: "mainland Asia" "continental Asia", "Korea and China", or variations thereof. I believe "mainland Asia" "continental Asia" sounds NPOV, but some people may seem to believe otherwise.
3. Part of the problem is that Japanese people (and others) don't know enough about Korean culture and history, and so the word "Korea" may be misunderstood by them. Korea can be "Korea (高麗 goryeo)", "Korea (高句麗 goguryeo)", "Korea (百濟 baekje)", "Korea (新羅 silla)", "Korea (朝鮮 joseon)", "Korea (韓國 hanguk)", or the area occupied by the above in prehistoric times, depending on the situation. (Some of this area overlaps into today's Manchuria and China). I suggest if we use the word "Korea", we shall need to specify which Korea is being referenced in each case.

If we don't improve this situation, the "good article" status may have to go.--Endroit 15:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well its too late now, this is the Good Article collaboration of the week :). Sounds like y'all have a bit of a dispute going on then I take it? Homestarmy 01:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations for "Yayoi culture was brought to Japan by migrants from mainland Asia" (both Korea and China)

• Superceded by the citations in the next section below.--Endroit 15:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  

*Citation claiming migration from "mainland Asia" (including prehistoric Korea) — This citation shows a strong Yayoi link with today's Korea
*Citation claiming migration from "the lower basin of China's Yangtze River" — This citation shows a strong Yayoi link with ancient Jiangsu, of China
*Yayoi people#The Origin of Yayoi Culture Note: The term "Mainland Asia" includes both Korea and China, and seems to be the preferred terminology for Yayoi migrators used by some researchers. And I believe it is the most NPOV.--Endroit 15:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Most links I found state "Korea", not "mainland Asia" as Yayoi origins:

1. Many people from Korea emigrated to Japan. Those people brought rice cultivation and metal work to Japan during the Late Jomon Period. Jomon people started to learn and practice those new things. The cultural effect from Korea was reflected in the shape of earthenware vessels, tools, technology and society in Yayoi period. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/japan/yayoi/yayoi.html

2. According to one estimate, Yayoi Japan received several million immigrants from Korea, utterly overwhelming the genetic contribution of Jomon people (thought to have numbered around 75,000 just before the Yayoi transition). If so, modern Japanese are descendants of Korean immigrants who developed a modified culture of their own over the last 2,000 years. http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2350.html

3. The Yayoi period brought also the introduction of iron and other modern ideas from Korea into Japan. http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2131.html

4. Unlike Jomon pottery, Yayoi pottery was very similar to contemporary South Korean pottery in shape. Many other elements of the new Yayoi culture were unmistakably Korean and previously foreign to Japan, including bronze objects, weaving, glass beads, and styles of tools and houses. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so191/PacificRimReadings/JapaneseRoots.html

5. In this sense, a very great part of Japan's origins, both culturally and ethnically, can be traced back to Korea. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ getarticle.pl5?nn20020312b6.htm

Etc, etc.

The use of the term "Korean peninsula" and less commonly "mainland Asia" seems to come from mostly Japanese sites.

This might be the best compromise from the Met Museum site: While some aspects of Yayoi society evolved from the Jomon, more important to its development was the technique of wet-rice cultivation, which is thought to have been introduced to Japan from Korea and southeastern China sometime between 1000 B.C. and the first century A.D. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/yayo/hd_yayo.htm

I think most Yayoi were from Korea though. The wet-rice cultivation had spread to southern Korea by this time and must have been brought to Japan by migrants from this area. Though I think it is somewhat misinformation considering that most evidence overwhelmingly points to a Korean connection.--222.233.205.185 02:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, of the two links you provided, only one uses the term "mainland Asia". The other does not even mention it.--222.233.205.185 02:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Mainland Asia" includes "the lower basin of China's Yangtze River" as well as "Korea". But being specific is fine too. I just found a citation for a more comprehensive DNA study by Hammer below, rather than our generarizations and speculation so far.--Endroit 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, only one of those links says "mainland Asia".--Sir Edgar 23:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation for "Yayoi culture was brought to Japan by migrants from Korea, who in turn trace their roots to southeast Asia/south China."

• Dual origins of the Japanese: common ground for hunter-gatherer and farmer Y chromosomes <== This is a PDF file.

by Michael F. Hammer, Tatiana M. Karafet, Hwayong Park, Keiichi Omoto, Shinji Harihara, Mark Stoneking, Satoshi Horai

Published online: 18 November 2005

Selected summary pertaining to Yayoi....

1. Describes the Yayoi migration from Korea based on the O-SRY(465) genes and other genes with close lineage (haplogroups O-M122 and O-M95).
2. Reiterates that "the entire O haplogroup has been proposed to have a Southeast Asian origin." (Their definition of Southeast Asia includes southern China). Then hypothesizes that "the dispersals of Neolithic farmers from Southeast Asia also brought haplogroup O lineages to Korea and eventually to Japan."
3. In the concluding paragraph, it states "we propose that the Yayoi Y chromosomes descend from prehistoric farmers that had their origins in southeastern Asia, perhaps going back to the origin of agriculture in this region."
4. Hammer's DNA study is based on a "global sample consisted of > 2,500 males from 39 Asian populations, including six populations sampled from across the Japanese archipelago."

--Endroit 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Y-chromosomal DNA haplogroups and their implications for the dual origins of the Koreans <== This is a PDF file.

by Han-Jun Jin, Kyoung-Don Kwak, Michael F. Hammer, Yutaka Nakahori, Toshikatsu Sinka, Ju-Won Lee, Feng Jin, Xuming Jia, Chris Tyler-Smith, Wook Kim

Published online: 18 September 2003

Selected excerpt regarding Yayoi: "... these results provide convincing evidence for recent male migration, originally from China into Japan moving through Korea."--Endroit 07:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You really seem to lack a knowledge of East Asian history. Southeast Asia did not have any of the technologies listed. You are engaging in an edit war without good reason.--Sir Edgar 23:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyhow, most DNA evidence points to a Korean-Japanese connection.--Sir Edgar 23:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar: Obviously you misunderstood. I DID say "...was brought to Japan by migrants from Korea..."

It's what I said after that which matters, and you are urged to at least print out the "2005 Hammer" document (which I cited above) and glance through it. Obviously you didn't read it because Hammer's definition of Southeast Asia includes Southern China.

• 2005 DNA study by Hammer (Sir Edgar, please let me know if you can't open this PDF file).

I'm sure you misunderstood. But just in case, the articles Bronze Age#Asia, Iron Age#East Asia, and Rice#History collaborate the belief that at least 3 of those "technologies" occurred in China first and then in Korea later.

Anyways I wasn't even referring to the technologies being invented there. I was referring to the Yayoi people who were "migrants from Korea, who in turn trace their roots to southeast Asia/south China". If you don't like the "southeast Asia" part, I will omit it. But the 2005 Hammer DNA study suggest that the forefathers of Yayoi genes originated in Southern China, brought rice to Korea, and then from Korea to Japan. Please read it and let me know what you think. It's very interesting to read (although a little technical). It even goes into details about Jomon (and pre-Jomon), how the Japanese are a hybrid between Yayoi and Jomon, how the Tibetan genes are similar to the Japanese, etc.

By the way, if you disagree with me, I would at least like to see you provide some citation proving your point. Perhaps you can find a more comprehensive DNA study? Please show some courtesy like I am doing now. Please either restore what was there before, tell me how you want it to be, or let me know if you disapprove completely. Thank you, Sir Edgar.--Endroit 00:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the way the current Japan article has worded the statements, using "China and Korea" or "Korea" or "Korea, and possibly southeastern China" (depending upon the context in various sections). Hammer's "Southeast Asia" does not conform to Wikipedia's usage of the term, just like Horai's "mainland Asia" is a blurring of "Korea". Thus, I do not agree with the use of vague terms like "mainland Asia" simultaneously with specific terms like "Japan". That implies an inequality in perspective and dilution of the former in favor of the latter.

Anyhow, I have printed out the Hammer article and will review it. Of course, it is just one of many studies on this topic and I will read it as such. The vast majority of evidence indicates that the Yayoi came from Korea. Thank you for referring me to the article though. I will enjoy reading it.

I will also look for data (from a Japanese source) that shows DNA make-up of modern day Chinese differing from that of Koreans and Japanese. There's even a pie chart showing the genetic make-up of each group for you.

My previous responses may have been a bit hasty, but I was in a hurry at the time.--Sir Edgar 04:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, Sir Edgar, I'll give it a few days. Please let me know if you read it. Hammer builds upon the work done by Horai and others. But unlike Horai, Hammer has a sufficiently large data sample ( > 2,500 people) he's working with. I expect we have quality material we can directly cite from here. In the meantime, if you have DNA information you can share with me, please do so. Thank you, Sir Edgar.

Everyone else, if there are any DNA experts reading this, please be sure to read the (above) material by Hammer. Thank you.--Endroit 06:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read the article yet, but again I would like to ask you, in turn, to read a breadth of articles on this topic and not rely on simply one or two sources. I have the feeling that you are not that knowledgeable on the subject.--Sir Edgar 23:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation requested for "...the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, ceremonial burial, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea"

By the way, some Japanese Wikipedians and anonymous users continue to change this:

"The Japanese did not start writing their own histories until the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, ceremonial burial, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea."

Into this:

"... the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, ceremonial burial, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea."

"... the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, ceremonial burial, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from mainland Asia."

No reason is given for the editing and thus this is vandalism. It used to be "from Korea" and then people changed it to "Korean Peninsula" and then it was specifically stated as "Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea" as a compromise. This was done a long time ago.

There is vast historical documentation and archaeological evidence on both sides of the Sea of Japan that that shows Baekje's contribution to Japanese civilization, especially after its collapse. In fact, it is believed that Baekje nobility constituted a large basis for Japan's imperial line. As documented in the Shoku Nihongi (and reiterated by the current Japanese emperor), the mother of Emperor Kammu (736–806) was a descendant of King Muryeong of Baekje.

Thus, "mainland Asia" is not only inaccurate, but also misleading information. "Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea" is the correct description.--Sir Edgar 04:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody please provide the citation for the above? Also, please explain why the Chinese writing system, culture, etc. was not introduced to them directly by the Chinese. The (above) choice of words is such that China did not contribute anything at the time. I understand that a revert war is going on because a citation has not been provided.--Endroit 06:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is some information that also shows a "Korean" influence.

And, if we are going to be so precise by saying "Baekje, one of the Kingdoms of Korea" shouldn't we be saying the "Yamato polity that was the burgeoning nucleas of the modern Japanese state"? When the insistence on specificity is only demanded on Korean entities, than the argument that people are just trying to downplay Korean influence is strengthened because it is a curious double standard.

• The word Baekje is important because the Chinese characters 百濟 (zh: bǎijì or ko: baekje) are used in primary sources. Also, a link to the Japanese wikipedia entry ja:百済 (ja: kudara) may be helpful to Japanese readers here. The Korean wikipedia entry ko:백제 (ko: baekje) may be listed to make the entry parallel.--Endroit 19:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Cambridge History of Japan:

A) Archaeological evidence from the Fujinoki tomb suggests that the person burried there, "like the Soga, was made up largely of immigrants with close cultural ties to Korea." Any horse related materials were imports from Korea because the native Japanese of the day would not know what the "meaning" of the artifacts "nor how to make such fittings." [4].

B) The establishment of an urban civilization that was "definitely Korean in character" based on this evidence:

a) Imported grave goods

b) The "Korean style" of the three great temples of the Asuka period

c) The "continental" origins of Asuka period treasures at the Horyu-ji Temple collection.

d) The prominence of "Korean priests" of 1384 clerics (815 priests, 569 nuns) serving in the 46 temple compounds by 624 CE

e) And the dominance of the Soga clan and its strong Korean connection (also sourced in Japan's Name Culture [5].

2) The rank system adopted by Japan in 603 CE, although based on the Chinese Wei, was most directly influenced by "Koguryeo (Goguryeo) and Paekche(Baekje)." [6].

3) Korean immigrant: Kuratsukuri no Obitotori who cast a bronze Buddha at Asuka-dera [7].

4) The "conclusion that Yamato's relations with the Korean kingdoms had become more active in the last half of the fourth century":

a) Archaeological sites that show that there was a "continuous flow of materials, techniques, and immigrants from the Korean peninsula into Japan." [8].

