Talk:Japan/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bad Plagiarism

Could someone fix the plagiarism? It's been on there for quite awhile, and it's not even a good copy. The plagiarism is more bothering than the Korea↔Japan agenda afflicting this page -- I'd edit it myself, but I don't want to touch this article with a 10 foot pole. Falsedef 16:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an example of the plagiarism? Good friend100 16:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It was in the link I provided above: Talk:Japan/Archive_7#Plagiarism, and if one portion is ripped word for word from the CIA factbook, I suspect other parts might be Falsedef 23:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If this article is a candidate for a featured article, then the best thing we can do is find and rewrite all the plagiarized parts. Its going to be a pain, but if the editors are pushing for featured article status, then editing the article again is neccesary. Good friend100 13:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook is a US government publication, which should automatically make it public domain (per US copyright law, read up on it). But a word-for-word copying from the Factbook indicate lack of original writing. I think writers need to be able to write in their original words or the writing is no good.-- 02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments on two matters. First, copying. This article incorporates lots of material from CIA sources. The authors and editors strive to cite sources. If the article fails to cite a source, please help Wikipedia by inserting appropriate citations.
Second, candidacy for featured-article status. The criteria for featured-article status do not list originality as a requirement. Analogously, the criteria for featured pictures do not require originality, and several images from public-domain sources have achieved featured status. Many Wikipedia articles similarly include text from the public-domain Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. To get an idea of how many, you can visit Category:1911 Britannica. And that's just one example of a public-domain source for Wikipedia information. If you find that the Japan article falls short of meeting one of those criteria, please help Wikipedia either by improving the article or by pointing out which passages fail to meet which criterion. Thank you for your assistance. Fg2 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Today's Korean POV

The Yamato Court which was probably a Baekje colony,[1] concentrated in the Asuka region, had the strong influence in West Japan and the southern part of a Korean peninsula. During the 5th and 6th centuries, Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, and ceremonial burial were all introduced by the Korean kingdom of Baekje, to which Japan provided military support.

It can't be denied. Good friend100 00:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph above has valid references, but it will be difficult to get the wording of the paragraph in a way that won't be vandalized. The inclusion of disregarded theories about tribute or Japanese relation with the southern part of Korea needs to include the current theory of an expedition force from Baekje. Or we can state that the exact nature of the relationship is unresolved. I think the current version were the exact nature of the relationship is not resolved is more neutral and better. --Tyler 13:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
>Tyler111 You know Gwanggaeto Stele? Recent theories of scholars in China, Japan and Western countries usually accept that the epigraphy is genuineness and so they think that Japan had some influece to South Korean peninsula as the epigraphy. Please give us some materials to show "Japan was probably a Baekje colony". I know many materials to give us the reverse interpretaion, such as a hostage of Baekuje's royal family. I don't think that Baekje was Japanese colony, however, hostages must be needed to form an alliance in ancient times. But the advocacy that Japan was Baekje's colony is ridiculous after studying them. Mythologia 13:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Mythologia, you don't know about the conspiracy theories on the stele? Japanese interpretation is highly suspicious because it looked like tempered by some Japanese imperialists around the beginning of the 20th century Ginnre 15:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article ever mentions that "Japan was a Baekje colony". Ginnre, it didn't "look like it was tempered" it was vandalized. It is a known fact that after Korea was annexed, some Japanese people rewrote some information on the stele. The authencitity of the stele was challenged by Lee Jin-hui in the 1970s. And the stele was an important part of Korean history, now gone because of that cruelty. Good friend100 01:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Not everything [Chinese writing, Buddhism, advanced pottery] was introduced by Korea. Chinese monks and commoners also went directly to Japan. There is a reason why a lot of Japanese kanji have 呉音 (go-on) pronunciations. Go-on was based on the Chinese dialect spoken around Nanjing in southeast coastal China (呉越地). There is no way it could have came from Korea. The idea that everything that Japan got from China had to be first filtered by Korea is not substantiated. More like modern Korean propaganda. --Naus 17:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

List of blocked sockpuppet account users.

The following is a list of people who were blocked indefinitely for using sockpuppet accounts, primarily to engage in revert wars involving Japan-related articles:

1. HaradaSanosuke aka Kamosuke
2. Mythologia aka Shougiku Wine

The above persons have also used abusive language against other Wikipedians and, despite previous warnings, insisted on making statements that are in violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civil, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. They also made numerous racist remarks (often misdirected), while accusing others of being racist.

We assumed good faith believing that these were different people we were talking to. Instead, they turned out to be the same people using coordinated, despicable tactics for political purposes.

Not only were your edits misleading and inaccurate, but also poorly worded and lowered the quality of this article. You did not contribute to Wikipedia. Instead, you damaged it and you hurt other Wikipedians with the insulting remarks you made along the way. Your crude remarks and baseless accusations only made your country look worse. Instead of thanking people for making a good Japan article, you only focused on a few Korea-related references with a vigorous obsession that was tasteless and offensive. You are pitiful.

Nobody will take you seriously any longer. You have no right to be a part of Wikipedia. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

In addition, the following users have been blocked for 3RR violation:

1. Questionfromjapan
2. Komdori

If there are others, please add them to the list so that we may know which persons to ignore.--Sir Edgar 05:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar is correct. However, I'd like to add to what he said, and point out that it works both ways. Dollarfifty aka Appleby was also a sockpuppet.
If you must, see the following for recent sockpuppet confirmations:
  1. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kamosuke
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Appleby
Mind you, both opposing parties had sockpuppets. However, WP:Assume good faith. I'm sure the sockpuppeteers are capable of making positive contributions, given a chance. Although they've used sockpuppets to revert-war, Wikipedia is lenient enough to forgive them if they play by the rules. We'll see if they behave in the future. Also, if anybody sees a problem with the wording, please discuss here and bring it to everyone's attention. Don't just revert-war, and please, don't break the rules.--Endroit 06:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify: While Endroit wrote above that "both opposing parties had sockpuppets", thats not entirely accurate (or at the very least could have been worded better (no offense). An editor unfamiliar with the situation reading those words could be lead to believe that both "groups" coordinated sockpuppets to engage in an edit war. But in actuality, the Appleby group was based on, from what the checkuser report said, only one person and so could not be an actual physical group of real people while the checkuser report for the Kamosuke group states that it seemed "quite possible that there's substantial meatpuppetry going on" as well as the sockpuppetry. [1].
I guess we should move on and try to improve Wikipedia now that this episode is over. So I hope we can keep it breezy, keep it bright, and always keep it semi homemade. Tortfeasor 08:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite shocked that Appleby was running a massive puppet show. I thought many of his posts were very reasonable in the past. But I don't think Wikipedia should be used in a dishonest way like this. Regardless, I don't think his actions were as disruptive or harmful as the above mentioned, at least not from what I've seen in Japan-related articles.--Sir Edgar 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What is a relationship between my modifications and vandalism? I feel this is an obvious personal attack. You clearly teate me as a troll. I am not a troll. I require you to delete your insult and apologize to me.--Questionfromjapan 22:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You don't really have to take it seriously. Its just an extremely strict warning, which I believe is neccesary in these related articles. I don't want scribbles all over the talk page by vandalizers and I don't want suddenly new users that have sharp knowledge of the articles.
I agree with Sir Edgar, I believed Appleby to be a good editor, but that wasn't the case. It hurts everybody. Good friend100 01:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Motto of Japan

A user wrote that the motto of Japan is "Peace and Progress". However, the user has no information about it (See Talk:Peace and Progress) and it is really doubtful. I think this should be removed.--Mochi 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Attack of the Korean who used 13 puppets

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HSL

Is not Korean's propaganda stopped?

Don't be a racist and say like this in WP.Ginnre 03:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
How is that racist? People are just too sensitive these days. I hate Politcal Corectness.

massive rewrite

Hi all,

user: made a major rewrite of Japan. I thought I should mention this and that I reverted because it was already a FA. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting a lot of people's work and keep this article evolving and chaning

