Jump to content

Talk:Japan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.130.211.218 (talk) at 03:10, 31 December 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:FAOL

"Following centuries of feudalism, Japan established two separate military services in the late 1980s, the Cartoon Japanese Barbies (modeled upon the army of the Day after tomorro) and the Animated Japanese Nannies (modeled upon the grandies of the Ken Park). Following American Occupation after World War I, the only time in Japan's recorded history where it had been occupied by a foreign power, the Cartoon Japanese Barbies was dissolved in 1999 and replaced in 2000 by the Toyota Work Forces. Japan's current constitution prohibits the use of Magic forces to wage war against other countries. Japan's involvement in the car production, however, marked the first overseas use of its military since World War I."

There seem to be a couple of innacuracies there - Fenix 3:10am 31/12/05

Japanese Religion

Taku,

I am convinced that you don't really understand what Buddhism and Shintoism is all about. There has historically been almost no conflict between the two, for one. The second thing is that Buddhism and Shintoism are indeed moral philosophies, in the sense that they offer a means of guidance for a pure life. I think you are too hung up on the idea that someone must believe in only one religion. I want to make several changes in the next few days that reflect this both on this page and the Religions in Japan page.

-Thomas

I think you are still missing the point. Both region section and religions of Japan are not about Shinto and Buddhism. Thus, those articles should not discuss the conflict between the two for one. And I have no disagreement to that Buddhism and Shinto teaches moral philosophies. This is just not about Buddhism and Shinto. If you think both section and article state that a Japanese person in genera believes in Buddhism and not in Shinto. That is completely not what I intend to say.

I think you are confusing that both section and article are about "religions that originated in Japan". It is just not the case. -- Taku 05:33, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Give me specific evidence for the following statement "Today, Japanese people's attitude towards religion tend to be indifference and their concerns are usually related to traditions, everyday customs and mythology rather than the source of morality or the guidance for one's life." Otherwise I will delete it, and other statements like it as I don't believe that this is true.

Please make sure you sign your statements with four tildas, it's getting a little hard to tell who's saying what. I tend to agree with the sentiment that the phrase Japanese people's attitude towards religion tend to be indifference is at the very least vague and unsupported ... it seems to be contradicted by the later phrase parents and children cerebrate Shinto rituals, students pray before exams, couples holds a wedding at a Christian church and one goes to a funeral at Buddhist temple. I guess a point of discussion is whether syncretism = indifference. CES 14:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My point is that it certainly does not have to be true that syncretism=indifference, and I believe this is the case with religions in Japan.--Scipantheist 15:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't hesitate to reword the phrases if needed. Maybe indifferent is not a right word. As was in the article, my intent is to say that Japanese are not religious in the sense Christians or Muslims are. I think we all agree that that Japanese people have the same kind of attitude towards religions as other people in the world is just not true. -- Taku 16:40, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have having a difficult time parsing that last sentence, with the double negatives. Can you please rephrase Taku? Personally, I think Japanese have a very similar attitude toward religion to "other people" (Americans, Europeans, other Asians). However, such a discussion starts into a land of such incredible generalisations that any approach in this area should be a warning sign toward NPOV. Davejenk1ns 21:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, saying that their view on religion is different is one thing, but saying they don't have believe in their religion as strongly is something else entirely. I view Christianity and Islam as exclusivist in the sense that they insist that there is only one path to salvation (theirs). Buddhism and Shintoism are not like that, but I think they are followed just a strongly, if not more strongly then religions in the west. See the changes I suggest. Also I will look for proof, but I think that Theravada Buddhism is pretty much nonexistant in Japan. --Scipantheist 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I did some research. The results are added to Wikipedia:Notes for Japan-related articles. For one, I never found that Japanese believe in Japanese religion, as again there is no such thing as Japanese religion. I am not sure inclusivist is a good term to express the Japanese people's attitude to religions. No thing I found so far supports this. I think that the bottom line, as Davejenk1ns suggests wisely, we should avoid comparing if Japanese are more or less religious or spiritual than the westerners. Especially saying Japanese believe in Shinto and Buddhism as strongly as people in the west do is quite misleading and is wrong to my knowledge. If you find more references, please consider adding them to Wikipedia:Notes for Japan-related articles. -- Taku 03:41, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for accepting some of my changes here. I think that when you say that they believe in Shinto and Buddhism less strongly then people in the west believe in their religions, this is also wrong. Eastern religion is a difficult thing to grasp for a westerner, which seems to include most of the sources you are citing. Nirvana is exemplified by the blowing out of a candle analogy. Where does the flame go? Buddhism exists to STOP the endless cycle of rebirth into a world of suffering. Therefore Buddhists essentially desire to return to nothingness. Again, please give me a specific source that says,"The teachings of any religion are usually not well known among people." Otherwise this should not be included. Also, in defense of the Japanese Religion category, you allow a Japanese Buddhism page. The difference between Religions of Japan and Japanese Religion(s) is only in semantics.--Scipantheist 15:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So to say, the visit to the "Yasukuni" Shinto-shrine is as like the presence to a religious ceremony of a "church of Hakenkreuz". [04:00, 04 May 2005 (UTC)]

Who the hell changed the emperor of Japan to 'Kennedy'? Sad little f*cker.