5) There is "little doubt that the Japanese court was determined" to "make extensive use of Korean experts for an accelerated and wide-ranging program of modernization." [9].

a) Tenji's order to adopt continental methods was finished in 671 CE, the same time many former Paekche officials were awarded high ranks for services rendered in special fields of knowledge. [10].

6) Disovering the Arts of Japan: "Early Japanese temple compounds were based on Korean Paekche temples of the sixth and seventh centuries." [11].

7) Korea: A Religious History states that monks sent to Japan include Hyep'yon (Keiben in Japan), Hyeja (Keiji in Japan) was the tutor of Prince Shotoku. [12].

8) Gateway to Japan: The famous artist, Tori Busshi, "was of Korean descent." [13].

9) A History of Writing in Japan: The Nihon Shoki states that King of Paekche sent Atiki, who taught about horse culture. Also, it menions a Wani of Paekche who tutored the crown prince. [14].

10) The New York Times: Japanese National Treasure No. 1, a famous contemplative Maitreya, was "almost certainly carved in Korea and sent to Japan. [15].

Tortfeasor

Korea by James Huntley Grayson: "Paekche(Baekje) was paramount" in the development of early Yamato-ese Buddhism. [16].

Writing Systmes: A Linguistic Approach by Henry Rogers: "Korean tutors came to Japan to teach the Chinese language" [17] (also, please refer to Wani and Atiki, sent by the king of Baekje, metioned in the Nihongi/Nihonshoki (if the source can be determined reliable) which also states that they brought written language, 1,000 Chinese characters, and the 'Analects' to the Yamato polity.

Tortfeasor 17:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tortfeasor. I just took a quick glance. There's overwhelming influence by Baekje.

But in addition, there's some important fundamental influnce by Wei and Sui as well. I need time to review the relevant info.--Endroit 18:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion: Read a book on East Asian history.

Sorry if I may sound rude (that's not my intention), but that's what it essentially comes down to. You shouldn't really be editing an article just because you're ignorant on the topic.

I'd suggest reading a bunch of books on Japanese and Korean history from various sources: Japanese, Korean, American, European, etc. You really need to look at a wide range of sources. Not that you are (because I don't know), but you can't rely on only the Cambridge History of Japan or one or two finds from a search engine.--Sir Edgar 23:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Actually you can, if it is good enough for the academic world to suffice requirements with at least one credible source, then why isnt it for Wikipedia? You need to look at multiple sources, cause who funds that academic institution can have an indirect effect also. If toshiba, mitsubishi, etc are the primary source of funding for the East asian studies courses at a university that university might indirectly become bias cause their funding is linked to some of the conclusions or the way they state the facts. For example Brown University's East Asian Studies Courses are more than 50% funded by private Japanese corporations.

article critique

I liked to say that this article is well written in an objective manner. Other articles I have seen in the past have displayed subtle but obvious bias, nevertheless this article does well. However, how important is the denial of Jappanese immigrants to the U.S., denial of ownership of land, power over their own kids recognized by their government, and other rights both Japanese Americans and Japan declared were necessary for fruitful Japanese-American relations. In other words, domestic policies effecting immigration of Japanese to the U.S. and rights of Japanese Americans pre-World War II were stressed over and over and over, uncountable times by Japan as a harbinger to the foreign relations between the two countries. Also, Japan asked immediately after the first World War that race be not considered an issue in creating foreign policies within the league of nations, but western nations turned this down. Japan interpreted those messages the wrong way if western nations at that time were not intentionally racist. Thus, nationalism based on race or (Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere) was created in response ( a form of the white man's burden and manifest destiny combined).

Most importantly, if a country suffers from overpopulation, what does it do?

1) Create strict laws controlling population (one child per family policy in CHina) 2) Raise the economy to support this extra load of population (China is doing now with the help of the U.S. and other nations) 3) allow massive immigration to other countries (Japan tried to do this with the U.S. before World War II, Hispanic countries are doing this method now) 4) War by gaining living space (countries like ENgland, Germany,Japan,and the U.S. through imperialism)

Japan was not willing to committ harsh policies on its own people, Japan tried massive immigration to the U.S. (what other place would be easier for a westernized nation under the initial influence of Commodore Perry), and inevitably because it was not allowed to control population through immigration, engaged in imperialism. Rarely have I ever seen these facts asserted in any paper I have read within a western nation pertaining to Japan. However, I stated these facts as a informative purpose, to keep your objectivity as an author would probably mean not including these facts, so only consider but do not implement these aforementioned premises. Without these facts included within your paper, you have done well to keep both these preceding perspectives and western perspectives seperated from the objective facts. Good job.

Thank you for your comments. Trust me, this article is under constant attack by vandals and, less frequently, rightists, sympathizers, or just plain misinformed Wikipedians. It has taken a lot of work to bring it up to the standard it has reached now. So, speaking on behalf of the many people who have actually contributed to this article's progress, I appreciate your kind words.

To address the issues you have brought up:

1. The U.S. denied access to not only Japanese immigrants, but all non-European immigrants through The United States Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins Quota Act. It established a system of national quotas which limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people who were already living in the United States in 1890, according to the census of 1890.

The aforementioned immigration act banned all asians from immigrating to the US, however, the exclusion of Chinese immigration occured in the 1890's while through a "gentlemen's agreement" between Japan and the US, Japanese immigration continued. Therefore this is why the academic community including collegiate textbooks on US history state that this act effected the Japanese more so than any other Asian immigration group, so this is why Japan had the most friction with the US over immigration.

2. Japan's statements to the Western world about racism during the first half of the 20th century were hypocritical, considering the abhorrent treatment of Japanese colonial subjects in China and Korea (see Nanking Massacre and Korea under Japanese rule). It's not like Japan was a champion of Asian rights in the international scene, just its own rights as a major power from Asia. So, I'm not sure if this really belongs in a main article on Japan.

Japan's military treatment of civilians and POWS has nothign to do with Japanese americans and Japanese immigrants. Because Japan committed atrocities against other people has no relevance in the assertion that Japan cared for Japanese immigrants and Japanese americans. Lets not commit jingoism by applying this idea to Japan but not remembering that the original colonies of the US expanded westward with horrific treatment on the indegenous population, this expansion does not indicate that the US did not care for their own Americans. Then why does horrific treatment of POWS and civiians by Japan indicate so? The above statement, I hope is now aware, is a fallacy.

3. Overpopulation is not known as having been or being a big issue in Japan. Neighboring South Korea and Taiwan have higher population densities (Japan 337, South Korea 491, Taiwan 636 persons per square kilometer). See List of countries by population density.

The overpopulation statistics you provide are from 2005 and hence not relevant for this assertion applied within the context of before and during World War II. TO strengthen your refutation, please provide population statistics from the preceding dates mentioned. Also, none of the countries you used were world powers, the unstated assumption you list is that because the aforementioned countries suffer from similar or worse overpopulation, then they have equitable losses if this problem goes unchecked.

4. I think you might be referring to a sort of Japanese Lebensraum, but I don't recall this ever being mentioned as a reason for Japanese expansionism in Asia. I'm sure it was discussed as a justification for occupying places like China and Korea at one point, but not significant enough to be discussed as in the article on Hitler (where Lebensraum is mentioned in the second paragraph).

--Sir Edgar 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I provided the sources to support this but you erased them and kept your refutations online. This action is not only disrespectful but unwarranted and also if your actions are not explained , may very well be prejudicial as those actions single out one individual without supported and documented evidence to accusations as such. I understand if you have a problem with my approach in disemminating information, but to ignore the facts I provided because of the methodology in which it was delivered hinders not only the progression of the public audience that view these Wikipedia articles but also to yourself. For example, to clarify, "I dont lik the way you say things or what you are saying, so Im going to ignore you." Please do not erase my refutations and statements but answer back in the spirit of ascertaining truth because of your respect for such. Also, if corrections to my bahavior online needs to be employed, then make me aware of what it was that upset you to partake in your behavior and also be fair in comparison to other's decorum when making that evaluation. Though what I have stated upset many people, if those people didnt argue or refute those facts, then why even participate in Wikipedia or any academic discipline? As long as what I or anybody states can be supported with evidence, then they are making a contribution. If you disagree, I have informed Wikipedia, please speak with them so that we may argue this issue of contribution and make any necessary corrections on yours or my part. Thank you

Misinformation vs. Perceived misinformation vs. Accuracy in the "Classical era" section

This discussion pertains to the following text in the Classical era section:

The Japanese did not start writing their own histories until the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, ceremonial burial, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea.

In reading Tortfeasor's citations, I was particularly moved by how much the Baekje (Paekche) and Goguryeo (Koguryo) contributed to jump-starting Japan's culture, particularly the introduction of Buddhism. See Korea - A Religious History by: James Huntley Grayson p. 33

• 372 Buddhism is introduced to Korea and Goguryeo (see Korean Buddhism for this)
• 384 Buddhism is introduced to Baekje (see Korean Buddhism for this)
• 538 - 552 Buddhism is introduced to Japan, as King Song of Baekje sends Buddhist statues and scriptures to Japan under Emperor Kimmei and Soga clan
• 560 Goguryeo monk Hyep'yon (Keiben in Japanese) goes to Japan
• 577 King Widok sends more artisans to Japan
• 607 Empress Suiko of Japan sends an envoy to Sui Dynasty of China to copy Sutra (see Buddhism in Japan)

In the span between 538 and 607 (and perhaps before that too), Korean influence was great in Japan.

Misinformation

Although I tried to be 100% NPOV, I was using over-generalized wording, "mainland Asia", and ended up making the article less accurate. I don't blame others for accusing me of misinformation for doing so, and I do appologize. If it wasn't clear from my most recent edits though, I have retracted my intention to insert the words "mainland Asia" (or "continental Asia") into this article. (Actually, I only tried that for a couple of days, then gave up.)

Perceived misinformation

Although Sir Edgar strived to be 100% accurate, he ended up using wording which implied that Korea was the original source (and inventor) of all the culture. In reality, Korea acquired a significant portion (at least 30% to 50%) of this culture from Northern Wei Dynasty's China, and somehow we seem to be short-changed if this information is missing.

Accuracy

I propose to use wording which explicitly specify who did what: Baekje Korea, Goguryeo Korea, Wei China, etc. And yes, Baekje (百済) appears in Nihonshoki. And yes Baekje and Goguryeo appears in Tortfeasor's citations. And yes, Northern Wei (of China) also appear in Tortfeasor's citations.

I believe that Korea (mostly Baekje, some Goguryeo) was 100% responsible for the culture, etc., being introduced to Japan, and we need to word it that way. But at the same time, we should use wording which mentions that China (particularly Northern Wei) was a significant source (but not necessarily the inventor) of these culture. I request Sir Edgar and others to cooperate with me in accomplishing this.

--Endroit 17:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Comments, anybody?--Endroit 19:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the reason to have deleted Japanese envoy to Tang Dynasty China. It is an event that is more important than the South Korean.　--61.116.115.64 23:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the importance of previous event.

Details

Buddhism　- Chinese Buddhism Buddhism introduced to Japan. Dharma character schoolRitsuKegon, They are Buddhisms of China.

advanced pottery - advanced pottery was introduced into Japan by the prince of Silla "Amenohiko" [18]

ceremonial burial　- Ceremonial burial of traditional Japan started in the eighth century. [19]

Immigrant of Wu Emperor Yuryaku sent forth an emissary to China, and requested the immigrant.

If you write a really neutral article

"when the Chinese writing system, chinese Buddhism, advanced pottery, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Korea's Baekje and Goguryeo and shilla Kingdoms or Wu which in turn derived some of that culture from China's Northern Wei Dynasty."

It will be able to write simply. --Kamosuke 23:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please keep discussion focused on Japan article. (Re: Comments by Collective Conscious)

Tangential topics and talk related to an individual Wikipedian should go to the appropriate section. This is not a space for rants and personal attacks. Discussion about Japanese immigration to the U.S. should go be in the Immigration to the United States article or by creating a Japanese emigration article. Unless anyone objects, I would like to edit all of this out, so we can keep the valuable content that actually relates to the main article on Japan.--Sir Edgar 00:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

sir edgar, please do, this page has become unreadable & unusable.