I don't know who wants to stick with the old version of the article, but should article must evolve and continue to evolve. Suddenly people waking up and reverting like 3 months worth of work should not happen. For three months there were consensus and evolution of the article, so there shouldn't be any huge reason to revert back. 23:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. There was not consensus, only multi-ID vandals and anonymous accounts working together to insert a nationalist agenda. This reduced the quality of the article. Now, it's being returned to its original quality with all valid updates since. Thank you for your comments though, User Edgar 00:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no "nationalist agenda," this is common and get use to it. Take a look at Germany article, that article is full of nationalistic, heroic, and perhaps more seriously Nazi (German superior) intention in it. So small bias is always there, so I wouldn't suggest you bring it to the opposite side. I would suggest accept some facts and bias to a certain degree, but don't revolutionize this article. Yes there was consensus, if you look at the discussion and edits, otherwise it is reverted very quickly. So don't get twisted. 01:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous accounts "working together" how do you know that, where is your fact and evidence to pull an assumption like that. You don't have evidence, so I wouldn't suggest you bring your ideas in larger degree and try to make it a big impact on the article as a whole. UK, Germany articles are all nationalist, heroic, greatest, white great articles. accept it and move on. 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to say, it would be a lot better if you would get a username. Its easier to identify a user and its more formal. Good friend100 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear, the article was stable for a much longer period of time prior to the sock puppet invasion. So, there was nobody was trying to "revolutionize" it, just revert it to the original version accepted by more people for a longer time. I don't think your "accept it and move on" comment is very responsible.
I would be interested in seeing an alternative introduction that is less history-focused, but the one that you support has very little useful information. For example, do we really need to know that, "At over 377,873 square kilometers, Japan is the 62nd largest country by area." This sentence doesn't even make sense. How much "over" 377,873 square kilometers? Is being the 62nd largest country by area something significant and worth mentioning. The answer is no.--Sir Edgar 04:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You are in violation of three edit rule if you revert one more time. 04:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well even if that's the case that a normal common sense people will understand that over means "just over". Also including like 3 paragraphs worth of history in the introduction is "boring" and nobody wants to ready boring article. User comes in and wants to read about the economy have to read 3 paragraphs worth of history and then get on with it. That doesn't make sense. It should be short and to the point, take a look at Germany. Also that 3 paragraph historical introduction is sounding little patriotic to Westerners like "We the white people laid the foundation for Japan, they were just barbarians back then, now they are second largest economy and people should know that and give credit to us." Seriously. Just think about it a lot and if you have ever taken college course in writing, writing should be interesting concise and organization should be strictly maintained within sections. Intro should summarize the article in whole, without giving periods and divelging into years opening, closing, bombings, etc. I think that is totally unnessecary to this article. I also think the history should be expanded and the whole article should be expanded in general. 04:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. The article is already too long. You seem to contradict yourself in by lecturing me on how to write concisely and then suggest that "the history should be expanded and the whole article should be expanded in general". Are you even thinking clearly?
Regardless, as I've said before about the introduction, I'm willing to entertain alternatives though.--Sir Edgar 05:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You can write much as you want in the history section, I don't care, just don't write the history in the introduction section. Move that information down to the history section and expand it. 00:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1. Do you really think USA and Germany articles are very descriptive also?
2. Discuss the history in the history section, it is convoluting the main introduction, it's much more about its history
3. When you say it has been stable for long time, doesn't mean it's good. What if people didn't care?
4. This one is not "sock puppet" That is your judgment, not necessarily others.
5. You are in serious violation of the three edit rule of wikipedia my friend. That is policy violation. 04:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If it's necessary we would need to lock down this article, until this dispute is resolved. Let's see what others think. 04:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Inaccurate statement about 3RR rule violation. No such thing occurred and if it did please feel free to make a report.
By the way, kindly register your account. I am certain we will conduct another sock puppet search shortly.
And LOL about "lock down". Lock down to what? An inferior version? :)--Sir Edgar 04:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No not an inferior, version, you are consecutivally doing 3 reverts less than 24 hour period and have done that consistently and that is violation of a policy, that's why you have to come to the talk page and discuss it before you violate the policy. "Inferior" that is your judgment, not necessarily others. Yes lock it down, make no one can edit this until we solve your revert problem. 04:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds more like your problem. You seem nervous and insecure about the revert to the original version. I know eventually the better original version will prevail and I am willing to take my time to make sure of that.--Sir Edgar 05:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's other people decide. What I'm only doing this is making it similar to other countries articles that are much more developed and cleaned out. Let's just wait and see, and my main problem is that introduction being too historical and extremely biased towards the west, that's my concern. Let's wait. 00:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I've re-inserted the previous introduction. I have deleted some unnecessary information though, such as "Japan is the 62nd largest country by territory, etc." I think it still needs some work though.--Sir Edgar 06:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you make a wikipedia account. Its more polite to the other editors, instead of barging in without a name or something. Good friend100 03:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Official name

I did some searching on the web, and I can nowhere find any confirmation that Japan is officially called the "State of Japan". Could someone please look into this?

Sir Edger

Please do not do a large-scale edit without obtaining consensus.

The previous version never got "consensus".-- Sir Edgar 23:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The article on Edger has worsened further. A lot of information is deleted, and Korea is added.

Incorrect. The article's been returned to its "A" quality. The Korea information was always there, but only deleted by immature haters.--Sir Edgar 02:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Edger, Aren't you immature haters? -- 14:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
His purpose is not to write a historic fact but to satisfy their own pride and to look down on Japan. Japanese had better to falsify and exaggerate Korean history. The articles about Japanese is NOT for Japan but for Korea. Gegesongs 15:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
How are you so sure about your knowledge on Japanese history? In this article Korean influence is not described in an appropiate way. If you want to insist based on historical facts, learn them first. But not only from Japanese source. Ginnre 21:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't assume what other people do. It just makes you look bad. Sir Edgar is trying to help the article. If you believe the "Koreans" are at fault think again. Other the past several weeks, editors have repeatedly deleted all the information about Korean influence on Japan. That is considered vandalism.

"Exxagerate Korean history". Ummm, no, its not exxageration. The fact that some Japanese ancestors are Korean and Korea greatly influenced Japan cannot be denied. Good friend100 23:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that these anon accounts are all the banned users. If this is true, then that is truly pathetic. This is just a guess though and we must assume good faith. But they're still anon accounts working together and making false accusations which are offensive.--Sir Edgar 01:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Who deleted "Government and politics" section?

Who deleted that section, that was major vandalism and someone should've caught that. No sections should be deleted at all without consensus and from spur of the moment. 04:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar don't do massive revert

You are deleting sections that were added to make this article more comprehensive, you are removing these sections. This is absurd. What is your problem?

I am returning to previous version that was more stable longer and was a Featured Article.--Sir Edgar 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ask rest of the editors, if that's what they want first. Ask first and then get a consensus. Period. 00:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
When you're all done, please fix the rugby disambig problem that I fixed in the middle of this edit war. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To-do list

Based on the opinions we received during the article's candidacy for featured status, we have the following tasks:

  1. Solve the edit war
  2. Improve the religion subsection
  3. Format two external jumps into references
  4. Add citations to the first section on history, including statements on pottery and the Ainu; land bridges, migration from Southeast Asia, Book of Later Han, military budget, fishery, religion, education
  5. Remove weasel words
  6. Remove excess links to "dictionary items" and clean up stubby paragraphs.
  7. Write Natural Resources section. Mention anime, manga, computer games in culture section
  8. Complete all sections, especially Major Cities and Fishery
  9. Add up-to-date information to Fishery section

Fg2 05:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

More To-do things:

You guys really need to fix the Yayoi section. If you go in to the Yayoi article, it talks about the Origin as being 300 BC from (2 main thoeries) Korea/China. We are talking about 300 BC. Not 108 BC. But the Japan article here keeps deleting references on 300 BC Korean migration and only state China as the source in 108 BC, while using Korea as a bridge for the Chinese to go to Japan. But if you go in the the Yayoi article it theorizes about Korea as the source for Yayoi culture and also theorizes a Chinese migration as well. Endroit, I know you have always stated that Korea and China via Korean peninsula was the correct term when people were using Korean peninsula only or Korea and possibly China as the source for Yayoi. Please stand up and comment about the new version like you did for China, now that the situation is reversed. Endroit if you had problems with the earlier versions you must have problems with this new version which is one of the worst summarizations we have had so far. Endroit since you have commented so much in the past Yayoi discussions, I hope you make a similar suggestion here. Where did you go when we need you, did you go on vacation, I hope you come back from your leave of absense and stand up for the article to make it a better article like you did before. --Tyler 09:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the Korean still continue the propaganda that uses the sock puppet? The evaluation of the article on Japan fell on B by Korean's ravage. Most Japanese are not interested in Korea. Could the Korean stop the stalker to Japan?  
This comment is obviously from a racist. Don't behave like this in WP. And please sign your ID. Ginnre 03:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't go away. It's just that, I was trying to figure out where the consensus was. There appears to be multiple editors in Japan supporting this particular POV, and a few of them had their accounts blocked due to sockpuppetry. However there are many valid users as well, and I believe we still need to work with them. I have this theory that in the Japanese language, the word "Korea" is translated into 朝鮮 "Chōsen" (Joseon}, which strictly refers to Korea AFTER the 14th century in the Japanese language. And this may be part of the problem: The translation of this Wikipedia article into the Japanese language made the article seem false to them. As proof of this theory, look at the Classical section. They have kept the word Baekje but deleted the word "Korea". I have a feeling that if you used words such as Silla and Gaya in the Yayoi section as well, it may be more agreeable to them. Also, perhaps if we use "ancient Korea", it may be translated into 古代朝鮮 "ancient Chōsen", and may be acceptable to them? Who knows. I don't know if forcing the word "Korea" to them is working at this point.--Endroit 16:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Silla, I distinctly remember Kamosuke suggesting this source, which talks about the origin of 陶器 tōki (advanced pottery?) in Japan to be the Izumo region, but originated in 新羅 (Silla). This source cites the stories about a Silla prince as well as about Susanoo in the Kojiki.--Endroit 16:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The word of "China" overflows in Japan though Chinese doesn't operate a puppet. It is only Korean that information on Korea is necessary. Most of the Korean culture is included in a Chinese culture. Hangul was invented in the 14th century. The sect of the Korea Buddhism doesn't influences Japan. We do not want to cooperate in the propaganda of an arrogant South Korean(VANK). Thank you.
The edit battle quieted down by ending Appleby. Please avoid the topic of Korea.... Please interest in the topic of Japan.
The edit battle is still happening. If you look at the history section in the Japan article, you will see at least 4 to 6 reverts a day. The only difference is that people who sign in do not seem to violate the 3RR rule. Oddly now we seem to have multiple anon. users. Anyways, we were discussing the references that keep getting deleted for Yayoi. And yes we know about the banned Japanese sockpuppet and meatpuppet runners and we know about the Appleby being warned for his part in the sockpuppet issue. But you still can't just delete references. If you change the Japan article to not correlate with the Yayoi article then you have to change every other article that mentions the Yayoi and delete all the references in those articles without a reason being given for the deletion. I'm going to try what Endroit suggested and put in ancient Korea and see if that is left alone or if Japanese nationalist propaganda with weasel words will come back to mislead this article. At least the old version wasn't constantly being accused of weasel words. --Tyler 05:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Officially protest "Sir Edgar"'s massive reverts and edits

I would like to officially protest edits that happened more than 6 times by User:Sir Edgar, which is this one [2]. Please sign your name saying protest and no protest below.