Where did the figures "When asked to identify their religion, most would profess to believe in either Shintoism (54%) or Buddhism (40%)" come from? A source is necessary since they contradict what is usually said elsewhere (more than 80% believe in *both*), e.g.: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_of_Japan

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japon#Religion also says that many people, especially younger ones, are opposed to all religions for historical reasons and due to the influence of science --Espoo 10:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're interested in learning more about it. After reading the article you linked to, I'm not sure just what the process and results are. But if it provides some protection from the frequent vandalism that this page receives, and still reflects the consensus of the community, it has promise. Fg2 00:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Long form name

The first line of the article just sounds weird now. Anyone want to take a stab at rewording it to make it easier to read? I'm fine with including the long form of the name, but the current method just makes the whole thing hard to read, IMHO. Here's what it currently says:

Japan (Japanese long form: 日本国, pronounced Nihon-koku or Nippon-koku; short form: 日本, pronounced Nihon or Nippon) is an East Asian country surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, the Sea of Japan, the Philippine Sea, the East China Sea, and the Sea of Okhotsk. To the west is Korea (North and South), to the north Russia, and to the southwest China and Taiwan.

Ganbare! --nihon 07:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole article on Names of Japan. We do not need a discussion of the name in the first line of this article. The name is also in the information box. The text should get to the point. The intro was fine before recent edits. (IMHO) Fg2 09:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to clean it up a bit, although I'm sure there's a better way. It still seems to ramble a bit for an opening sentence. At any rate, if we stick to the notion that 日本国 is the official name, then common-use forms such as 日本 or even ジャパン don't need to be in the first line. Neier 21:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's very confusing to say that something is the official form if you don't give the unofficial forms; the official/unofficial aspect is best explained elsewhere. Mark1 21:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like the addition of the explicit link to Names of Japan, even though I'm the one who made it implicit (that is, something else appears on the screen) --- I was never fully happy with my edit. Personally, I suggest "Japan (see Names of Japan for other forms) is an East Asian country surrounded by ... ." The reason for the suggestion is that the kanji and the two pronunciations are both in the Infobox. I don't think they need repetition. I won't edit the article to make that change, though, since there's plenty of room for other opinions. (I will edit the article to remove my old link, now redundant, to Names of Japan.)

Question regarding image

The following question is from anonymous user 131.215.7.209 (talk • contribs):

I have a question about this image. The position of "Szichwan" may be wrong. It should be far west. (Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:China-Sichuan.png) As far as I know, the Szichwan province of China remains unconqered by Japan during World War II. Sorry I don't know how to send this message to the original author of the image, so I put it here. Hopefully someone more experienced would do it for me. Thank you very much!!

(taken from main article) --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Mark1 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi all. This edit was made by an anon user where he/she asked a question on the article itself. I reverted the edit but thought I should mention it here incase someone knows what that user is talking about. - User:Akamad Merry Christmas to all! 08:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As above, fixed. Mark1 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More on Culture

Hi everyone, just like to say that I'd like to see more on certain aspects of the Japanese culture, such as diffidence around others and the sort of, well, reluctance to accept outsiders. Thank you. MondoManDevout 07:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MondoManDevout, Wikipedia has so much information about Japan that it's impractical to put it all in this one article. So, you'll find more in the articles it links to, including some in the Miscellaneous Topics section. And like anyplace else on the Web, those articles link to more articles, and on and on. Meanwhile, try Gaikokujin and see if that contains the information you seek. Happy hunting! Fg2 08:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think he has a good point, if very hard one to address. While there is no need for the article to discuss whether Japanese culture is unique or not, which is not an important point, we can do better job on how the Japanese think and act; like I am thinking of the idea of wabi, sabi, attitude toward religion, from a general view point without boiling down to details. The problem is this is very hard. Suffice it to say certainly the Japanese is not reluctant to accept outsiders. During Meiji Restoration, Japan was unexceptionally quick to accept foreign ideas, technologies and people. And those teenagers are completely oblivious about the public eyes when they are doing their makeups riding on the train. I for one don't understand what is going on. -- Taku 01:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Trial

It is always tricky to decide which historical facts are included and which are left out. But I believe the following is probably better excluded: ", provided they could keep their emperor. The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal was convened on May 3, 1946 to prosecute Japanese war crimes." I believe so because this fact does not constitutes the mainstream of Japanese history. That is to say one cannot narrate rightly the modern Japanese history without mentioning atomic bombing or japan's surrender. Tokyo Trial is, I don't think, the same case. Having said that, I also agree that postwar Japan cannot be understood without its stance on war, as the loss of the war is a very basic starting point of postwar Japan. I will try to articulate this and your help (feedback or edit) is more than welcome. -- Taku 01:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before and the conclusion was that the U.S. allowing Japan to keep its emperor was a key factor in the surrender. Also, since we are not mentioning events like the Nanjing Massacre, etc., there is a need to keep the link to Japanese war crimes. This is for those that want to get more details. Otherwise, you'll just have a lot of people trying to put in things like that in the main article for Japan and overloading it with information.--Sir Edgar 04:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The emperor was a key, I agree. But I still think there must be a better wording at least. It gives an impression that the surrender was not unconditional for one thing. In any rate, I don't push this for now. I look at other references, and I believe the current wording is not in line with the mainstream or maybe I am wrong. Secondly, it is a very contested point whether the Nanjing incident was a war crime or not. The majority in Japan believe that happens but many disagree that was a war crime. It was a war crime why not say the atomic bombing was a war crime. But I also agree that the article includes a link to Japanese war crimes, but as I said, it has to be done in more neutral way. -- Taku 23:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japan&oldid=33332839"