66.32.117.147, please provide specific, concise editing suggestions based on Wikipedia policies. nobody's going to read, analyse, & respond to your book-length thesis here, because that's not what we've gathered here to do. please mercilessly prune the verbiage to a short list of suggested edits, or move your comments to your own user page, or possibly move them (after pruning) to the more specific articles suggested by sir edgar, before he or another wikipedian deletes them. thanks. Appleby 01:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I admit the list of facts were very long, however, please be objective and attack my facts and logic, not make mentionings of my stlye of writing which is less important. Is this concise? In addition, I have noticed you have done the same thing I did which you are complaining about on the discussion page of Korea. You know the 3 paragraphs worth of resources on the use of the word brutal in describing Japanese atrocities. Why is my same action offensive to you? It just is contradictory, which I hope explains why I am questioning motives.

This article has a lot of factual errors,please clean it up. Arent the Japanese and Northeastern asian languages similar or something? I think I remember this from class on Asian history.

What factual errors? That 'something or something you think you remember' is not in the article? If you look in the Language section, you'll find "There is no consensus on what, if any, relationship Japanese has with other languages, but scholars continue to research the issue." Henry^Flower 11:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, this is a good response about the consensus part. This is accurate. I only mentioned it as a factual error because as you said there are many theories about the origin of the Japanese people including the relationship pertaining to language. Which theory do are we using in this article?

I think the Language section should indeed mention correlation to Korean and other Altaic language, but this is only a theory. In all likelihood, modern day Japanese had strong influence from both the Goguryeo language and the Pacific islands as well as Chinese vocabulary. However, not mentioning this is not a "factual error".--Sir Edgar 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to help with this article too since its the GA collaboration, but all this ranting about racism and whatnot, yeesh. Homestarmy 12:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Racism as I have stated in the follwing parapgraph is unfortunately a coomon topic within the hitories of many countries. It is so common that the only people I have witnessed to adamantly oppose any mention of racism are right wing racists, proud southerners, and fundamentalists. I agree though that too much talk of racism is boring and repetitive.

All of that has been edited out. Please feel free to contribute.--Sir Edgar 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The ranting part I can agree with, methodology is important in conveying your message, so apologies about that, (I was a little frustrated because I supplied a lot of significant and credible evidence that contributed to racism and diplomacy for the two countries of Japan and the US pre-World War II, including published dissertations which were accepted by the academic community that indicated this as well, yet they were erased). Racism, though some do not want to hear about it because it may offend the pride of national fervor has been a part of many countries' histories including Japan and as you well know the US. It was so important a theme before World War II that it effected diplomatic relations between the two aforementioned countries. I am aware of Sir Edgar's reply of what I understood as well as other viewers I directed attention to of what we thought to be a traditional like cycle of the demonization of Japan during World War II. Sir Edgar stated, I dont think Japan was worried about Asian rights as a refutation to Japan-US diplomacy and how racial discriminatory policies in the US against Japanese effected them. Japan was awful in atrocities but the idea of good against bad is an awful lie taught to all of us during our youth. It takes significant effort to break from this cycle. In other words there were good things and bad things with Japan's war like efforts. Too many factual sources exist to support my assertion of race and diplomacy regardless if it is a revisionist perspective or not.

Dear "Collective Conscious" 66.32.117.147 (talk · contribs): This article does not go into details for good reason. It links to many sub-articles, such as Japanese language, Japonic languages, Demographics of Japan, Japanese people, Foreign relations of Japan, etc., and you are asked to click those links. Please look at EACH individual article and make the changes there. Don't put all your comments here in the main article. Also, if you wish to respond to me, please do so at User talk:Endroit. Thank you.--Endroit 16:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

References

If you can fill in any of the cite needed tags then please do so so we can get this to FA. Country articles need lots of references. Skinnyweed 16:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Format

I dont know if it is my computer or something but there is a format problem with prime minister and emperor in the infobox tableHektor 09:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Electrical power in Japan

I think it'd be good to point out somewhere in the article the mixed use of 50Hz and 60Hz electrical power in Japan, as it's the only country (to my knowledge) that has such a combination. Where should it be placed in the article, though, if it should be at all? --moof 00:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is something I didnt know. Good contribution.

It might be a good idea to collect several categories of information in an infrastructure section in Economy. Fg2 06:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to either delete this trivia or more likely modify it, as the Philippines has a curious mix of electrical power as well...most of the country is on 240 V/50 Hz, while parts of Baguio City have 120 V/60 Hz, due to the former presence of an American army base there. Note that I may have switched the 50/60 Hz quotes by mistake. --Tachikoma 15:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Immigration

"Immigration, however, is not publicly popular as recent increased crime rates are often attributed to foreigners living in Japan." The Japanese are not deeply opposed to immigration because of a few news reports about criminal foreigners. Immigration, is simply not an option according to the Japanese. The newspaper stories are probably true, considering that as Japan has the lowest crime rate, prima facie foreigners (if representative of their nation) will commit more crime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.136.21 (talk • contribs) .

Doesn't the data show that foreigners commit crimes at a similar rate to Japanese?--Sir Edgar 01:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to tell. Some factors here include:

• The numbers look higher, but a lot of those "crimes" committed by foreigners are visa violations.
• When you consider the more marginalized economic and social status of these foreigners, it makes sense that many might resort to crime. Japan is a country built upon relationships; if you aren't well-connected, there's no way you're getting ahead.

Poverty doesn't cause crime, it correlates with it. Different groups historically have had different propensities for crime. (For instance, I don't recall poor Jews in the lower East Side of Manhattan of the early 20th century as being especially violent. They were discriminated against and hated as much as anybody.) Why, I do not know. But that is the fact. The Japanese are among the least violent, along with Koreans, Taiwanese and Chinese. Besides, even if your implications are correct, foreigners commit more crime.

• A lot of Japanese crime is conducted by gangsters who the police don't mess with.

Evidence?

• Criminal justice also works differently in Japan. If you're arrested, you don't get due process. You either confess and get out with a light punishment (maybe just an apology), or you don't confess and you stay in police custody for three weeks while they try to abuse a confession out of you. If I were arrested in this country, I would probably rather confess and be deported than languish in a cell forever without even the chance to call a lawyer. And that's what many foreigners do.

So that what, foreigner crimes will be inflated?

This is original research so it's not worth putting in the article, but it's basically the way things are... - Sekicho 10:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For this original research, list the sources please. Thank you 04:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)collective concious My point was that their opposition to immigration is deeper than reaction to some negative reports of foreigners in the press.

Literature

Manga has been growing in the us dew to anime on cortoon network and other TV stations. It seem to start with the poke'mon revilution and grew with Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z. My favorit has to be Tsubasa, a anime series by Clamb. for more info you can contact me at Pez5600@AOL.com

references

How do you add references. You can find in any encyclopedia information about Koreans migrating to Japan with new technology but when I tried to cite it, I can't get it to come up correctly. On one of the sections it wanted you to add a citation for Koreans migrating to Japan with new technology. You can reference it with encarta or encyclopedia Brit. May be some on else can add it.

                          Vex

Enclose the cited material in the format <ref>CITED MATERIAL</ref> at the place you want to cite and it will appear under the "References/notes" section at the bottom. Skinnyweed 18:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Japan adopted Korean culture?

Ok, before an edit war starts up, maybe we should come to a concensus on whether or not to state that Japan historically adopted Korean culture. Hong Qi Gong 14:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, please scroll up (in this Talk page) and read Citation requested for "...the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, ceremonial burial, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea" where this was discussed just last month. Thanks! Tortfeasor 16:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with it generally. But it must say that most of them are chinese culture, and Baekje (and two other Kingdoms of south Korea, in 5th )were under influence of Japan especially about military affairs. So Korea adopted Japanese tombs(a `keyhole-shaped' tumuluss) for their kings. It can't be said that Japan adpoted Korean culture one-sidedly and it can't be said Japan adopted 'Korean' culture cleary. The things you listed are recognized to have origens in china commonly and so it is odd to say Japan adopted Korean culture. That'all.Bright888 01:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you study the history between Korean and Japan, alot of historians are saying that Yamato might be of Baekje origin and Japan was not a military influence but a military expedition sent out by Baekje. This gave the 2 groups huge military ties which were more like brother nations. Yamato's high ranking officials were to have Korean bloodlines. That was the reason/explaination why Korean tombs were carbon dated to be older, which Japanese tomb experts had no explanation for. Also, the other weird incident was Japan refusing to show the world the artifacts dug up when they opened their imperial tombs. This secrecy made historians from Austrialia and other nations believe there were evidence of Korean lineage in the tombs. Until these excavations are made public no one will really know whats going on.

I have never read your huge Baekje hypothesis without in Korean homepages. Please show me some name of the writers. The record of the fact that Japan sent army to korean peninsula are in Gwanggaeto SteleSamguk Sagi. These historical materials are verified recently. And I didn't write only tombs but Japanese tombs(a `keyhole-shaped' tumuluss). The type of tombs were older in Japan.Bright888

The study book "PEAKCHE OF KOREA AND THE ORIGIN OF YAMATO JAPAN" are what explains Baekje being the origin to Japan. (Samguk Sagi only talks about Koreans going to Japan with new technology and Koreans invading Kyushu.) Also if you study the Gwanggaeto Stele writings. Its how you read it what perspective are you looking at the paragraph. If you believe that Yamato is not part of Korea then the paragraph reads that Yamato sends an army across the sea which would be Korea or China and travels up the land. Also you can only interpert that after you fill in various blank or worn out areas of the stele and take in the lime powder altered portions by the Japanese historian who had posession of it in the 1900s. There are no records in Korean or Chinsese historical documents that Japan invaded or sent an army at during these centuries. There are no archeological evidence either of a massive military landing in Korea or China by Japan at this time. If you read this paragraph under the assumption that Yamato was of Korean origin with out making assumptions on the blank or worn out portions of the stele and exclude the altered portions, then it becomes Koguryo sends an expedition across the sea to Japan and go up that land. The only land across the sea to Korea would be Japan. (Kyushu to Honshu) There is more evidence of this happening than the other way around. That was also the reason why people thought these two nations seemed to have a close relationship later in life and Japan helped when Baekje was losing a war with Korguryo. Remember the tombs found in the 1980s in Korea were older than in Japan.

The study book "PEAKCHE OF KOREA AND THE ORIGIN OF YAMATO JAPAN" ? Who wrote it? And where can we read or buy the book? If the book realy exists, please tell us it.Bright888 23:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This book is used in most universities as the gold standard theory, it is required or recommended reading for upper level East Asian studies courses.

I think that book is out of standard theory. I suggest you to read other books.

If you read this article there is a part that talks about Japan adopting alot of European and American customs from the 1800's but that too is a little tricky. You can block the Americans from this sentence cause most of the American customs are European. Even though Koreans brought Chinese customs and introduced them to Japan in a modified form every one agrees it is definately Chinese culture. With that same logic if you are going to exclude Koreans in the 5th century you must exclude Americans in the 1800s.

We say that American life style which maintained by mass production are American customs. This system change the world after World War II. Please show us Korean generated coustoms in Japan. Bright888 13:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Mass production was first initiated by the Danish. Then the British. Of course because these countries are smaller than the US, it wasn't as big. Its like comparing Chinese mass production capacity with a small country but still of European origin. You know all the books about Japanese culture that distinguish itself from the Chinese culture, all those Japanese idiocyncracies, well those same idiocyncracies exist in Korea. They are minor adjustments to Chinese culture, but that is why Japan has these differences because they weren't directly introduced by the Chinese. The odd 4 layer heirarcy system, constantly bowing which is Chinese in origin but they are not done constantly and to the extent that Japan does it. And the Chinese don't have 4 layer respect heirarcy in their culture.

In Japan chinese cultures are living in today, but for 4 layer system?(12 layer?) was tarmnateded. Of cause I know minor changes of Chinese culture by Korean were adopted, but generally it wasn't be written as "Korean" culture for no reason to tell apart form other countrys like Balhae. Japan sent Balhae envoy sometimes. America made Pax Americana by her systems and cultures, so we need to write it. Why Korean Minor chagese must be written especally? Bright888 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No one disputes that Korea introduced the Chinese culture to Japan in the 5th and 6th cent. so why don't we just write it like that. If you don't mention Korea at all then you will have a difficult time understanding why Japan has certian idiocyncracies. Then you could argue that Japan was unique from China, but if you take in to account the modified behavior in Korea you can see the transition from China to Korea to Japan. You can get a better understanding of how certain behavior or rituals came about in Japan. Wasn't Balhae the remains of Koguryo which would mean Korean culture.