He is deleting sections, and his only claim is that this was "featured article" now he is saying it should be reverted back not caring how much edit expansion was added to this article. He is deleting expanded section. We are getting vandalized more because of this previous "featured article" status article. Sir Edgar don't ever think of reverting back, don't even try, it will be reverted back as long as you keep doing it. Don't even try. If you don't like it, then copyedit it, don't be lazy and selfish and keep reverting people's work. 05:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Officially request this article to be "locked" because of Sir Edgar's vandalism

I would like this article to be protected from Vandalism from Sir Edgar's edits. Please lock it down as long as we don't get vandalized and threatened with reverts from Sir Edgar. Admins please lock it down, until we get sufficient editors to counter Sir Edgar's selfish one sided edits and returning this article to simple form. Please lock it down! 05:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the funniest post I've ever seen at Wikipedia yet.
I propose that it be locked to the version that made it a Featured Article and was stable for much longer than the one proposed by anonymous user and his/her crew of vandals (many of whom are now banned indefinitely for using sockpuppet accounts and engaging in vicious attacks against other Wikipedians). It is obvious that these are the same (or similar) people who have been disrupting Wikipedia recently and they should be ignored.--Sir Edgar 06:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
This article should be locked, to stop your threat of revert, threat to expansion of this article, threat to change, threat to betterment of this article, threat to advancement of this article. Someone please lock this article. This is serious. So is your basis that "Featured Article" should forever stay the same and accept no changes? Please lock it down. Don't ever revert back, don't even try. 06:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You have no evidence for this. Please!!!. Someone just lock it, to make this article sane from User:Sir Edgar. Please lock it down, let's get some constructive discussion going on with other editors. 06:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is when referenced material is being deleted by anon users. Sir Edgar is only bringing in multiple references/citations. That was why Sir Edgar's version was considered as a featured article. If you look at the new version there was an overwhelming amount of objections against the article to even be a candidate. (Please refer to, To-do list discussion section for new candidacy request; opinions we received). Also, please stop using Japanese references (written in Japanese) as a single source of certain paragraphs. This is difficult for English editors who can not read Japanese. Please only use references written in English for English version of wikipedia. Please use multiple references versus only one reference to get a general consensus. Please do not use only one reference to lead the direction of the article in a certain way. --Tyler 07:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

74 KB

The japan article is now 74 kb long... WAY too long.WoodElf 12:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the source is that long. On screen there are closer to 50 KB but that's still too long. We should cut relentlessly. Details belong in the main articles, not this overview article. I think the article also has far too many visuals. Fg2 12:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I am suggesting that we follow Wikipedia:Summary style. Dump some of the text into their respective "main articles". I suggest starting with Japan#Economy section, since that material seems to be less contentious. I believe we need to sync that section with the Economy of Japan article.--Endroit 16:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should go back to Sir Edgar's version which was shorter.--Tyler 06:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with Sir Edgar's approach is that he tries to irrevocably delete information without dumping them to their respective "main articles." Read Wikipedia:Summary style on how it's supposed to be done.-- Endroit 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
As for the article on Edger, information on Japan is short. And, information on Korea is long.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
If Sir Edgar saves the long paragraphs by other users in their respective "main articles" will that be acceptable to other users. I know his version only wanted to hit "key points." --Tyler 07:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[[User:Sir Edger|Sir Edger].]Your supporter was only South Korean's socks Puppet. A lot of users opposed a personal insistence on Edger. Edger did not admit my mistake at all. If you wants to improve the quality of the article on Japan, you should be an observer. The article on Japan had received the high appraisal before you and Appleby participated. -- 08:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Revert warriors, if you must do your thing, please restrict your edits to the sections you are involved with. Please don't delete stuff in other sections. Thank you.--Endroit 17:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added {{sync}} tags to all the big sections. Please start synchronizing with their respective "main articles", and move text and images in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. In particular, the following sections seem NOT to be an object of revert-wars, so why don't everyone start there?: Demographics (Demographics of Japan), Government and politics (Politics of Japan), Economy (Economy of Japan).--Endroit 16:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I am working on the Economy section now (syncronizing with the Economy of Japan article). I've also sync-ed part of the Industrial sector section with the Manufacturing industries of Japan article. Please check for accuracy. ... And the Japan article is down to 70KB now.--Endroit 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I want to ask a quick question. WHY is the now 70kb too long? I've checked the pages for major countries in the world and they're 70kb+. Why does Japan have to be cut down? I don't mind things being compacted, provided information is deleted for the sake of it. John Smith's 16:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed several pictures that I thought were unnecessary, as that was one gripe on the failed candidacy page. However in comparison to other featured country pages, I don't think those that there are too many left. So that should be fine. John Smith's 16:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The relevant guideline here is Wikipedia:Summary style. I think people need to realy think hard whether any particular topic belongs here in the Japan article or elsewhere. Recently, people have been adding stuff to this article with no end in sight, and that was becoming a reason for an edit war. On the one hand, people would add stuff, and on the other hand people would delete them. I believe the consensus now is that the article size should be below 50kb. But in any case, it is against the spirit of Wikipedia to just delete stuff, and so we must move them to their respective "main articles" instead, per Wikipedia:Summary style. The Japan article is more like 5 different articles at this point, and we need to reduce the size.--Endroit 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Great job everyone, but the article is still 68 KB long (note to self:have to work harder ...)WoodElf 15:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I just make a quick note. In terms of reducing the size of the article, can we please focus on reducing the history section before cutting out much other information. We need to get that reduced and compacted a lot, so let's not worry too much about saving space elsewhere. John Smith's 21:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Anime was added. -- 18:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice of semi-protection

Due to the incessant edit warring concerning the topic of "Korea" in this article, we request semi-protection of this page. Revision to this page by IP Address users will be restricted. IP Address users are requested to obtain an account at Wikipedia ASAP, if they want to resolve this matter through proper channels. Also, be sure to read WP:Sock, as some people were violating that policy. IP Address users who are currently blocked for this reason, please resolve your blocked status with an admin.--Endroit 14:09, 12 August 2006(UTC)

(I do not oppose you. But...) The proposal doesn't straighten out that problem. The edit battle of a South Korean user and a Japanese user only becomes an edit battle of Sir Edgar term and a new Japanese user.
The Korean tried to hijack the article on Japan by using WP:Sock (Japanese WP:Socks did not hijack the article on Korea. ) My account doesn't want to fight against Nationalism group in South Korea "VANK". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Actually, using semi-protection here is probably against Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. And that's because you may have a valid content dispute. In case of a content dispute however, we need to follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policy instead. In the later stages of this policy, you may be asked to create a Wikipedia account (I'm not sure about this). But it would be really difficult to measure the consensus, if you people don't have Wikipedia accounts.
In any case, you MUST define what this dispute is, and spell it out here. And please sign your name (IP Address) using four tildes "~~~~". And please explain why you keep deleting the opposing side's sources (this may be considered vandalism). Then we'll see if we go into semi-protection, WP:RfC, or WP:POLL. So what is this dispute about?--Endroit 18:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I support semi-protection.

I also want to just say that if Wikipedians support edits like the following, I will just have to quit Wikipedia. I don't see the point in staying somewhere that can tolerate bad grammar, poor writing, nationalistic twisting of phrases, and the mention of inane and useless facts.

1. From "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." to "Buddhism were introduced by Baekje, to which Japan provided military support. Buddhism was introduced to Japan in the year 538 or 552 and was promoted by the ruling class."
There are a lot of mistakes of Edger. Therefore, what I explain in a large amount of English is difficult. Therefore, I explain in Japanese.
The Japanese did not start writing their own histories until the 5th and 6th centuries

Your inability or unwillingness to comprehend is not my responsibility.--Sir Edgar 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

when the Chinese writing system
Koreanがよくする間違い。Chinese writingは紹介されていません。

Please provide evidence to support your belief.--Sir Edgar 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 

Evidence? EdgerはNihon Shokiの応神天皇16年の記事に基づいて主張しているのではないのですか?
advanced pottery

You cannot rely on a single source, the Nihon Shogi, for all your information. The Nihon Shogi has been proven to have many deliberate exaggerations and falsifications.--Sir Edgar 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nihon Shokiに書かれているエピソードを認めないなら、百済から仏教が千字文が送られたエピソードも嘘になってしまいますよ。Edger君は面白いBaisを見せてくれますね。

eremonial burial

other aspects of culture
正確には 「other aspects of Chinese culture」 ですよね?
aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Baekje
複数形? それでは名前を複数出してください。

For the above, please refer to the substantial discussion that took place already (see archives).--Sir Edgar 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

あまりにKoreanのUrinara Manseiがひどいので注意させてもらいました。

This just shows your bias.--Sir Edgar 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
  • 渡来人として日本に帰化した韓国人
  • 百済から派遣された文官
  • 人質として来日した百済王族
  • 難民として来日した百済貴族

It is not clear whether they were hostages or visitors. The point is these things were transmitted from Korea to Japan.--Sir Edgar 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)



Your comment is offensive.--Sir Edgar 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • 歴史資料に基づく証拠がない (彼の情報源はKoreaの新聞記事)
  • 矛盾した主張をする。(日本書紀に書かれている千字文のエピソードは私の主張と一致するから正しいが、新羅経由で陶磁器が伝わったと書かれている内容は、私の主張と一致しないから捏造だ。

User:|]] 17:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

2. From "By 1910, Japan controlled Korea, Taiwan, and the southern half of Sakhalin." to "By 1910, Japan amalgamated Korea, Taiwan, and the southern half of Sakhalin."
3. From "A week after the atomic bombings, Imperial Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender to the Allies on August 15, 1945 (V-J Day) on USS Missouri." to "After the atomic bombings, Imperial Japan signalled its willingness to surrender on the condition that the Emperor be allowed to continue as the symbolic head of state."