You and pro-korean men are always confusing to use Korea as Koguryo,Paekche,and all countris in the Korean peninsula. But these countris had different lageage and races we knew. Ainu country was not Japan so we say that Japan(Yamato regime) fought Ainu. Why do you write Korea not Paekche? I think you pro-korean men have strong eager to have long history to Japan. But it is unreasonable to say all countries in Korean peninsula as Korea. Ainu is Ainu and Ryukyu is Ryukyu so Paekche is Paekche. And in 5th cetury south korean peniciula were under Japanese influeces and Japan sent Army to there to fight with Paekche. In those conditions we can't say Korea introduced the Chinese culture. Write exactly what it was.Bright888 18:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Koguryo, Paekche, Kaya, Balhae and Shilla all merged to become Korea, but I agree with that statement that we need to be specific. That is why when the original sentences about Paekche bringing Chinese systems to Japan were changed, to technology from the mainland or from China, People on this site kept changing it to add Korea or more specifically Shilla, Paekche and Korguryo. Not only that people above have documented numberous citations and exerpts from historical scrolls. In addition, there is more evidence of Paekche being a father figure to Japan and was influencing Japan. Please read the citations you even mentioned above which seem to show yamato was a colony or expedition force from Paekche and that was why they were so close in relation which means they had no military influence cause they were related. Also the high ranking Yamato officials seem to be of Korean lineage. You need to be consistent if you want specifics for Korea, then you will have to do the same for China. You need to name the Kingdom or dynasty of China. Some dynasties were either conquered and merged or were of different origin Manchu, Mongo etc. Also again using the term America to refer to European/Roman culture should be specified if you are doing the same with Korea and China. Please read the citations below looks like some one added more documentation for Koreans helping Japan develop its culture. Also read the citations above. This arguement was concluded a month ago by other people.

China is used as the name of a civilization. Like Roma ,Europe, America. So we say Japan adopted Chinese systems, and not say Korean systems. I think you have a desire to think Korea as a indepndent civilazation. But it is unnatural.

Please don't ignore the citations I have already posted above. And please take the time to read these as well. Finally, if you could show some citations about your point of view, I would appreciate it. Thanks!

Sue ware introduced from southern Korea. [20].

Gaya, Silla, and possibly Baekje pottery styles were imitated by the people of Japan. [21].

“ca. late 300s–early 400s A.D. High-fired gray pottery is introduced from Kaya Federation in Korea to Japan, where it is initially produced by or with the help of immigrant potters for the ruling elite. This ware, known in Japan as Sueki, is made using the potter's wheel and fired in a single tunnel-like chamber kiln (anagama) built along a hill slope and able to reach 1100–1200ºC, temperatures high enough for stoneware and porcelain.” [22].

Korean style Sue ware was made in the Kyoto area during the tumulus period. [23].

Seto-ware, inspired by Korea [24].

Local handicrafts evolved from both Chinese and Korean prototypes. [25].

Korean potters instrumental in training Japanese in continental pottery styles and starting Japan’s porcelain industry. [26].

Some Japanese castles incorporated Korean castle architecture. [27].

Satsuma pottery was Korean inspired. [28].

Early Japanese temple compounds were based on Paekche prototypes from the sixth and seventh century. [29].

Asuka period art had a Korean influence. [30].

Green-ash glazed stoneware made during the Hakuho-Nara periods were inspired by Chinese and Korean works. [31].

There was a Korean influence on Japanese culture and dress. [32]. The paintings at the Takamatsu tomb show woman dressed in clothing reminiscent of Korean dress [33].

The Hata clan was from Silla. [34].

Nyorin Kannon, Miroku Bodhisattva, and the image at the Chugu-ji nunnery all show the influence of Korean art of that day.

Tori Busshi, the grandson of Korean immigrants. [35].

Japanese tomb painting inspired by Chinese and Korean culture. [36].

Yumendo Kannon, has Korean influences. [37].

New type tombs in the seventh century are allied with well-established Korean customs and distantly related to Chinese ones. [38].

The kondo of Horyu-ji temple has paintings from Korean and Chinese prototypes. [39]. In the Kinto hall, a Koguryeo monk painted murals. [40]. The temple itself resembles ones excavated in the former Koguryeo kingdom and follows Paekche layouts. [41]. The pagoda is Tang style or Korean styles.

Korean-style swords made in the southern Yamato basin in the fifth century CE. [42].

Virtually all early grave goods have Korean or Chinese prototypes. [43].

The Be system, adopted from Paekche, that contributed most significantly to centralization of the Yamato polity in the sixth century. [44].

Fifth century tombs in Japan follow the Paekche-style corridor tombs. [45].

Japan absorbed and imitated centralized government institutions in Korea and espcially China. [46]. Emperor Tenji focused on establishing new systems from the Chinese and Korean models. [47].

Tortfeasor 18:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A while back I wrote a paragraph shorter than this with assertions and their sources. It was erased because it took up too much room on the discussion board. Now I see this paragraph by you and ask why is your paragraph allowed to remain? Could it be that mine was erased because people didnt like the message or content regardles if it was supported by facts? I pay very close attention to things with a a meticulous nature. It's hard to scrub truth away. 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)collective concious

P.S. thanks for the copy to my collection

隋書『新羅、百濟皆以倭為大國，多珍物，並敬仰之，恒通使往來』 / 広開土王碑『百残新羅舊是属民由来朝貢而倭以辛卯年来渡(海)破百残■■新羅以為臣民』 Both of history materials point out that Japan was great and advanced country than Korea. They was written by not Japan but China and Korea.100doors 02:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural interchange between Korea and Japan

At first, I would like to say that I am very pleased to read the many briliant articles on Japan in English Wikipedia. However, I felt some out of place with some points, especially on the cultural relationships between Korea and Japan. In fact, Japan adopted many Chinese culture. And, there were lots of cultural interchanges between Korea and Japan. For example, Kofun,Magatama and so on. However curiously, according to the context of this artcle, there is no cultural interchange between Korea and Japan. This is really strange. At least, Japan had made choice among Korean culture, AND, Korea had made choice among Japanese culture. Especially, resolved DNA of rice crop is originated in Japan, not Korea. This mean Korea adopted japanese style rice field. At least, we should write the cultural interchange between Korea and Japan, and it is not unilateral adoption. If you need some evidences, please read the japanese wikipedian article and the citations. Thank you.-Questionfromjapan 09:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your logic is in error cause Korea had these technology before Japan. You need to explain that first before you can state any of the above comments.(UTC)

Magatam in Japan 1000 BC, Magatama in Korea Bronze age Neolithic age that would be 3500 BC.

Would you mind checking Kofunetc.? The citation you requested is in the page.-Questionfromjapan 09:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the Kofun site. It states there are arguments on whether Gaya took it to Japan or was originally Japans. We know there are arguments, we also know the tombs in Korea are carbon dated to be older. In archeology they were arguing that if you look at the progression of tombs in Korea, how it started out as non standardized sporadic and carbon dated older. Then as time went on it started to become more stardardized and eventually everyone followed the same tomb format. In Japan their appears to be no progession but a fairly constant format which appears suddenly. That is why most historians say the origin was probably Korea. Its like if you were to look at the development of airplanes, if one culture has multiple designs and you see a simpler version a glider, single engine propeller, a double engine, then a Jet, a 777 airplane etc...and then eventually you see a fairly constant design all carbon dated to be older. But before that you found another culture close by who had 767, 747, 777 airplanes in a specific color all over that country which was carbon dated to be younger. What would you conclude in this situation? Any ways I thought the person above was talking about rice. Which again is China to Korea then to Japan.

Multi-ID Vandal

As a non-editor at this page who has been watching the goings-on here today, I may be saying something that the regulars are already aware of. It seems fairly clear to me-- due to the nature of the edits, and the English style used-- that what you've got is one vandal with multiple IDs who also edits anonymously. Whether he's doing this to avoid a 3RR-block, or to make it appear that his edits have more support than they do, I don't know. And what can be done about it? Again, I don't know. Just thought I'd point out the obvious. -- Rizzleboffin 00:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've been watching it (but not reverting again so I don't break 3RR). I reported all four of them to be checked. Now we're just waiting on the outcome of that. In my mind, there's no doubt they are either a) all the same person using multiple accounts, or b)multiple users working in concert to remove NPOV from the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the socks indefinitely, and Bright888 for one week. Henry^Flower 17:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:61.35.26.163, sockpuppet? Similarities with Bright888 include the use of Battle of Baekgang, sloppy use of historical facts, bad spelling. Tortfeasor 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. Henry^Flower 06:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand entirely why it is pertinent for Wikipedia and others to secure its platform. However, I think that not all the blame should go to the vandalists. Most of the blame should but not all. I remember my battles and arguments with others within the Wikipedia community. They were both frustrating and enjoyable. Yet, the single most important fact I would like all of you and others to realize is that some amongst us Wikipedia enthusiasts may have exacerbated the vandalism or maybe even have made it up to prevent the sanctity of an authorship. I remember recently that I wrote a paragraph with unpopular viewpoints and original work. My thesis and dissertation was on unpopular and original works which was acceptable by an academic committee, yet I received a lot of opposition from some editors here at Wikipedia. This oposition included erasing my contributions because they took up too much space rather than attack my premises for my argument. Today, as I have a break from scholarly responsibilities, I see that Toftsear has written a larger paragraph than the one I wrote which was erased. I understand that the majority (those in power) has the interest of perpetuating their acme, yet fairness can alleviate or deter some of the vandalism. I was wrongfully accused of vandalism. An author or two stated that I wrote in a manner which was inappropriate, eyt the inappropriate response I wrote were in reply to other responses that were equally and sometimes worse in decorum. This type of behavior in which I have experienced was unfair and I hope no one else goes through the same. As you take steps to prevent vandalism within Wikipedia, remind yourselves of what I have mentioned because had it not been for my maturity, patience, and peers, I may have been a vandal. Regardless, my unfortunate experiences here at Wikipedia have not allayed my faith in its potential for the future, however, it has shown me that there are a few amongst us erudites of history specifically on this platform that believe in sophistry and unfair tactics to secure their own interest. Hence, in the long run create more vandals than they are removing. 05:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)collective concious

Which article is good?

Let's compare it.

The first version
Historically, Japan adopted many Chinese customs and institutions beginning in the 7th and 8th centuries. From the 12th century to the mid-1800s, Japan was a feudal country led by clans of warriors. After the Meiji Restoration of 1868, Japan adopted many European and American customs and institutions. Its culture today is a mixture of these influences.

Edger Version　
Historically, Japan adopted many Chinese and Korean customs and institutions, beginning in the 5th and 6th centuries. From the 12th century to the mid-1800s, Japan was a feudal country led by clans of warriors known as the samurai. After the Meiji Restoration of 1868, Japan adopted many European and American customs and institutions. Its culture today is a mixture of these influences along with traditional Japanese culture.

Edger Version 2
Historically, Japan adopted many Chinese and Korean customs and institutions beginning in the 5th and 6th centuries. During the 8th century, the emergence of an indigenous culture sparked a "golden age" in Japan called the Heian period, characterized by aesthetic refinement and aristocratic sophistication. The arts and literature flourished, culminating in Lady Murasaki's writing of The Tale of Genji, the world's first known novel.

Kamosuke Version
Historically, Japan had cultural exchanges with Korea and China.
Historically, since the 5th and 6th centuries, Japan adopted many institutions from China by learning them both directly and through Korea. Japan sent the Imperial embassies to China to China until the 9th century. And a Chinese system and Buddhism were obtained. From the 12th century to the mid-1800s, Japan was a feudal country led by clans of warriors known as the samurai. The Christianity and the culture of Europe were introduced by Society of Jesus in 16th century. Since Edo period, The Christianity was suppressed by sakoku. However, the culture of Europe (called Rangaku) kept being introduced by the Netherlands. After the Meiji Restoration of 1868, Japan adopted many European and American customs and institutions. Its culture today is a mixture of these influences along with traditional Japanese culture.