--Sir Edgar 23:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar, one thing. I don't entirely object to your approach, and I've noticed that your contributions are valuable as well. Please read Wikipedia:Summary style. And please go back and dump some of that stuff you deleted into their respective "main articles", Politics of Japan, Economy of Japan, Culture of Japan, etc., per that guideline. Restore some of that deleted stuff into their respective "main articles", intact with the grammatical and "weasel language" problems if you have to. Either that, or I believe someone will revert you. I certainly won't revert you yet in good faith, but we'll see what happens.--Endroit 00:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I will look into this as soon as I have time, but there needs to be a review of the length of the main Japan article. I would prefer dumping into main articles on the specific subject matter.--Sir Edgar 00:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sir Edgar. Actually, if we did it one section at a time, I'm sure there will be less opposition. I'm willing to do the "dumping to the main article" part, unless someone else wants to do that task. It's easier for me to do it one section at a time.--Endroit 00:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyedit section by section, don't do whole revert Sir Edgar, get consensus on each section and then change if it that is necessary. Be remindful that you have biases too, not just everyone else. You have biases, so be aware of that. Everyone have biases. Doing whole revert is just rude and seems selfish and vandalizing 01:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection is a good idea, I think.

Sir Edgar, saying things like "I also want to just say that if Wikipedians support edits like the following, I will just have to quit Wikipedia." is not the way to go about making friends/allies on wiki. As someone who has more of an academic historical background than most people here, I find it very frustrating being here sometimes. Indeed most academics avoid this place like the plague because they find it a bit of a joke. So if you want to stay here, that is your choice. It is all of our choices. John Smith's 10:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Understood. And I acknowledge that my statement was not constructive and would like to apologize for that. Like you, I find it very frustrating sometimes (especially recently with the massive invasion of sockpuppet and anonymous accounts). I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but some people make this extremely difficult. In a way, I was just pleading for some support amidst this chaotic struggle. I hope you can sympathize with my sentiments.--Sir Edgar 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Japan, however has had a long history with Korea. In ancient times, much of Japan's culture was influenced by the Korean's own culture. There were also several wars between the two countries, as stated in Japan's national history. Korea should be mentioned at the very least once, but not to a point where there is an 'edit war'. It might also help if the Korea page also had some information about it's relationship with Japan. --Eiyuu Kou 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Some requests:

Does "Japan, officially Japan,..." sound ok?
Do we need an external link to CIA to establish that Japan is called Japan?
I personally think the pix look better at 200px- 150px instead of 250px. Plz comment
I vote to remove anime, cities subsections.
I vote to add a "culture" sub in the See also table.

WoodElf 17:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think....
  1. "Japan, officially Japan" is redundant. See the Ireland article, where there is no such redundancy. It's OK to use the France article as a model, but that's going too far.
  2. The CIA link is OK but should be moved out of the infobox, and perhaps moved to the first paragraph of the article.
  3. The rest don't really matter to me except: If you delete stuff, be sure to move them to their respective "main articles".
Thanks everyone.--Endroit 17:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wording in this article.

It's absolutely horrific. I'm not going to list each incident, but this article has gone to shit. Just look for yourselves. How can you tolerate this?

1. 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 (i.e. Yayoi-jin) from outside of Japan.

From where "outside of Japan"?

2. Buddhism were introduced by Baekje, to which Japan provided military support.

Disputed fact and not important to sentence. The word "were" used improperly.

3. By 1910, Japan amalgamated Korea, Taiwan, and the southern half of Sakhalin.

Are you kidding me??? "Amalgamated"? This is completely colonial era phrasing. Where did you get this? From 新しい歴教科書?
Give me a break, Koreans requested the amalgamation to Japan. (一進会のエピソードでも書いてあげましょうか?)
日韓併合を"Amalgamated"でないと主張するのは、North KoreaSouth Koreaだけです。

4. After the atomic bombings, Imperial Japan signalled its willingness to surrender on the condition that the Emperor be allowed to continue as the symbolic head of state.

Give me a break. Did Japan surrender or not?

5. Japan maintains close economic and military ties and remains friends with its key ally and partner, the United States, and therefore the US-Japan security alliance serves as the cornerstone of its foreign policy.

What does "remains friends" mean?
韓国人のEdgerには理解できないでしょうね。Koreaは"remains friends"がいませんから。

6. With its geographical neighbors, it has several territorial disputes (islands). For example it has territorial disputes with Russia over the Kuril Islands, with South Korea over Takeshima (Korean name "Dokdo"), with the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (Taiwan) over the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyutai Islands), and with the People's Republic of China over the status of Okinotori. These disputes are in part about the control of marine and natural resources, such as possible reserves of crude oil and natural gas. These disputes are just territorial (islands) and doesn't amount to any serious crisis in all of the countries involved.

Is this a press release from the Japanese government's PR office? "Please move on. Nothing to see here. Japan is in dispute with each and every one of its neighbors, but there's nothing to look at."

7. Japan is an economic world power with free-market economy with GDP (nominal) of little over $4.6 trillion as of 2005.

You should have went to your remedial English class every day.

8. Historically, Chinese culture has been the most influential, starting with the development of the Yayoi culture from around 300 BC and culminating with the introduction of rice farming, ceremonial burial, pottery, painting, writing, poetry, etiquette, the Chinese writing system, and Mahayana Buddhism by the 7th century AD.

Yayoi is Chinese? Did the Chinese introduce kofun? What about Buddhism? Find me the text saying so.
  • Sigh* I'm really ready to quit Wikipedia. This is hopeless.--Sir Edgar 04:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So some choice of words and grammar isn't perfect. Why don't you fix it instead of overreacting in such an immature manner? Since this article is on a non-English-speaking country, you can bet that non-English speakers were involved in its creation. Some of your points are very valid, but it's a shame you had to spoil them by acting like a child. 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed #7 to:
Please comment if you like it better or not.--Endroit 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Endroit, your correction is definitely better. Very readable and elegant English phrasing. Thank you. -- Anonymous user who just happened by here (native English speaker if that matters)

I think its pretty rude to have your own coversation in Japanese while everybody else just sits there and can't read anything.

Sir Edgar, I'm ready to quit Wikipedia because its time consuming and energy sapping when nobody compromises. Good friend100 03:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

377873 Vs. 377835

The country template says Japan is 377 835, but the lead mentions 377873. which is it ???

WoodElf 16:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

377,873 seems to be correct according to the List of countries and outlying territories by total area. Various organizations report various figures, but I believe we should remain consistent throughout Wikipedia. (I'm having trouble myself right now, trying to figure out the correct data in the "Demographics" section.)--Endroit 16:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The 1 E11 m² article had the other figure and so I changed that one.
I updated the infobox figure to 377,873 (62nd). Can somebody please update the corresponding Sq. mile figure in the infobox? Thank you.--Endroit 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Undoing the of August 17

The article Japan is too long, and we're trying to shorten it. Recent additions included valuable material, but there's not enough room for them in the article on Japan. Accordingly, we encourage editors to add material to the main articles that each section links to, such as History of Japan, or to articles they in turn link to, such as Victory over Japan Day or Surrender of Japan. Each topic has some appropriate article and Wikipedia welcomes additions to them, as well as improvements to this and all articles. Fg2 10:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating, everyone please read Wikipedia:Summary style if you haven't already.
Currently we're at 67kb, and ideally we should reduce this article to 50kb. We were able to reduce the Economy section by about 5kb alone. History, Culture, and Government and Politics sections can still be reduced further. (I'll try to work on some of those over the weekend.)
For those of you shooting for FA status, look at other "FA status" country articles such as Belgium or Canada, on how they've done it.
If you want to avoid (or...perhaps resolve) the controversial topics, I've placed {{disputed}} tags to those specific sections. They are Jomon and Yayoi eras, Classical era, and opening passage of Culture sections.--Endroit 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Japanese cuisine is an integral part of its culture and Japanese cuisine is also famous worldwide. Should it not have section under culture?

WoodElf 10:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a small bit would be a good idea. John Smith's 12:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please come up with an interesting cuisine lead?WoodElf 10:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Japanese cuisine is unique and famous worldwide. It is enjoyed by many around the world and appreciated for its aesthetic quality."

Japanese cuisine is not only cutting raw fish but heavily based on gratitude to nature. The techniques are developed to bring out taste of nature as possible with expression of gratitude to nature and the producers. itadakimasu, gochisosama deshita, and mottainai are very important essence of Japanese food culture and what I am trying to incorporate here. (one of reasons I do not like US kids movies is because kids always waste foods by throwing each other at the last moments..)

Although green tea is sharing very important part, I think it is not solely recognized worldwide as Japanese cuisine.

I also changed the photo because the hotel breakfast matches better with the description and the previous one was so simplest which is difficult even in Japan. The problem of the new one is that it looks so gorgeous for common home-made breakfast while many hotels serve in this style.--Jjok 00:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel-Japan relations

Please improve Israel-Japan relations. Thanks, Republitarian 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Lousy music

The section on music of japan is rather iffy and could be improved. Any responses?WoodElf 09:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so i did it by myself. Hope u like the new stuff. If not, c'est la vie! A rather happy WoodElf 11:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Be sure the material isn't copywrited. Usually 'better' music has an owner or two. --Eiyuu Kou 19:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

FA status?

This article has the potential to become a FA. To do:

  • I think the sport and recreation section could be improved and truncated.
  • Ditto with the economy and history subsections.
  • Weasel words and copyediting tags: are they still needed?

WoodElf 09:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the tags are necessary anymore. John Smith's 11:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the weasel words tag may still be necessary. This article is ok but very vague. The article tries to avoid any link with itself and its closest neighbor with terms like area "outside of Japan." Or when a neighbor is mentioned as the source of a new technology or culture, their always seems to be a weird side note that follows. Even if the side notes are facually disputed or an old theory that is now disregarded (which only has Japanese references, since English references have disregarded them cause of all the evidence against them) or chronologically non-sensical. For example, intro of Buddhism which is thought to be in around 550 AD and an irrelevent note about Japan being a military support in the 7th (670 AD) century to Baekje is mentioned. Also the wording of certain events are weasel like, For example WWII. You are either defeated or the victors, you don't allow the victors to win by willingness to surrender. You were defeated. --Tyler 10:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Recent edits have made a lot of substantive improvements to the article, and the editors deserve congratulations and thanks. Before going to FAC, though, you should consider taking this article should go through Peer Review, Good Article candidacy, or both. They can expose the article to people outside of the community of regulars who edit Japan-related articles, and those people can make valuable suggestions on matters that our blinders hide from us. Many of the same people also regularly contribute to Featured Article reviews, and taking care of their suggestions prior to FAC can relieve you of the need to work under the time constraint that FAC imposes.
Among the first things the editors in GA, PR or FAC will say are
  1. The article needs a thorough copyediting.
  2. There are unsourced statements.
  3. There are "citation needed" templates.
The first two are things they'll say automatically, so the more copyediting and sourcing you do prior to FAC, the smoother the candidacy will be. Copyediting includes attention to things like spelling, grammar, style (matters such as italics for foreign words), and avoiding single-sentence paragraphs. There are some matters like that to clear up, so that tag should stay for a little while longer. Copying and pasting into Word or other commercial software can help, especially with spelling and also with grammar. (The enormous number of foreign words and proper names can be frustrating, though.) Another approach is to print the article and read every sentence. Some people begin at the end of the article and work toward the beginning so that context doesn't override reading. Cross off each sentence after checking it.
With as many links as this article has, there are bound to be some glitches. Before nominating it for Featured Article status, an editor should click every link and make sure it leads to the right article. The article should be free of double redirects and links to disambiguation pages. I think I did that a few months ago, but the dizzying pace of change has probably resulted in some links that aren't optimal.
Featured Article candidacy always brings surprises. So before going to FAC, it's best to do everything you can to get the article near perfect. Then you'll have more time to react to the twists the editors will come up with.
Fg2 09:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

3-Part Proposal to avert the content-based revert-wars

One of our primary objectives is to eliminate any content-based revert-warring in the Japan article. To that effect, we need to raise the standards of verifiability wherever a content-based revert-war occurs in this article. I propose that if any controversial material cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and if that material is not of top importance to the Japan article, it should be deemed as "not meeting the criteria for inclusion."

"Controversial material" includes statements such as "x came from Korea", which has resulted in persistent revert-wars in this article. In reality, the origin is not always certain (beyond a reasonable doubt), as some things are argued to have come directly from China, some directly from Korea, and some are argued to have originated in Japan. Historical matters in the 6th century and before, are particularly prone to this problem, because verifying and enforcing WP:V is difficult. For this reason, some of such controversial material in this article were already moved to their respective "main articles", mostly into History of Japan. This is not only a stopgap measure to avert a revert-war, but also means 2 things:

  1. The topic had WP:V problems
  2. The topic was not an essential part of the Japan article in the first place

Part 1 of this proposal deals with which specific topics to exclude from the Japan article.

Other parts of this proposal shall deal with the wording on "controversial materials" still remaining after this exclusion.

From Sir Edgar's list of 8 problems (see "Wording in this article." above), two problems still remain:

1. 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 (i.e. Yayoi-jin) from outside of Japan.

    From where "outside of Japan"?

2. Buddhism were introduced by Baekje, to which Japan provided military support. 

    Disputed fact and not important to sentence. The word "were" used improperly.

Parts 2 & 3 of this proposal deals with these 2 specific points respectively.--Endroit 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Japan article proposal: Part 1

Any text describing the ORIGIN of the following will be banned from the Japan article, and moved to their respective "main article" according to the manner prescribed in Wikipedia:Summary style: burial mounds (kofun), burial rituals, Shintoism, shamanism, kanji, gagaku, buddhist chant, "Yayoi pottery" (see Japanese pottery, Korean pottery).

Any banned material may be reconsidered to be included in the Japan article again, if one of the following 2 criteria are met:

  1. The WP:V problems have been cleared
  2. The topic is deemed to be essential to the Japan article

Discussion (Part 1)

Please comment on the above, and discuss any ideas, changes, criticisms, or suggestions you may have.--Endroit 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Japan article proposal: Part 2

We need to discuss, modify, and reach consensus on the following text, in the "Jomon and Yayoi eras" section:

  • The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from outside of Japan.

Sources for this text:

  1. "The Yayoi period (c. 250 BC–c. AD 250)," Encyclopædia Britannica
  2. "Yayoi Period History Summary,"
  3. Jared Diamond, "Japanese Roots, " Discover 19:6 (June 1998)
  4. Dual origins of the Japanese: common ground for hunter-gatherer and farmer Y chromosomes, Michael F. Hammer, 2005PDF.

Discussion (Part 2)

Please comment on the above, and discuss any ideas, changes, criticisms, or suggestions you may have.--Endroit 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I propose to change this text to:
The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from Korea and China.
--Endroit 23:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Or even "...brought by migrants from eastern Asia. WoodElf 10:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, Woody has a good suggestion there. But "Eastern Asia" I think. John Smith's 11:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually "elsewhere in East Asia" (or even "mainland Asia" or "continental Asia") may be more accurate, because Japan is part of "Eastern Asia". Any of those seem fine with me.--Endroit 12:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I support "mainland Asia". ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel as though "Korea and China" is the simplest and most accurate way to put it. Mainland Asia or continental Asia smells like weasel phrases to me. Tortfeasor 03:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
But I don't think China or Korea existed then, so to use those terms would also provoke complaints from others. Best to use a neutral and accurate term. John Smith's 09:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Using "Korea and China" may be controversial as John Smith's suggests, hence "mainland Asia" is perhaps a more neutral and accurate term. If you look at the the edit histories of the Manchuria article alone, you will see countless revert-wars, trying to claim Manchuria as part of either China or Korea historically. We see many creative attempts, for example a bogus map (now deleted) was temporarily included into the Manchuria article, showing China and Japan as colonies of Baekje and Goguryeo (Koguryo), which is far-fetched. Also, there is a question as to whether the areas in Korean peninsula were tributaries of China or independent back then. It follows that there is a fundamental question as to whether Baekje, Goguryeo, etc. are considered part of China or Korea, although such superficial designations, particularly "Korea" didn't exist back then. No such designation is needed when you use the term "mainland Asia", which is more neutral and accurate.--Endroit 13:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I speedied the image as it was a complete fabrication. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Joe. John Smith's 16:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Mainland Asia is a term that is vague because the term is undefined. What does mainland Asia even mean? It is also an inaccurate term because if we use the Wikipedia definition of Asia, it includes countries like Uzbekistan, Kuwait, and Egypt; countries that have no demonstrable connection with Yayoi migrants to Japan. The scholarly consensus is that the Yayoi probably came from Korea and also China I don't see why we have to deliberately blur the issue by confusing readers. John Smith's: I feel as though your point that Korea and China didn't exist back then can only be valid if there is a consistent application of it. Please take a look at any early Japanese history article on Wikipedia and it will use the term "Japan" even though Japan didn't exist at the time. Most scholars use terms like China, Korea, and Japan when discussing ancient history. To be overly technical in this one case is unnecessary and unfair. Endroit: I remeber the outlandish map and the other changes at the Manchu article because I helped revert the vandalism there. The difference from that map and this one sentence is that scholarly consensus exists in this case while I doubt any reputable source would ever publish that map. Most scholars and Wikipedia articles use the terms China, Korea, and Japan to talk about ancient history that occured in the territory of the the current nation-states of the PRC, ROK, DPRK, and Japan. I just don't think we should kowtow to a proven group of anti-Korean point of view pushers who are now banned by hiding China and Korea into mainland Asia when most scholarly papers on the subject specifically state Korea and China as the source of the Yayoi migrant people. Tortfeasor 17:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC) A couple of sources that use Korea and/or China:[3], [4] (pdf), [5] (pdf), [6], [7] (pdf), [8]. Tortfeasor 17:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"Mainland Asia" in the English language is clearly defined by the words mainland and Asia. The definition of Korea is in question here, particularly during the Yayoi and Yamato periods. May I ask others to comment as well? We are trying to build consensus here. What is the definition of "Korea" during Yayoi (and Yamato) periods? Is Goguryeo Korean or Chinese? Is Baekje Korean or Chinese? Is it OK to use "Korea and China" in this passage? Or should we use "mainland Asia" instead?--Endroit 17:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Korea and China had the most influence in Japan during that time so I think it should be used. India may count because Buddhism was founded in India, but it was China, then Korea that introduced Buddhism to Japan. Good friend100 21:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"From mainland Asia most notably what are now Korea and China." or "From mainland Asia most notably present day Korea and China." This way you are not seen as a weasel word article. Remember Korea and China are both older than Japan. If we are to ask questions such as did Korea and China exist back then or what was their relationship/tribute situation, then you have to do the same for Japan. We need to consider Japan's tributory relationship with China, Japan's familial relation to Baekje. Was Yamato part of Korea or Japan? Is Yayoi Korean or Japanese? Is it ok to use mainland Asia in this passage when the majority of information flowed from what is now Korea and China. Or should we use "present day Korea and China" instead? Or since every one involved in this article is so worried about the existence of Korea and China (who are both much older nations) should we split the Japan article in two. With Japan starting around the 1580's and anything prior to that writing a separate article about the Island east of northeast mainland Asia. I'm being sarcastic, but my suggestion is legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
What? "... most notably ... Korea and China" ? That's too long and, yes, weaselish.
How about "continental East Asia ? That's short, concise, accurate, and less problematic.--Endroit 04:30, 31 August 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.
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.
3. The Yayoi period brought also the introduction of iron and other modern ideas from Korea into Japan.
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.
5. In this sense, a very great part of Japan's origins, both culturally and ethnically, can be traced back to Korea. getarticle.pl5?nn20020312b6.htm
Etc, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler111 (talkcontribs)