---

The second is better. The first uses vague phrases that blur the reality. Japan did not really have "cultural exchanges" with Korea and China. It imported culture and institutions from these countries. Buddhism was not "obtained", it was exported. Japan is not a Christian nation and Christianity has not played a significant part in its history. Not many people have heard of rangaku.--Sir Edgar 23:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rangaku means the study of westurn culture or science in Japanese language of the Edo period (see linked article). "Ran" and "Gaku" mean "Netherlands" and "study", respectively. In the Edo period, Japan closes itself and do a trade only with Netherlands. As a result, Japanese studies western culture and so on only through books provided by Netherlands. This is the origin of the term, "Rungaku". The term is popular in education of Japan, but I don't know situations in other countries. Reito-maguro 15:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Japan a Christian nation? Is Christianity an important part of its history?

The answer is no. So, please stop mentioning the introduction of Christianity in Japan by the Society of Jesus in the 16th century in Japan's introductory paragraph when it is really a minor fact.--Sir Edgar 04:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In Japan it is widely thought that the introduction of Christianity is important, because it is one of western cultures introduced in the first contact between Japanease and Occidental. As one of histrical facts related to Christianity, the rebellion against Tokugawa Shogunate by Japanese Christian, Shimabara Rebellion, is well known. Reito-maguro 14:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Historically Japan isn't a Christian nation as answered by Sir Edgar. However the influence of introduced Christianity is not negligible since 16th century. Some of historical events from the Sengoku period to the early part of the Edo period are related to Christianity. As another example, the first official Japanese emmissary to Europe (see Mancio Ito), was dispatched by Christian. Reito-maguro 14:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Although the Christianity part is an interesting information and could be adopted in some Japan-related articles, the versions endorsed by Kamosuke deliberately attempts to erase the importation of Korean culture by just outright saying that Korea just served as a conduit of Chinese culture, which is not true (as seen in other articles and sources). The Christianity bit can be included here or Religion on Japan page, or wherever the editors deem it. While I do understand Kamosuke's argument on "Japan exported the cartoon to the United States by way of South Korea" bit, Korean culture, anyone who've read other articles and sources based on this can safely know that just saying that Korea was a conduit for Chinese culture for Japan is saying that Rome was a conduit for Ancient Greek culture for other European nations. Deiaemeth 06:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Different examples, Korean culture developed from influence from Chinese culture and remained a seperate one. While you can argue that Korean culture adopted aspects of Chinese culture (which is true), that does not deem that Korea just served as a conduit for Chinese culture. Your argument would mean that "Ancient Greek exported culture to other European proto-nations by way of Rome", which is not true as well. Deiaemeth 06:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Deiaemeth.　Rome and Korea have a quite different background. Greek civilization was customized and Rome was expanded to the world. Kumarajiva translated the text of India into Chinese. And, the text was spread to Japan next to Korea. In a word, Rome is not Korea but China. --Kamosuke 07:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not directly comparing to Rome as Korea. In a word, I'm saying that both countries had influences from other cultures, but developed as a seperate culture. Your version just omits any references from transition of culture from Korea, which is not the case. When you omit any reference to Korean culture, that is synonymous to claiming that French is not a Romantic language but a sublanguage of Ancient Greek. Deiaemeth 08:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

For instance, please explain how South Korea developed the translation result of Kumarajiva. --Kamosuke 08:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Then should Korea only talk about India when referring Buddhism? It was altered in China then sent to Korea, just like it was altered in Korea before being sent to Japan.

---

I support No.3. The statement "Japan adopted many Chinese and Korean customs and institutions" is also vague; it blurs the fact that the institution Japan's court "adropted" was the Chinese version, which is a crucial fact in understanding many aspects of the institutions established in Japan, e.g., why the term Tenno (translated as "Emperor", as in China) was introduced in place of a word meaning a king (as in Korea). Moreover, the Buddhism that Korea sent Japan is the one that Chinese's Kumarajiva translated.　

If the Japanese Manga is sent to the United States by way of the Pusan airport, Do you insist, "Korea and Japan exported the cartoon to the United States. "?　I insist, "Japan exported the cartoon to the United States by way of South Korea".

But if the Manga is altered by Koreans and turned into a live action Movie instead of a cartoon with Korean movie stars in it, then sent to the US via Pusan airport. What would it be considered then? Would it be a Japanese export exclusively or something totally different? The Koreans don't consider Budhism to be Indian only. They always include China.

About 50 years after the introduction of Christianity, many people in Japan became Christian even among daimyos, and its influece, both cultural and political, was quite strong especially in the western Japan. It is certainly true that Christianity was suppressed during the Edo period, and it is probably true that Christianity, as religion, has not played a major role in Japan's history thereafter (although it did before the suppression); but The impact of the Christianity made Japan select the system of Sakoku. (Sakoku is one of the most important events in the history of Japan. )and the culture introduced in the late 16th century by Western people was not limited to religion. The knowledge of the Western was called Rangaku, and played a significant part in the culture of the Edo period　--Kamosuke 05:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kamosuke on some points, however I still prefer Sir Edgar's version over Kamosuke's although not perfect. I request Sir Edgar's version to be modified to mention Western influence before and under the sakoku policy.

Here are my thoughts in detail.... I agree with Kamosuke that China is similar to the Roman Empire, with respect to culture, politics, literature, arts, and religion, as well as its influence towards its surrounding nations. More specifically, Luoyang (洛陽) and Chang'an (長安) are similar to Ancient Rome. However, you cannot eliminate the mention of Korea. From the dawn of historically recorded Japan, until the fall of Baekje (approx. 660), Korean influence was greater than Chinese influence. Then there follows a period in Japan where Korean immigrant families remain important while Japan looks to China for influence; but eventually these families assimilate and dissolve into Japan. A period of greater Chinese influence continues for at least 9 centuries. However after Japan is discovered by Europe (approx. 1550), Japan chooses a policy of sakoku (from 1641), where all foreign trade is conducted through Nagasaki. Western influence is maintined through Rangaku studies and direct contact with Westerners at Nagasaki. Meiji Restoration (approx. 1869) opens the door further to Western influence.

Let me stress that Sir Edgar's wording is more elegant and beautiful. However, it needs a little more detail, particularly regarding Western influence before and under the sakoku policy.--Endroit 17:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the relation Korea and Japan is not "Greece and Rome" but "Athens and Spapta". Athens and Spapta obtained the culture of the Orient at the same time. To similar, Japan and Korea obtained a Chinese culture at the same time. I am not excluding South Korea. I used word "Exchange" first. "Historically, Japan had cultural exchanges with Korea and China." However, Japan exchanged the culture with Korea. However, Japan is not exporting the culture to China. (Thank you for advice, Sir Edger. ) Especially, the southern part of a Korean peninsula received the influence power of strong Japan. Therefore, I corrected it. "Historically, since the 5th and 6th centuries, Japan adopted many institutions from China by learning them both directly and through Korea. " I think that this expression is more accurate. Could you explain problems of these sentences more in detail.

The two countries didn't recieve culture at the same time there is close to a 500 year difference. It is not like Atens and Sparta. The transition is from China to Korea then to Japan.

Back in the 4th century it wasn't easy for people to travel. Especially by sea. They didn't have 777 airplanes, or cruise ships. That is why the dispersion of culture and technology is from China to Korea then after a certian lag time it went to Japan.

Sakoku greatly influenced a Japanese national character. This event is very important. And, the Christianity caused Sakoku. Many Daimyo turned Christian. Therefore, the Tokugawa shogunate feared the authority of the Christianity. The Tokugawa shogunate took the policy of managing all the religions by the influence of the revolt of the Christianity. As a result, the religion of Japan stagnated. Rangaku was an only means to acquire the knowledge of Europe. Ranagaku carried out the big contribution to modernization of Japan. Hiraga Gennai and Takano Choei are famous Rangaku scholars. --Kamosuke 21:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that culture is exchanged between Japan and Korea, it may be better to add the exchange betweeb Japan and Korea to your version. Do some sources show such an exchange? Reito-maguro 06:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Japanese influence in ancient Korea through a supposed Mimana state have been disregarded by most non-Japanese historians.

As for analogies, I would compare China to Rome, Korea to France, and Japan to Britain as more accurate instead.

Kamosuke, please try to contribute rather than be destructive with the article. Your mention of The Tale of Genji was a very good thing that we all forgot about. But you need to put it in the right section. Thanks.--Sir Edgar 00:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Edger,　I point out your two wrong attitudes.

• 1　You should not slander the user of an opinion different from you. Please try to be a bit more careful when insisting on your opinion. "vandalism" or "destructive " do not become evidences that affirm your opinion. Rangaku and Society of Jesus are important elements of the history of Japan. It is not destruction to add the information.
• 2　Please write concrete information on "Most non-Japanese historians". (I think that "Most" is your conviction.)　And, the attitude to which the opinion of the historian in Japan is not esteemed is wrong. First of all, you must introduce all of historians' insistences other than the Japanese to prove own remark. If you cannot do it, the expression of "Most" should not be used. It is POV.--HaradaSanosuke 15:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have a wish to you. Please make the topic of Sport briefer. (Please give explanation of Sumo briefer.)

You know, I have done so much work on this article that I feel that your criticisms against me are really inconsiderate. Why don't YOU try to actually contribute to the article, instead of destroying it? YOU can edit the Sports section and give a more concise explanation of sumo.--Sir Edgar 00:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Japanese opinion

Hello. I am Japanese. I say frankly. I think that it should describe only China. China can be easily found in our custom. But we do not feel Korea in our custom.　(Of course, I like Kimchi. However, I love pasta any more. ) Please delete "Korea" if "Korea" is a cause of the edit battle. Korea is not small existence in the history of Japan. However, it is not always necessary in the history of Japan. In a simple Japan guide, Korea is often omitted. What does the Japanese excluding me think?

By the way, how is a final edit done? I return it to the first setting. --HaradaSanosuke 15:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, omitting Korea is often the Japanese bias, even in academic circles in Japan. We try to offer a more balanced and accurate perspective based on facts in Wikipedia.--Sir Edgar 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

---

My insistence is corresponding to "Anti-Korean vandalism" that Edger defined. Moreover, it agrees to "Neo-Nazi" that Deiaemeth defines. However, I do not think, my insistence is "Anti-Korean vandalism" or "Neo-Nazi". 　--Kamosuke 06:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Kamosuke, read a damn history book for once. Your version sucks, man.--222.233.205.197 08:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

They seem to angry at groundless edit. Do you means that Kamosuke's edit is groundless? Does he attempt to explain ground of his version? Reito-maguro 06:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

For instance, a big grave in the southern part of a Korean peninsula is a duplicate of Kofun of Japan. This is because the royal family in a lot of Korean peninsulas was sent to Japan by the hostage. I think that Edger is detailed to the episode of Korea. However, I do not think that Edger is detailed to the line of the history of Japan.

The Korean graves are older than the ones in Japan. Carbon dated older.

Sir Edgar 00:43, 12 May 2006

Anti-Korean vandalism I would like to ask people to:

1. Please stop removing references to Korea in this article. 2. Please stop changing "Korea" to "Korean Peninsula" or "Asian Mainland".

There is overwhelming archaeological, historical, genetic, and other evidence of massive Korean influence on Japan (perhaps even more than Chinese influence). We have discussed this issue over and over and provided links, etc.

I am one of the people who have brought this article to the quality that it is now, so that it could be listed as a "good article". I will not allow vandals and those uneducated in the basics of East Asian history to dilute its quality.