If the references state Korea and Korean penisula more than East Asia, East Asian Continent or Mainland Asia, shouldn't we follow the references. --Tyler 06:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Korea did not exist at time when Japan did, only kingdoms like the dynasties in China. I prefer use of "continental Asia" or "East Asian continent" than "Korea". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I like the "continental East Asia" myself--it's short and to the point. Does anyone truly believe this phrase will lead to confusion? I really doubt it--instead, it seems people want to squeeze in the name of whatever their favorite present day country is, when such a reference is really unnecessary--just making things longer. Komdori 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the "continental East Asia" most. "Korea and China" or "China and Korea" can work taking those words as the names for the lands/regions, not countries/nations, for we are not talking about Japanese "country" nor "nation" here in the Yayoi era. However, the worry about being controversial is reasonable and the more adequate wording would be "continental East Asia". The wording "Korean penisula" seems to limit the migrants only from the peninsula and ignore other possible origins including "via" the peninsula. --LittleTree 23:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Komdori. I like the "Eastern Asia" or "Continental East Asia" because, "Continental East Asia" is obviously including a region of the Korean peninsula. I seem to some people wants to using a word of "KOREA". Why does someone insists persistently on the using "Korea"? I guess that it give rise to an unnecessary edit war about interpretation of "Korea".--Watermint 10:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with above (continental/mainland/whatever); Eastern Asia is fine, I think, too, especially if it's worded "elsewhere in Eastern Asia." I believe any of these are clear enough, without the need of narrowing it down to national boundaries. Such things are not only confusing for the novice, but are almost guaranteed to spark edit wars/vandalism by people who are trying to push their own agenda. Why not avoid the issue altogether? A geographical reference such as this also is more in line with the idea that knowledge/ideas are flowing through the region, which is especially appropriate in light of the Buddhism teachings' path. —LactoseTIT 04:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not avoid the issue altogether? - Because the way to achieve NPOV is to present different and sometimes opposing perspectives, not to omit pertinent information. Taking out "China" and "Korea" would avoid an important view held by many scholars that Yayoi was influenced by ancient Chinese civilisation and/or ancient Korean civilisation. I suggest that we mention that different perspectives exist on the origins of the Yayoi period, and then just refer readers to the main Yayoi article for more information. --- Hong Qi Gong 04:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Measuring the consensus for the "Yayoi" wording

I am trying to find out which wording is acceptable to which user. Multiple choice is allowed here. Please modify youself in the list (realign yourself), and specify which choices are acceptable. Pease also comment in the above section, on your reasoning for the choice(s), if you haven't already.--Endroit 22:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Korea and China - Endroit, Tortfeasor, Good friend100, LordAmeth, HongQiGong, Tyler111
  • China and Korea - LordAmeth, Endroit, HongQiGong, Tyler111, Questionfromjapan(week-support)
  • Eastern Asia - WoodElf, John Smith's, Watermint, LactoseTI, Questionfromjapan
  • mainland Asia - Nihonjoe, Endroit, Watermint, Ypacaraí, LactoseTI
  • continental Asia - Endroit,, Ypacaraí, LactoseTI, Questionfromjapan
  • continental East Asia - Endroit, Komdori,, LittleTree, Watermint, LactoseTI, Questionfromjapan, John Smith's
  • Korea - Tyler111
  • Korean peninsula - Tyler111


Please explain the difference between a Ancient Korea culture and a Ancient Chinese culture. If the difference between an ancient South Korea culture and a Chinese culture cannot be understood, this vote is not academic.  -- 12:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference is quite straightforward. Ancient Korea is as different from ancient China as ancient France (Gaul), Britain, and Germany were different from one another. Just because much of Korean culture is derived from Chinese culture does not mean they are inseparable and interchangeable. Read the articles on Silla, Baekje, Goguryeo, the Southern and Northern Dynasties, and the other appropriate articles if you cannot tell the differences. LordAmeth 15:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Korea did not exist. How is peninsula Korean if Korea did not exist? I do not understand. The people only came from China, not Korea. No Korean people were there.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
How are the Native Americans "Americans" if the term didn't exist yet? For that matter, how are the Chinese at this period "Chinese", when there was no unified China, only a whole bunch of small kingdoms? Get over it. LordAmeth 13:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There's already been a long and drawn out discussion about terminologies over at the Yayoi article itself. Those that believe "China" did not exist is sorely mistaken, as that English word itself is a reference to the Qin dynasty. It came from the Sanskrit word cina. If editors are still in doubt, all you need to do is click on History of China and note that the article does not begin at 1911 or 1949, but that it begins at the 16th century BC. The suggestion to eliminate references to "China" and "Korea" here would also necessitate we elimate references to the word "Japan" and change it to "Wa" at articles such as the Yayoi article. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to discuss the rice farming and iron manufacturing as an equal. According to the current studies, the gene of Japanese rice is directly imported from china.--Questionfromjapan 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Japan article proposal: Part 3

We need to discuss, modify, and reach consensus on the following text, in the "Classical era" section:

  • Buddhism was introduced to Japan by Baekje, to which Japan provided military support, and it was promoted by the ruling class.

Sources for this text:

  1. Nihon Shoki, volumes 19, Story of Kinmei. [9]"Nihon Shoki
  2. Delmer M. Brown (ed.), ed. (1993). The Cambridge History of Japan. Cambridge University Press. pp. 140–149. 
  3. George Sansom, A History of Japan to 1334, Stanford University Press, 1958. p. 47. ISBN 0804705232

Discussion (Part 3)

Please comment on the above, and discuss any ideas, changes, criticisms, or suggestions you may have.--Endroit 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Korean Buddhism Basis of Japanese Buddhism, Seoul Times, June 18, 2006;
Buddhist Art of Korea & Japan, Asia Society Museum;
Kanji,; "Pottery," MSN Encarta;
History of Japan,
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler111 (talkcontribs)

Just more things to ponder. The sentence above has stripped away almost everything such as pottery, burial practices, intro of Chinese writing system, shamanism, rank system, etc cause it is considered un-important, difficult to word, and various other reasons. I believe the sentence was more about these cultural ideas, when and how it came to Japan and the impact it had on Japan. As we know Buddhism seems to have had an impact on Japan. Apparently the military assistance is disputed at the time around 530-580 AD (if it actually happened, when, were the troops actually sent or was it just talk of it, how many etc) what kind of impact this troop info had on Japan appears to be not important. How significant was the military alliance part to the sentence if you don't mention that in 670 AD they lost the war and their was a migration of Baekje scholars to Yamato. Without the part about Baekje migration being mentioned the military alliance part of the sentence could appear to be a weird side note without any importance to impact Japan. --Tyler 08:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Woooo! Sir Edgar came back! We will see the Edit Battle that the South Korean deprives the Japanese of the article on Japan again. -- 09:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

General comments

Stop this, you Korean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Okay. This is seriously getting ridiculous. Thank you, Endroit, for writing up this whole proposal and for stepping forward and attempting to settle this issue. I have a few comments, which I'd prefer to share down here if you don't mind.
(1)Whoever is leaving those unsigned comments accusing people of being Korean, I am very close to banning you. Please give it up. Not everyone who believes a certain way is Korean, and being Korean certainly should not invalidate their position.
  • Anyone who sees this as a nationalistic thing, and wishes to push their own personal nationalistic, cultural, or racist agenda, should leave right now. This is not the place to argue that Korea's more or less special or important than China, or to push the wholly untrue notion that Japan had no significant influences from either China or Korea.
(2)It seems pretty clear to me that just about anything introduced to Japan during this period, which was not natively developed, falls into one of three categories:
  • Chinese cultural elements obtained through contact with China
  • Chinese cultural elements obtained through contact with Korea
  • Korean cultural elements obtained through contact with Korea
Neither China nor Korea, nor Japan were united politically in this period, but that does not stop them from being essentially Chinese, Korean, and Japanese respectively, in terms of their culture. East Asia, Eastern Asia, mainland Asia, are all weasel words, to varying extents; say what you mean - "Japan was heavily influenced by China and Korea during this period". Or, if you prefer, "Japan was heavily influenced by the Three Kingdoms of the Korean peninsula and the X number of kingdoms of China during this period."
I am in support of all that Endroit proposes. Thank you again for your work, and I hope we can get this resolved satisfactorily. LordAmeth 18:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP is of Hanaro Telecom which is located in Yeoeuido-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, South Korea. He is obviously a Korean troll pretending to be Japanese. --Saintjust 12:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