Most of the edits have been from anonymous users, but anyone registered who engages in this behavior will be reported as a vandal.--Sir Edgar 00:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Deiaemeth 23:03, 12 May 2006　
It is considered vandalism as 1) no reason for deletion is given 2) Any mention of Korea is deleted and replaced with "China", not even "Mainland Asia", and 3) Properly cited information is deleted. It IS an act of vandalism, but the cause of vandalism stems from content disputes. What difference are there between this case and Neo-Nazis frequently vandalizing the Holocaust page and blanking sections just because they believe such actions did not take place? Well, yes, I agree that the Korea/mainland thing is more of a content dispute, but what the anon IP user does as a whole is considered vandalism in Wikipedia. Well, I guess all we can do is try to [Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]], as I've seen even the most heinous internet trolls come around =). Deiaemeth 23:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

---

By the way, do you understand Japanese?　This question relates to the source introduces to you. 　--Kamosuke 06:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Let's make a final decision. The basis of [Korea] was lost by the source of Edger. The "Korean Peninsula course" is the most academic. As for the treatment of Rangaku and Christianity, many users have pointed out the fault of Edger. Please present a final sentence. --Kamosuke 13:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No sumo???

I just realized that sumo is not even mentioned in the article! How did we let this happen? I think we should definitely have a Sports in Japan section that includes discussion of sumo, baseball, football, etc. And go, too! I will start one, but please help! Thank you.--Sir Edgar 23:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a nice photo, so it's not completely missing, but a brief section on recreation would be useful. It can link to the longer articles. Fg2 16:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A few details

As you guys have been editing this one for a long time, so before I remove something someone is particularly attached to, better talk about it :

- "dwarf state" is mentionned twice in very close sections. Not that what is written is factually problematic, but for the flow of the article there should be a way to regroup those ?

I also found it odd mentioned again in the Etymology section. It was originally in the History section. Repetition is unnecessary in this case. I would edit it out of the Etymology section because frankly I think it's worded better in the later section.

- any way of putting the slow conquest of the North somewhere ? (ainu / emishi...)

Yes, I'm very interested in this topic! It's quite difficult to get much information from Western sources on this. Until recently, I didn't even know that Hokkaido wasn't fully conquered until the 19th century. We can put this in the History section, of course. But only a sentence or two.

- The state was not always centered in Nara during the Nara period (eg between 740-745), this is a detail, but there should be a way for a better formula.

Good point. Let's see how we can phrase this better.

- Maybe put something about the development / spread of kana in Heian period (development of a more indigenous form of culture)?

Whoa! You've just made a very good point. There is no mention of the Tale of Genji, the world's first novel. I'll put that in immediately.

- Leaving the Sei-tai Shogun for Yoritomo here would require an explanation. I suggest to simply remove it

I don't have an opinion about this as I'm not very knowledgeable about it.

- It may help to put in brackets what Sankinkotai Bakuhan taisei are ?

Someone did that.

- economics : should general info about transportation go in the infrastructure part ?

Perhaps.

- "The prefectures are commonly grouped into regions, with five (or more) on Honshu". The "(or more)" looks kind of weird without explanations.

Please offer an edit suggestion then.

Thanks for your help!--Sir Edgar 04:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tensaibuta 16:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for advice to my Talk page. And, the Japanese can also agree to your detailed point. I think that I should add two policies of Toyotomi-Hideyoshi. (Katana Hunt, Cadastral Surveys by Taiko )　How about your opinion?　--HaradaSanosuke 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think those would fit in this general introductory article about Japan. Probably more in the more detailed History of Japan or Azuchi-Momoyama period article (maybe they are already there). Tensaibuta 23:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Misinformation in article's section on Japan's economy

re: this paragraph in the article: >>>Distinguishing characteristics of the Japanese economy include the cooperation of manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, and banks in closely-knit groups called keiretsu; the powerful enterprise unions and shuntō; cozy relations with government bureaucrats, and the guarantee of lifetime employment (shushin koyo) in big corporations and highly unionized blue-collar factories. Recently, Japanese companies have begun to abandon some of these norms in an attempt to increase profitability.

This is not accurate. Although the Ministry of Finance (which effectively runs Japan's economy) is always tinkering with Japan's economic arrangements, there is no evidence that Japan has abandoned "lifetime employment," the keiretsu, or other unique features of Japan Inc. Western Japan watchers like Eamonn Fingleton have convincingly documented how the Western media remains hopelessly in the dark about Japan's economy. The situation is not helped by Japan's ritualized self-modesty in which they do not attempt to correct misconceptions and errors in the Western media. Last, but not least, when Japanese officials speak about their nation's economy, it is important to "read between the lines," as the Japanese tend to speak ambiguously. Bottom line: the keiretsu system remains intact and lifetime employment at the major exporting corporations is alive and well.

Literature

Shouldn't literature be included in the sentence: "In the pre-modern era, Japan developed a distinct culture, in its arts: (ikebana, origami, ukiyo-e), crafts (dolls, lacquerware, pottery), performances (bunraku, dance, kabuki, noh, rakugo), traditions (games, onsen, sento, tea ceremony, budo, architecture, gardens, swords), and cuisine."? (The main Japanese Lit article starts out, "Early work was heavily influenced by Chinese literature, but Japan quickly developed a style and quality of its own." Also, it wouldn't take up much more space to mention the nobel prize winner's names, would it? (Yasunari Kawabata and Kenzaburo Oe). I think Kamosuke is correct that mention of The Tale of Genji belongs in even the briefest discussion of Japanese literature... but this article doesn't discuss Japanese literature, it just mentions literature in passing as one aspect of Japanese culture. The paragraph in question speaks about Japan of "today," so it doesn't fit in that paragraph either. -- Rizzleboffin 17:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put The Tale of Genji in the appropriate History and Culture sections. Kamosuke could have done this easily, instead of engaging in vandalism. I agree we've missed a key fact though.--Sir Edgar 00:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think about the element that composes the Japanese Literature. In Japan Literatur, there are two classifications. It is short poetry (Tanka and Haiku) and a long novel. And, the explanation of the Kana character might be needed. and The female writer's activity might be important. --HaradaSanosuke 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And I want to make Japan of Fiction. It will be written about Ninja and Samurai. How about your opinion?　--HaradaSanosuke 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There are quite detailed Japanese Literature and Japanese poetry articles, you might want to take a look there. I think references to the Tale of Genji are probably enough to the entry article to Japan (I am however thinking how to mention Kana). As for a reference to fictionnal Japan, where would you think they would fit ? Tensaibuta 10:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this article really semi-protected?

According to the banner at the top of the article, the article on Japan has been semi-protected, so as to prevent new or unregistered users from editing it. Why, then, have there been at least 2 edits by anonymous users during the short time that I've been online? Shouldn't this be impossible? I don't mean to pick on anonymous editors, but rather to find out why semi-protection apparently fails to work as claimed.--Tachikoma 15:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete "from Baekje" - Not significant enough to put into main article

This is a very insincere content. The foreign country that contributed to a lot of Japan is denied. And, information written here is not correct. Or, the exaggeration is large. Please delete the full text in this part. Even if this part doesn't exist, it can explain Japan. It is also unnatural that this article is put after the story in the Asuka age. 　--HaradaSanosuke 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. You might have a point with the location of this sentence. Concerning the content itself, please see the section Citation requested for "...the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, ceremonial burial, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea" in the talk page above.

To all : I sincerely believe there MUST be a reference (at least one... preferably more than one) given for that particular sentence. I understand the concerns about double-standards, etc., but keeping the sentence like that will do nothing but start edit wars. I suggest to soften the sentence a bit (with something like "According to various scholars,...". Tensaibuta 23:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that all the requests for citations from Japanese Wikipedians are about only references to Korea. I get the impression that Japanese Wikipedians would just like any mention of their neighbor completely eliminated from all Japan articles, especially in the context of ancient history. Why is that? I'll go ahead and put the reference in. In fact, I'll put three or four in, even though we've discussed this AD NAUSEUM in Talk.--Sir Edgar 23:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not really here. I think the sentence is perceived as controversial (it keeps on getting reverted...), and the "normal" readers will not look inside the talk page to find the relevant section (furthermore as the talk page is growing, it is becoming rather hard to find). Provided it is controversial, if you think the sentence must stay, then you must provide relevant references in the main text (and btw I am neither Japanese nor Korean). Tensaibuta 00:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The only people who seem to think it is controversial are Japanese Wikipedians and anonymous accounts which probably belong to Japanese users. Constant deletions and repeated requests for references (when a simple Google search of ancient Japanese history will do) are becoming annoying. Why only the Korea references? There have been citation requests for the Economy section, but no deletions. I think it's quite sad how in the dark Japanese people are of their own history.--Sir Edgar 06:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is not reasonable at all. Your sadness doesn't become a reason to prove your insistence. --HaradaSanosuke 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I delete this article. Edger deleted Tendaishu([48]) or Rangaku. But,　The value of Baekje is lower.

I am getting the impression that the Japanese are total ingrates. Please prove me wrong by changing your attitude on Korean contributions to Japanese civilization. Baekje played a key role in Japan's development. If not for Baekje, Japan would likely remain a backwater in Asia for many more centuries and become probably something of a mix of Mongolian and Southeast Asian cultures. The study of Dutch learning did not have a major effect on Japan at the time. It is only with the Meiji Restoration that we see dramatic Westernization in the country. Anyhow, Rangaku was not deleted, but moved to the History section.--Sir Edgar 00:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Edger.　I will handle this problem. 　--Kamosuke 10:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

LMAO @ "ingrates." A typical display of twisted Korean nationalism. Can they not be proud of themselves without claiming the ancestry and origin of everything ancient-Japanese and being a condescending asshole toward the Japanese? It's just pathetic that they have to come to every Japanese-history related article and infuse their self-admiring nationalistic biases into it. And they call you a Japanese nationalist if you correct their biased edits with objective sources.

"Teachers are important in Korea's Confucian-influenced society. Those who instruct the next generation have sometimes been regarded as near-gods. Teachers' Day is important because it gives students and parents a chance to show their gratitude.... Last October, the Korean Federation of Teachers' Associations (KFTA) asked teachers how to deal with Teachers' Day because of long-term arguments and criticism that it encourages parents to give bribes to teachers." [49]

What a joke. Why don't you look into the mirror for once before calling someone else a nationalist. --Saintjust 12:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You've been reported for violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--Sir Edgar 00:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The source is falsified

I do a regrettable report. The source was falsified for his insistence. I explain details.... He put four sources as evidence of his insistence.

His insistence
The start of the Yayoi period around 300 BC marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from Korea.

First,　He deleted the source of UCLA [50], and linked sites that Korea managed. [51] He said "Fixed vandalism" the reason for the change of this link. [52]

The UCLA source written by Samuel Hideo Yamashita was slightly biased.

Edger, You should point out UCLA's bias.

What "sites that Korea managed" are you talking about? Is PBS managed by Koreans? The list of current links are as follows: PBS, Bookrags, Jared Diamond, San Jose State University, The Seoul Times, JREF, The Asian Society Museum, Japan Guide, Encarta, Japanvisitor.com, and the Japanese Archaeological Association.

You should explain the reason to evaluate this article higher than UCLA.

Some of Yamashita's descriptions do not conform to mainstream opinion on the subject of Korea. In addition, I am using multiple sources (American, British, Japanese, Korea, etc), not relying on one.--Sir Edgar 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

However, It wrote also even on the site in South Korea like this.
Celadon happens to be one of the many forms of art and culture that Korea passed on to Japan. Another is writing. The Japanese writing system derives from China , as does paper making, block printing, art styles and much more.

Yes, that's why it says "Chinese writing system" in the article.

It has not proven the reason to add Korea.

Koreans brought the Chinese writing system to Japan.--Sir Edgar 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Next source　[53] "Some casting of bronze and iron began in Japan by about 100 BCE, but the raw materials for both metals were introduced from Korea and China.　 " "Han-dynasty bronze mirrors were the most important prestige items imported from China. " "from Korea and China."　This is a word that he never admitted. and This site uses "Korean Peninsula."

Yes, the use of "Korean Peninsula" is sometimes used, but that has been changing. As we've discussed, it's an inaccurate and politically-loaded term and most likely the influence of Japanese sources that many Western researchers rely on. Some say "Korea and China", some say just "Korea". The evidence points towards a distinctly Korean nature to culture brought to Japan.

It is your Bias.