  1. where can I find articles or description about Buddhism in Baekje around 5~6th century and the difference from the original Chinese one? or how much did they "advance" Buddhism ?
  2. according to Samguk Sagi in 375, Baekje was said that she never had described using characters since the establishment. How much the Chinese writing system was "culture of Baekje" by the time of transmission to Japan (270-310?) by a doctor with Chinese surname?
三國史記 百済 近肖古王 三十年 秋七月 高句麗來攻北鄙水谷城陷之 王遣將拒之 不克 王又將大擧兵報之 以年荒不果 冬十一月 王薨 古記云 百濟開國已來 未有以文字記事 至是得博士高興 始有書記 然高興未嘗顯於他書 不知其何許人也
I think I missed the discussions so please help me to find it. Thank you. --Jjok
The differences would be comparable to the differences of Italy and French culture which are later passed on to Britian. Korean shamanism is incorporated in addition to other native rituals. Even today you can see the differences in Korean, Chinese, Indian and Japanese Buddhism. Please read below:
See Korea - A Religious History by: James Huntley Grayson p. 33
Buddhism went from Northern Wei (China) to Goguryeo/Baekje (Korea) to Yamato (Japan).
  • 372 Buddhism is introduced to Korea and Goguryeo (see Korean Buddhism for this)
  • 560 Goguryeo monk Hyep'yon (Keiben in Japanese) goes to Japan
  • 554 - 587 King Widok of Baekje sends more sutras, statues, monks, nuns, teachers, and artisans to Japan
Sue ware introduced from southern Korea. [10].
Gaya, Silla, and possibly Baekje pottery styles were imitated by the people of Japan. [11].
“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.” [12].
Korean style Sue ware was made in the Kyoto area during the tumulus period. [13].
Seto-ware, inspired by Korea [14].
Local handicrafts evolved from both Chinese and Korean prototypes. [15].
Korean potters instrumental in training Japanese in continental pottery styles and starting Japan’s porcelain industry. [16].
Some Japanese castles incorporated Korean castle architecture. [17].
Satsuma pottery was Korean inspired. [18].
Early Japanese temple compounds were based on Paekche prototypes from the sixth and seventh century. [19].
Asuka period art had a Korean influence. [20].
Green-ash glazed stoneware made during the Hakuho-Nara periods were inspired by Chinese and Korean works. [21].
There was a Korean influence on Japanese culture and dress. [22]. The paintings at the Takamatsu tomb show woman dressed in clothing reminiscent of Korean dress [23].
The Hata clan was from Silla. [24].
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. [25].
Japanese tomb painting inspired by Chinese and Korean culture. [26].
Yumendo Kannon, has Korean influences. [27].
New type tombs in the seventh century are allied with well-established Korean customs and distantly related to Chinese ones. [28].
The kondo of Horyu-ji temple has paintings from Korean and Chinese prototypes. [29]. In the Kinto hall, a Koguryeo monk painted murals. [30]. The temple itself resembles ones excavated in the former Koguryeo kingdom and follows Paekche layouts. [31]. The pagoda is Tang style or Korean styles.
Korean-style swords made in the southern Yamato basin in the fifth century CE. [32].
Virtually all early grave goods have Korean or Chinese prototypes. [33].
The Be system, adopted from Paekche, that contributed most significantly to centralization of the Yamato polity in the sixth century. [34].
Fifth century tombs in Japan follow the Paekche-style corridor tombs. [35].
Japan absorbed and imitated centralized government institutions in Korea and espcially China. [36]. Emperor Tenji focused on establishing new systems from the Chinese and Korean models. [37]

For the individual above who wanted info on Korean influence in Japan. --Tyler 11:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox broken

There are some weird entries at the end that have appeared - ISO something-or-other and sports/vehicle codes. Anyone know how to get rid of them? It makes the page look terrible. John Smith's 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know how to get rid of them, but I'm sure the Template needs to be edited. For now, I just filled in the values. We can delete them later, when they become optional.--Endroit 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Mysteriously fixed now. Much better. John Smith's 15:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

world war 2

i believe that the world war 2 section is biased towards the japanese trying to make it seem as if the united states was wrong for retaliating with force after the attack on world war 2 and that their tactics during the war were wrong. i dont believe this is a discussion of what should of happened, just what happened so i believe the bias should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

If the United States did not cut off Japan's oil supply, Japan would be forced to attack Pearl Harbour. Japan suffered the most from World War II. Look at atomic bombings. Japan is the only country to suffer from such tragedies. You must be more forgiving and understanding. Japan did not want war with the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
If they didnt want war with the United States, why did they attack?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malevious (talkcontribs)
This is a really lovely discussion on the philosophy behind japanese actions during ww2, but may i please remind you to sign (four tildes) when you want to say something? a conscientous WoodElf 10:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
A liar is worse than a thief. During WW2, Japanese are brutal man. Corean2006 15:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor for oil. They attacked to destroy the American battleships and aircraft carriers (which at the time were out at sea) to immobilize the American power in the Pacific so they could conquer the Pacific at will. Good friend100 17:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Japan has little natural resources, and oil is required for industry, an oil embargo became the primary reason for an attack on the U.S. To the confused: a blockade is considered an act of war. A simple search will help you: oil+embargo+japan or blockade+act+war.Falsedef 17:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The American, British, and Dutch refusal to trade oil and steel was a response to Japanese aggression in China and was not the same as a military blockade. An embargo is a ban on trade, a blockade is a sealing off of a place. Oil and steel were required for the continued war effort, not "industry," and the attack was an attempt to preemptively restrain any American response in the region. Thedukeinjapan 14:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well an embargo on oil and steel would have affected Japanese industry too - you can't build or run an economy on "war". That said "embargo" is the correct term to use, as Japan would have been able to import materials from other suppliers had they been available. John Smith's 20:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The only other way to get oil was through Euro and American controlled or influenced trade routes, also making it a blockade, although not an actual military blockade. Falsedef 13:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not my fault when I hear that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because America dropped the atomic bomb first. Good friend100 18:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Topics that are far more important than Korea

Korea is a so not important topic for the Japanese. Please do not use energy for such a Korean. Please think about the introduction sentence of the Anime, the Manga, and the video games. Nintendo is a priority that is far higher than Korean's boast.  -- 09:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Korea is a colonial master of Japan in ancient times. We should write the historic fact. Almost all Japanese culture originate from Korean culture. But they were stripped from Korea by Japanese people in the era of the Japanese occupation. You had better study the historic fact. Corean2006 15:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I know thus you have been told in school but that's only Korean's dream to cure your ressentiment against the Japanese. --Ypacaraí 07:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The saddest part of this article is that some of the Japanese editors keep deleting information that has to do with Baekje, Japan's influence of Korea, and the Japanese language. Instead, they keep and protect the section of "Japanese occupation". This is the most dirtiest part of the article and it is the reason why the article is not improving as it should. Good friend100 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The Korean repeated a large-scale advertisement by the article on Japan by using SocksPapet. The South Korean insists that South Korea influenced the Japanese culture. But A lot of facts prove a Chinese culture is influencing Japan. (The Korea culture is included in a Chinese culture. ) A lot of Japanese will not permit the propaganda of Korea that uses Japan. Thanks! -- 08:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Every country in the world has influenced, and has been influenced by, another country. Korea and Japan, being next to each other, have obviously had strong influences on each other. Why boast, argue or be ashamed over who influenced the other 1000, 100 or 10 years ago? DOES THE REST OF THE WORLD CARE? The answer is no, so please stop embarrassing yourselves and your respective countries. Phonemonkey 23:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Phonemonkey, the problem is, the people that needs to hear your message, just ignore it. Its a shame when editors vandalize articles by removing information about Korean influence on Japan. Good friend100 18:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

True, there are a lot of things that you may not know about Korea that has influenced Japan and vice versa for me. Thats old. Everybody knows that Korea,Japan, and China are heavily influenced by each other, whether you like it or not. Oyo321 22:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try to downgrade Japan. We never meant to strip Korea or its pride. And besides, most of our culture comes from China, not Korea.

Images in Medieval and Edo era

There is an image Image:Hasekura in Rome.JPG in Japan#Medieval era and another Image:RedSealShip.JPG in Japan#Edo era. I like those two images themselves, but they have not much to do with the article, where neither Hasekura nor the ships are mentioned. They are fine in the other article Edo period where readers can find what they are, but I am afraid they are not adequate to be put here. Minamoto no Yoritomo would suite better than Hasekura for "Medieval era". I am not sure about what would suite for Edo era, but an image of a daimyo gyoretsu might be nice if there is any. While I cannot find any, Image:Hiroshige le pont Nihonbashi à l'aube.jpg may also be nice. --LittleTree 14:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

actually i think the history has too many images. perhaps we should not have any images for medieval and edo.WoodElf 09:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hilarity Ignored

Ok, i'm very, very impressed by the speed at which amusing pranks are removed from the article about Japan, but no one is getting the time to enjoy the unbelievable hilariousness of an article about Japan in which all the R's and L's are reversed. That's classic, you know, and if the web isn't there for amusement, then what is it really for?

For record

This is for the sake of record: [38] - [39] - [40] - [41] - [42] --Bhadani 16:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Omitting macrons on long vowels is extremely unprofessional. I am aware that the current guidelines recommend omitting them on terms that are common enough to be considered "English".

Lets look at an example. 忍坂 is the old name for a city in Nara. It is read as Osaka (no long vowels, thus no macrons). Then there is the much more familiar 大阪. This is Ōsaka, with in initial long vowel. If you insist on disregarding short / long vowel distinctions, then you can not distinguish between these two words.

Except for long vowels, there does not seem to be any disagreement to distinguish between long constants (Ho_kk_aidō) or vowel clustors (Hokk_ai_dō).

I suspect that the source of this is the inconvenience in inputting macrons. That I can understand. I propose preferring macrons where necessary, but allowing people to disregard if desired. Others who care about such issues, such as myself, can correct places as necessary.

I have noticed two general trends in English books written about Japan. (1) The general, basic text often disregards long vowels. (2) Serious, professional texts rigorously make the distinguish. I would hope that Wikipedia would strive to be a serious, professional reference.

As a long-time resident of Japan and linguist, I am extremely disappointed with the unprofessional policies of Wikipedia in regard to Japan. I would like this policy to change.