Your terse response means to me that you've accepted my reasoning, albeit grudgingly.--Sir Edgar 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Next source [54]

The opinion of Jared Diamond is interesting. "...who passed through Korea to conquer Japan in the fourth century, but who were themselves ― emphatically ― not Koreans."　"Those reveal massive transmission of culture to Japan from Korea itself, and from China via Korea. "　

The text in the Wikipedia article does not say "Koreans". It says "from Korea". Also, you've misquoted Jared Diamond. That is not his opinion, but the opinion that is "widespread in Japan". Here is the actual text:

"Also widespread in Japan is a theory that the Japanese descended from horse-riding Asian nomads who passed through Korea to conquer Japan in the fourth century, but who were themselves ― emphatically ― not Koreans. A theory favored by many Western archeologists and Koreans, and unpopular in some circles in Japan, is that the Japanese are descendants of immigrants from Korea who arrived with rice-paddy agriculture around 400 B.C."

Next source [55] The title of this page is "The Genetic Origins of the Japanese". and This site writes "It was brought by a people called the Yayoi from the Korean peninsula."

As mentioned earlier "Korean Peninsula" is often misused.--Sir Edgar 23:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am wishing him to do a correct edit.　　--Kamosuke 12:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Edger doesn't obviously do a sincere quotation. --HaradaSanosuke 19:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The continued misspelling of my name and similar use of phrases shared by a few different IDs, including HaradaSanosuke and others, suggests to me the use of a multi-ID account. If this is so, I will ignore such persons going forward. Please be honest in your use of Wikipedia.--Sir Edgar 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Edger, Your work is not a slander of the user who criticizes your opinion. You have the obligation to do four explanations.

• 1. You Say "The UCLA source written by Samuel Hideo Yamashita was slightly biased. "　You should explain which part is bias. If it cannot be done, your insistence is POV.

Yamashita uses biased language such as the simultaneous use of "Korean peninsula" and "Japan" in the same sentence. This is done at least twice. Ex) "Japan was invaded by a horse-riding people of continental origin. In one version of this theory, the conquerors were from the state of Puyo, in what we now call Manchuria, and were driven southward by turmoil in north China and Manchuria, down through the Korean peninsula, and across the Korea Strait to Japan." Yamashita also states that various bronze items brought to Japan were "Chinese-made" when most scholars state they are likely both Korean and Chinese. Yamashita suggests that there was "a Japanese outpost on the southern tip of the Korean peninsula" when most Western scholars have dismissed the existence of such a Japanese presence. --Sir Edgar 01:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• 2. You deleted the source of "History of Japan" of UCLA, and inserted the source of "History of South Korea". Please explain the reason why you selected "History of Korea".

As explained above, the source seems biased. "History of Korea" comes from PBS and has the relevant description for this topic on Japan.--Sir Edgar 01:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• 3. You added word "Korea" not being written in the source. Moreover, China was deleted from "China and Korea". Please explain the reason why you falsify the source.

Kindly avoid making rude remarks and unfounded accusations. I ask you to observe civility in your comments. You will need to be careful about your statements going forward. Should you make another unfounded accusation that I "falsify" sources, I will have no choice but to report you immediately. I promise you I shall not be so forgiving the next time. Anyhow, I don't know what you're talking about. Here are the quotes:

1) "By about 400 b.c. Korean farmers migrated across the Sea of Japan (called the Eastern Sea by Koreans) to southern Japan. This was the beginning of farming villages in Japan and much of the modern Japanese population is descended from these immigrants. The Japanese and Korean people are really close cousins." http://www.pbs.org/hiddenkorea/history.htm

2) "As well as rice farming, a variety of other items and technologies were introduced from Korea in the Yayoi. These include the use of bronze and iron, domesticated pigs, wooden and stone agricultural tools, megalithic burials, and certain types of pottery." http://www.bookrags.com/history/worldhistory/yayoi-period-ema-06/

*Recent studies by the AMS method clarifies that the rice farming has been introduced to the Japan islands in the BC 9th century at leaset(See in the last of [56]. The introduction to Korea is also considerd to be about in the BC 9th or later). According to introduction of wet race farming to Japan, now three kinds of hypothesis exist. They has no consensus for no conclusive proof. You show only a hypothesys which is considerd to be once　most favor for a geometrical reason between the Japan islands and the Korea peninsula. However the negative opinions of the hypothesis is recently grown, because a sciencetific studies supports another hypothesys (You can see in H. Takamiya et al in [57]*.Reito-maguro 15:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument does not make sense. "Geometrical reason?" 幾何理由? Anyway, that abstract says "the Southern route hypothesis is rejected" based on scientific study. - Sekicho 15:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Thank you for pointing my misunderstanding. I cancel my writing.Reito-maguro 18:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

3) "Many other elements of the new Yayoi culture were unmistakably Korean and previously foreign to Japan, including bronze objects, weaving, glass beads, and styles of tools and houses." http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Japan/History/roots.html

and "Massive Korean influences on Japan during the kofun era... were responsible for transmitting Buddhism, writing, horseback riding, and new ceramic and metallurgical techniques to Japan from the Asian mainland." http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Japan/History/roots.html

4) "The culture identified with the Japanese was not brought to the islands of Japan until about 300 B.C. It was brought by a people called the Yayoi from the Korean peninsula. It included rice cultivation and the use of steel for tools and weapons." http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/japanorigin.htm

5) "Among the three kingdoms on Korean Peninsula, Baekje became the first to introduce Buddhism to Japan in AD 553. Baekje contributed greatly to the establishment and development of ancient Japanese culture as well as Buddhism. Nowadays, More relics of Baekje Buddhism remain in Japan than in Korea." http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=580 (If you really hate Korean sources that much I will gladly replace this one to satisfy your anti-Koreanism.)

6) "Buddhism was first introduced to Japan via the Korean peninsula in 552, when Baekje monks came to Nara to introduce the eight doctrinal schools." http://www.jref.com/culture/japanese_buddhism.shtml (Note the use of "Korean peninsula" in Japanese source. Jref is quite biased, but I put this to prove that even Jref acknowledges this fact.)

7) "Mahayana Buddhism was introduced into Japan from Korea in the sixth century (traditionally, in either 538 or 552), as part of a diplomatic mission that included gifts such as an image of Shakyamuni Buddha and several volumes of Buddhist texts." http://www.asiasocietymuseum.org/buddhist_trade/koreajapan.html

8) "Kanji, one of the three scripts used in the Japanese language, are Chinese characters, which were first introduced to Japan in the 5th century via Korea." http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2046.html

9) "Originating in Korea, the natural ash glaze became characteristic of later Japanese wares made at Tamba, Tokoname, Bizen, and Shigaraki. Jars, bottles, dishes, and cups were made, some with sculpted figures." http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568150_4/Pottery.html

10) "Along with rice culture, metallurgy was introduced from Korea. Metal-edged tools allowed the cultivation of drier land, and increased rice production led to a population explosion." http://www.japanvisitor.com/index.php?cID=359&pID=334&cName=Japanese

and "At this time Korea was at its cultural peak despite - or thanks to - being split into three feuding kingdoms. The kingdom facing Japan, Paekche, formed a strategic alliance with Japan. As part of the deal it made some revolutionary inputs into Japanese history, namely:

> a stream of various craftsmen, among them metal workers who introduced more sophisticated armor and weapons

> Buddhist treasures

> a scholar who taught writing and Confucian thought.

The first state university was founded in 647 in Nara, headed by a Korean priest. This reflects the pivotal role of specialist Korean immigrants (toraijin) in bringing Chinese culture to Japan during the Asuka period, creating a Buddhist inspired culture late in the period known as the Hakuho culture." http://www.japanvisitor.com/index.php?cID=359&pID=334&cName=Japanese (The use of the term "Chinese culture" is biased as other articles specifically state that many aspects of culture brought to Japan from Korea was distinctly Korean in nature.)--Sir Edgar 01:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• 4.　Explanation of shamanism was in no sources of information. Is this the word which you added without the evidence? --Kamosuke 13:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right about this. I will put one in or delete the word.--Sir Edgar 01:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are the quotes you requested:

"Amaterasu was most likely a shamaness from Korea. Shamanism began in Korea and spread to Japan, becoming Japan's national religion, Shintoism." http://www.economicexpert.com/2a/Japanese:person.htm

"Yayoi culture, which originated in the northern area of the island of Kyushu in about the 3rd or 2nd century BC, is directly related to later Japanese culture and hence to Shinto. Among the primary Yayoi religious phenomena were agricultural rites and shamanism." http://cache.britannica.com/eb/article-8481

This is not a frequently discussed topic though and requires more than just Internet sources.--Sir Edgar 07:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Details are written when I am free. However, Edger does three mistakes.

• 1　Falsification of source

I pointed it out by a red character. "China" is deleted, and a "Korean peninsula" is changed into "Korea". It is not a correct quotation.

The quotes say both "Korean peninsula" and "Korea". We've already discussed the bias associated with the simultaneous use of "China", "Japan", and "Korean peninsula". This implies that no civilization existed in Korea and it merely served as an empty bridge. I have warned you and I'm going to warn you again: If you wrongly accuse me of falsifying a source again, I will report you.--Sir Edgar 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• 2　Confused history knowledge

I saw the source that Edger had introduced. Some source cannot distinguish Jomon, Yayoi, and the Kofun Period. some source is not corresponding even in the age where rice is spread to Japan either. Perhaps, Edger is confused. And, it is necessary to avoid the incorrect information.

Please read each article carefully.--Sir Edgar 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• 3 Strong bias to Korea

Your source often uses a Korean peninsula. It is because the nation of Korea doesn't exist. However, you dislike word "Korean peninsula". Perhaps, this is a bias to South Korea.

No, I disagree. The use of "Korean peninsula" in many cases are biased. Of course, the nation of Korea didn't exist at the time. But did Japan? Then why is "Japan" and "Korean peninsula" used simultaneously?--Sir Edgar 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Edger, We will thoroughly exchange opinions. --Kamosuke 06:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I welcome that, but please remind yourself of the warning I gave you for I shall not again.--Sir Edgar 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There is soo much overwelhming evidence of Korean influence on Japan sited and referenced above, why don't we just name the Kingdom if there are problems with vague descriptions. Instead of using the Korean Peninsula, Say Silla, Baekje or Koguryeo, Balhae, Kaya etc. Also, didn't Edgar use multiple sources so if one source was Bias in favor of Japan or Korea, then other sources can explain why he didn't use the term Korean Peninsula or Mainland Asia or China. Also, you have to realize when the term "China" is being used, some sources are using China like the term Roman and they are including all the cultures that were influenced by them, which then includes Korea. I think Edgar is being more specific and naming the Dynasty and Kingdoms. To avoid incorrect information multiple sources need to be used. (Japanese, American, Korean, Chinese, European) then you can get a concensus of when rice was spread. The nation of China as we know it today didn't exist back then the nation of Japan didn't exist back then, do we need to change everything in this article and say the "East Asian Island" for Ancient history of Japan.　--Kamosuke 10:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument above is confusing. What exactly are you advocating?--Sir Edgar 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Protection.

I spend half my time on this article reverting vandalism or erroneous edits by anonymous users. Who said two of the introductory paragraphs should be combined? Did anyone agree with the use of "State of Japan" vs. just "Japan"? Can we please have this page protected? Thank you.--Sir Edgar 05:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:RFPP.Voice-of-All 05:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Just listed for semi-protection.--Sir Edgar 06:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Edgar, I think You have to discuss with above section(The source is falsified) before requesting for protection.--Celldea 16:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting a lot more from the new Japanese Wikipedian accounts, not this. I'll do it on my own time, thank you.--Sir Edgar 00:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar

Hello Sir Edgar, your friendly collective conscious member again. I like your reference to Japanese people having their own history. Whether Wikipedia has policies against such attribution to a race as a whole as a result of individual arguments or not is unimportant. As I have directed to your attention before, it is incorrect to claim that Japanese-Americans are responsible for the actions of wartime Japan. You unfairly attributed guilt in a previous discussion of ours to Japanese-Americans in the U.S. for Japan's war crimes during World War II. I hoped that this was just a mistake on your part pertaining to your logic. However, I see again your attribution to ALL of the Japanese a belief procured through individual arguments. Before, I disregarded all of the accusations of bias on your part, but clearly the aforementioned statement of the Japanese having a different history displays that the possibility of bias on your part is a plausible accusation. I am offended and have recorded your contribution for my records for the administrative bodies I have made you aware of before in our conversations. My consternation pertains to you damaging the integrity of this platform as a reliable and objective source. I find your statement in my opinion to be racist and jingoistic. I also find that the position you hold within Wikipedia may possibly be used to further crimes of hate against Japanese-Americans so well documented within western historical sources, both primary and secondary. It is pertinent, in my opinion that either Wikipedia, the ACLU, or JCLU react to your statements with exigent application as it is clear there is behavior on your part which warrants the concern of responsible parties. Sincerely, 05:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)~~Collective Conscious

P.S. On behalf of us Japanese-Americans of the Nikkei heritage, we love you Sir Edgar, please stop hating us :) We minorities are not a threat to you, I promise.

Usually I give warnings, but you have threatened action by the ACLU, etc against me previously on my Talk page. So, I'm now reporting you for violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks:

• "Threats of legal action."
• "Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why."

I don't recall ever talking about Japanese Americans. I think I just simply tried to ignore your thesis-length rants and then you got upset and started making threats.--Sir Edgar 05:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Edgar, you're violating the cardinal rule of international relations: Never argue with an idiot. (Just some friendly advice.) - Sekicho 15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wise advice. He has no account to get a warning or ban, like with Saintjust. Next time, I will report the IP which can get banned.--Sir Edgar 02:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Polite Warning

I am quite disappointed that after all the work I've done on this article, a few select individuals have decided to attack me. For those that have done so, please ask yourselves this: "What have you done to improve the article? Have you added valuable content? Did you make a positive contribution to the article?"

Kindly note that I shall not tolerate further inappropriate and rude behavior by any individuals. This is your warning. Any violations of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks will be reported immediately. Thank you.--Sir Edgar 05:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar, I think you blew a gasket. Unsigned comment by 66.32.20.206 (aka "Collective Conscious")- Please sign your comments.

Sir Edgar, You are not neutrally. You have a bias of Korea. 100doors 15:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think your posts show that you have no credibility whatsoever.--Sir Edgar 02:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Positive contribution vs. vandalism

Among the contributions I have made, in terms of content, to this article*:

1. "During the 8th century, the emergence of an indigenous culture sparked a "golden age" in Japan called the Heian period, characterized by aesthetic refinement and aristocratic sophistication. The arts and literature flourished, culminating in Lady Murasaki's writing of The Tale of Genji, the world's first known novel."

2. "The Tokugawa shogunate, established in 1603, began to pursue the Sakoku ("closed country") policy of isolation that lasted for two and a half centuries. The arrival of U.S. Commodore Matthew Perry's "Black Ships" and the signing of the Convention of Kanagawa in 1854, signaled the opening of the country to the West."

3. "The first signs of civilization appeared around 10,000 BC with the Jomon culture, characterized by a Mesolithic to Neolithic semi-sedentary hunter-gatherer lifestyle of pit dwelling and a rudimentary form of agriculture. Weaving was still unknown and clothes were often made of bark. Around that time, however, the Jomon people started to make clay vessels, decorated with patterns made by impressing the wet clay with braided or unbraided cord and sticks (Jomon means "patterns of plaited cord"). This led to the introduction of the earliest known type of pottery in the world."

4. "The start of the Yayoi period around 300 BC marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from Korea, and possibly China. These formed the basic elements of traditional Japanese culture, still seen today. As the population increased and society became more complex, they wove cloth, lived in permanent farming villages, constructed buildings of wood and stone, accumulated wealth through landownership and the storage of grain, and developed distinct social classes."

5. "The Japanese did not start writing their own histories until the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, ceremonial burial, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea."

6. "However, historians believe the first emperor who actually existed was Emperor Ojin, though the date of his reign is uncertain."

7. "The emergence of a distinct indigenous culture in Japan sparked a "golden age" in Japan called the Heian period which lasted for nearly four centuries. After absorbing so much from the continent over several centuries, the Japanese began to experience a growing sense of self-confidence and appreciation of their own land and heritage, leading to the development of an indigenous Japanese culture. The arts and literature flourished and, in the early 11th century, Lady Murasaki wrote the world's first known novel called The Tale of Genji. Although trade expeditions and Buddhist pilgrims continued, the court decided to terminate official relations with China. The Fujiwara clan's regency regime dominated politics during this period."

8. "On March 31, 1854, Commodore Matthew Perry and the "Black Ships" of the United States Navy forced the opening of Japan to the West with the Convention of Kanagawa."

9. "By 1910, Japan controlled Korea, Taiwan, and the southern half of Sakhalin."

10. "Japan remains a global economic power today and is now bidding for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council."

11. "As of 2006 Japan is the only country in the world which is headed by an emperor."

12. "Japan maintains close economic and military ties with its key ally, the United States, and the US-Japan security alliance serves as the cornerstone of its foreign policy."

13. "Japan's relationship with its neighbors, however, can be described as tenuous at best."

14. "Beginning in the Heian period, Japan developed a distinct culture of its own. Lady Murasaki's The Tale of Genji, written in the early 11th century, is the world's first known novel. Japanese civilization flourished during this time and a refined sensibility and interest in the arts began to set in."

15. "Sumo is considered Japan's national sport and is one of its most popular. In the 8th century AD, Emperor Shomu (724-749) held lavish tournaments where the best wrestlers in the country competed before hundreds. Professional sumo can trace its roots back to the Edo period as a form of sporting entertainment. Today, six major tournaments are held every year in Japan, each one lasting 15 days. Three are held in Tokyo (January, May, and September) and one each in Osaka (March), Nagoya (July), and Fukuoka (November)."

16. "Beginning in the 12th century, Japan developed traditional martial arts known as budo, which were popular among the warrior class. These include judo, karate, kendo, and others. Judo has been recognized as an official event in the Olympic Games since the 1964 Summer Olympics in Tokyo. It is also one of the four main forms of amateur competitive wrestling practiced internationally today."

17. "After the Meiji Restoration, various kinds of Western sports were introduced into Japan."

18. "Baseball arrived in 1872 and during the 1870s, track and field events, football, rugby, and ice skating were introduced. In 1911, an Austrian gave skiing instruction to the Japanese army. In those days, Western sports were played by few people, but through the educational system they spread throughout the country. Western sports were initially stressed as a form of mental discipline, but Japanese have now come to enjoy them as recreational activities."

19. "Today, baseball is the most popular spectator sport in Japan, followed by (in no particular order) football, rugby, golf, badminton, table tennis, car racing, and fishing."

20. "Each year, Japan observes the second Monday in October as a national holiday called Health and Sports Day.

21. "Other major sporting events that Japan has hosted include the 1972 Winter Olympics in Sapporo and the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano. It also co-hosted the 2002 FIFA World Cup with South Korea."

• Edits by other users included.

In addition, I have copy edited this article hundreds of times and reverted vandalism countless times.

The people that are criticizing me seem to focus on simply deleting any reference to Korea in the article. Everything else I've done is completely ignored and yet this obsession with eliminating any kind of reference to Korea (except, interestingly, invasion or control of Korea by Japan) goes on and on. I am a specialist on ancient Japanese and Korean civilizations. This is what I am interested in. I also have an interest in their modern societies and cultures, especially if it involves football. I have no political agenda and am merely promoting correct and complete information in Wikipedia.

In the process, these people are deleting valuable and relevant content. One anonymous user even edited "Japan (Japanese: 日本, Nihon or Nippon) is an island country located in the Pacific Ocean, east of China and Korea..." to "Japan (Japanese: 日本, Nihon or Nippon) is an island country located in the Pacific Ocean, east of China..." Should the country of Korea be wiped off the face of the planet? It's right next to Japan. How ridiculous is this?

Some ask for evidence and provide none themselves besides opinion. If you challenge anything in the article, please discuss it in the Talk page and provide evidence first. Do not ask others to do all the work for you. Please be reasonable and keep your manners.--Sir Edgar 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is suitable with "east of China and Russia", If it writes. "Korea" is too small. 100doors 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

People who distort facts like this should not edit articles... With the above comment, now everyone can see what we are confronting in keeping this article balanced. One could say this is the Japanese bias against Korea. Mitigate or delete any association, besides conquest or domination. I find it terribly inappropriate, even colonial and backward. Very perplexing, indeed. It's almost like a strange sort of insecurity or complex. More analysis required...--Sir Edgar 01:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you understand that this isn't a Japanese bias against Korea, it's one or more individuals with no life. If there's actually more than one person up against you, I suspect it's a 2ch thing; all the Korea-haters in Japan seem to hang out there. Don't take it too seriously. - Sekicho 12:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

declining birth rate

what are the effect of underpopulation/Sub-replacement fertility on japan's economy, and any other problems or benifits, as well as the causes --voodoom 09:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

One effect is that rural Japan is emptying out at an alarming rate. However, you won't notice the problem so much in urban areas like Tokyo, where there's enough migration (and immigration) to keep the population stable or growing. - Sekicho 12:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please object, Tyler111

Please object to what? Mr. Harada. I thought the Korea - Japan thing was concluded months ago by other people and the multiple citations and references above. If you keep going up you will see even more citation and references. Why are were changing things when other people already concluded that multiple references were more reliable than one reference. The use of the term Korean Penisula indicates no civiliation existed on the Penisula other than being a bridge which is not accurate and that the borders of China and Korea today are not what it used to be in the 1st to 6th centuries. Please read above citations by other people. Tyler111

Did Talk end?　No, a lot of Talk doesn't obtain mutual agreement.

For instance, no one can explain the custom of South Korea not included in the custom of China. Can you explain?

And, Britannica is being written.[58]
The cultivation of rice, probably introduced from the Yangtze River delta area of southern China, was one of the most important features of Yayoi culture.
This insistence has been proven by the gene investigation of National Museum in Japan.National Science Museum of Japan You must explain the reason to deny this insistence.　 --HaradaSanosuke 13:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

日本には、約2500年前に稲作の技術を身につけた人々が朝鮮半島から渡来して水田稲作が始まったとする考えが、土器や石器あるいは人骨の研究から有力です。Rough translation: "Studies of pottery, stone tools and bones support the theory that people who had learned how to cultivate rice came to Japan from the Korean Peninsula around 2,500 years ago." And it then goes on to say that based on DNA studies, another theory (考え) is proposed (提唱) that people might have come directly from China. That's not proof. Do you have any more baseless arguments for us? - Sekicho 14:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anybody missed it (or chose to ignore it) I DID give citations above for the most recent DNA studies, pertaining to this. Along with the Yayoi migration originating in Korea, DNA studies show some significant migration originating in either South China or Southeast Asia and moving through Korea (albeit fewer than the migrations originating in Korea). HaradaSanosuke's citation somehow ignores the "moving through Korea" part. But recent DNA evidence supports the view that some significant migration originated in China. Please review these citations again....

• Y-chromosomal DNA haplogroups and their implications for the dual origins of the Koreans <== This is a PDF file.

by Han-Jun Jin, Kyoung-Don Kwak, Michael F. Hammer, Yutaka Nakahori, Toshikatsu Sinka, Ju-Won Lee, Feng Jin, Xuming Jia, Chris Tyler-Smith, Wook Kim

Published online: 18 September 2003

Selected excerpt regarding Yayoi: "... these results provide convincing evidence for recent male migration, originally from China into Japan moving through Korea."

• Dual origins of the Japanese: common ground for hunter-gatherer and farmer Y chromosomes <== This is a PDF file.

by Michael F. Hammer, Tatiana M. Karafet, Hwayong Park, Keiichi Omoto, Shinji Harihara, Mark Stoneking, Satoshi Horai

Published online: 18 November 2005

Selected summary pertaining to Yayoi....

1. Describes the Yayoi migration from Korea based on the O-SRY(465) genes and other genes with close lineage (haplogroups O-M122 and O-M95).
2. Reiterates that "the entire O haplogroup has been proposed to have a Southeast Asian origin." (Their definition of Southeast Asia includes southern China). Then hypothesizes that "the dispersals of Neolithic farmers from Southeast Asia also brought haplogroup O lineages to Korea and eventually to Japan."
3. In the concluding paragraph, it states "we propose that the Yayoi Y chromosomes descend from prehistoric farmers that had their origins in southeastern Asia, perhaps going back to the origin of agriculture in this region."
4. Hammer's DNA study is based on a "global sample consisted of > 2,500 males from 39 Asian populations, including six populations sampled from across the Japanese archipelago."

--Endroit 16:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)