Currently, the policy is to have macrons, except in the cases of common English words like Tokyo and sumo. And there is a move right now to add macrons everywhere they belong. I spent most of last week adding macrons to Hojo, Yagyu, and everything ending in -ryu (martial arts styles). As someone who is about to become a 日本史の大学院生, I fully agree with your sentiments, though I personally prefer to use "ou" and the like rather than macrons. I also hope that the 'pedia can strive to be more professional and academic... LordAmeth 03:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[First, let me apologize for the formating. It is not immediately clear to me how to respond to an individual post without creating a new topic. Feel free to edit as necessary.]
With regard to Japanese words, the concept of what "common English" is a difficult to define. The spelling "Tokyo" is fairly common; however, at the same time, "Tōkyō" is often used, especially in more professional works. The 東京駅 station, for example, uses "Tōkyō". In fact, more and more places in Japan (especially train stations) are utilizing macrons where appropriate in English text.
As it is now, some words distinguish between long / short vowels, while other words ("common English") do not. This is inconsistent. We should be consistent in the treatment: either all or none. This inconsistent treatment only invites misunderstanding and confusion from readers.
I would like to advocate spellings such as Tōkyō, Ōsaka, Kyōto, Kōbe, Jōmon, daimyō, Shintō, sumō etc. I petition for the guidelines to be updated to reflect such sentiment.
Bendono 04:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Those decisions are made at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) and if you wish to petition there, you'll get the broadest exposure to the community. The issue cannot be decided individually on an article-by-article basis. Fg2 07:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll just point out that as there isn't a Wikipedia preference for American over English spelling, it's unlikely that we'll see a policy widely adopted for macron spelling where there are already established English spellings. I agree that macrons are more scholarly, but the established spelling for Tokyo among English speakers (who aren't Japanese-language students) is clearly Tokyo and not Tōkyō. You'll find similar non-macron preferences in the American Go (Igo / Baduk / Wei Qi) community for words like 'Honinbo' (a major Go title) which I believe has a long final o in Japanese.
Enforcing a style guideline prefering Macrons is likely to create endless edit wars on articles if it's not first established as policy for the site, so I support your bringing this up as a policy issue here. --Zippy 05:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
For Tokyo Station, you can, as a compromise, use this format: Tokyo Station (東京駅 Tōkyō eki?) which preserves informativeness by showing both a maron-less and macroned version. But you're right, macrons are hard to type. Most operating systems don't provide a way of typing them even when Japanese or English language locales are selected in an Operating System's system preferences (I use an IME dictionary btw). —Tokek 08:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Might I point out that, when editing a page, all the macron'ed vowels are present in the insert box, in 'Characters'? No special input scheme required. --moof 09:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing it out. —Tokek 09:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Measuring consensus of Continental East Asia versus Korea and China, etc.

I dont think it should have been changed to Continental East Asia yet. If you read the consensus above, "Korea and China" have six votes while "Continental East Asia" has eight. However, Komdori's vote should be stricken see as how s/he is a "Likely" sock of LactosteTI as confirmed by checkuser [43] and I think its weird that the seeming troll's vote was allowed to count when that user's comments have all been deleted from this talk page. Tortfeasor 17:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have to not quibble over little things for the good of the whole. I don't think we're ever going to get a large consensus, so why not just leave it as it is? Besides people have been having multiple votes, whereas some have voted once. More people support something with "Asia" in it than China/Korea. Just move on and make some helpful changes to the article, rather than quibble over unimportant points. John Smith's 08:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
John Smith's: I think its interesting that you find this topic so "unimportant" that you don't want to "quibble" over it but you felt the need to make comments in the discussion, vote, and then change it from "Korea and China" to "continental East Asia" without consensus. Since "Korea and China" was chronologically first, technically, "leav[ing] it as it is" would be reverting back to the "Korea and China" language, which I have done. If this is a minor point to you I respectfully suggest that perhaps you should follow your own advice and "just move on" instead of feigning disinterest in a topic you obviously have great interest in. Thanks for your comments. Tortfeasor 16:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There was a clear problem because people were not happy with what there was before. Various suggestions were made, but no one was willing to "process" the results or move them on. So I simply put in an edit that I thought had the most support, if not a clear majority. It went in, there were no complaints - and then you turn up, deciding that the original had to go back. Well sorry, but I don't think that's enough. My edit was up there for I can't remember how long. If you want to now make an issue of it, have a formal vote on it with proper time-lengths, etc. If you don't then you're not serious about resolving the dispute, just pushing your POV. You were the one person quibbling with my suggestion - no one else has. John Smith's 17:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The results are not clear cut. There is continued discussion below. Your first edit could be seen as surrepticious because you didn't even put in the edit summary what you changed the wording but wrote "let's try this" or something to that effect. It seemed to me as if you were pulling a "fast one". The Korea and China wording was there far longer so I don't see how relevant your point is about how your edit stood the test of time. I have reverted to the original version until consensus decides otherwise. Please follow your own suggestion about a proper vote, etc. if you want to change the original wording. I'm not sure what the problem is. I would just ask you follow your own advice. Thanks. Tortfeasor 20:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Komdori is a sockpuppet of LactoseTI?

Hey, this argument doesn't have to get so nasty. I agree that "Korea and China" should be used because it was China and Korea that influenced Japan mostly. However, using continental East Asia can be better because it includes all influencing countries in a general term. This isn't an important argument. Both words are good. I'm slightly leaning to "Korea and China" because "East Asia" may refer to somewhere like the Phillipenes or something and that may be misleading because Phillipenes hardly influenced Japan, but probably its really up to how the text is written. If the text is written as if mainly China and Japan has a large influence that may affect what should be used. Just a thought, not taking any sides =) Good friend100 19:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, you're right, I hadn't thought of the fact that "continental East Asia" is more inclusive. But did Viet Nam or Thailand or anywhere else (prior to European contact) really have any significant influence on Japan? I stand by my assertion that "continental East Asia" is too vague and too PC - why not talk straight and say what you mean? When you talk about the cultures that had the most influence on Japan, you can call them any number of different things, but in the end, they are China and Korea. So why not simply say that to begin with? Why obfuscate the issue? The only reason I did not comment earlier was because I was busy with moving overseas and all sorts of things related to that, and because I knew others would speak up for my position. LordAmeth 19:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Vietnam, Thailand, etc are not part of East Asia - they are part of South East Asia. There is a difference. And the continental East Asia also disincludes the Philippines, etc. John Smith's 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Please read the definition of East Asia before making statements such as the fact that Vietnam is not part of it. Thanks. Tortfeasor 20:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It's important to include a wikilink to East Asia when mentioning "Continental East Asia". "Continental East Asia" includes Mongolia and Manchuria, which are areas which may not necessarily be included in the "Korea and China" designation depending on the definition. For example, most English dictionaries define "Korea" to be a formerly united nation whose area is restricted to the Korean Peninsula, whereas Wikipedia's article Korea defines it to be a "civilization" whose area expanded into Manchuria. Manchuria may or may not be considered part of "Korea and China" during the Yayoi times depending on the interpretation, but "Continental East Asia" unambiguously includes Manchuria. For the record, I think either wording is fine, and I agree with John Smith's that the consensus was in favor of "Continental East Asia" at the time. If anybody doesn't like that conclusion, we need to do a poll.--Endroit 20:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe a poll is neccesary. "Continental east asia" however can be too vague when just glanced at. It doesn't include southeast asia islands, but it can be misleading and ambiguous. I think we should set up a poll again. Good friend100 20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"The following countries/territories are located in geographic East Asia:

I don't see Vietnam on that list. John Smith's 20:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If we have a poll, we need to know what to change it to - otherwise we will merely know we need a new term. As I pointed out, we need clearly defined terms as to length, voting procedure, etc. John Smith's 20:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to change it to specific countries that influenced Japan, not just a general term. So that includes Korea, China, and maybe India (since Buddhism came from there). Good friend100 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, "maybe India", eh? Well that's clear. Besides one problem is that the states of "China" and "Korea" didn't exist then like they do now. So are we going to have a massively long list of every state/kingdom/whatever that once influenced Japan? Why not just have a very brief point like "continental East Asia", "parts of continental Asia", or whatever? John Smith's 20:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Another problem is that "Japan" didn't exist then like it does now. So are we going to have a massively long list of every polity that existed on the Japanese Archipelago during the Yayoi migration plus the Ainu polity? Also, if you think "continental East Asia" is okay I would suggest it be changed to "geographic continental East Asia minus Mongolia" because A) the term right now is ambiguous to whether it refers to geographic or cultural East Asia and B) Mongolia was not a source of the Yayoi migration. India too for that matter. Tortfeasor 22:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said, tort, start a proper poll or give over. Trying to score points isn't going to get you anywhere - it just makes you look like you're throwing your toys out of the pram. John Smith's 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
JS: No discussion on the merits? Please at least try to make a good argument as to why you're trying to be PC in this one instance. Tortfeasor 22:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, tort, please discuss away. I really don't mind what you have to say. But any discussion taken place that is not part of a poll is irrelevant as to whether or not we change the current wording. That's all I meant to say. If you just want to have a theoretical discussion then that's fine. John Smith's 23:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a "massively long list" as you suggest. The information of how Japan was influenced is already in the text. Just because specificing countries doesn't mean we have to write a whole list down. Also, we are here to make the text more informative? Not just a general term, but specifically? I think we need to do a poll. Good friend100 02:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

About the entreaty from Korean

Koreans want to put Korea in the history in Japan. The evaluation of the article on Japan was lowered to B class because of their puppet and hijack. And, the Korean tries to throw away the article on Korea, and to enter the article on Japan. How should we treat these arrogant refugees? I hate Korean to use my home country to advertise Korea.

-- 09:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not about "advertising" Korea, it is about providing accurate historical information. And it is truly inappropriate, and borderline racist, of you to assume that the people editing this page are Koreans. I happen to be a white American working on his master's in Japanese Studies, and someone who has never studied Korea at all. If you want to continue to push your nationalistic, anti-Korean agenda, you can expect to be banned from editing articles entirely. LordAmeth 14:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Please remain civil and not attack others with terms like "arrogant refugees". Korean influence on Japanese history is well supported by many credible sources. What do you mean the "evaluation" of this article is lowered to "B class"? What does that mean? And to the best of my knowledge, there is no sockpuppetry or "hijacking" here. What do you mean "Korean tries to throw away the article on Korea"? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Its not fair how the attitudes around these talk pages revolve. I don't understand why some of you vandalize the article by removing information about Korea, then accuse Korean people that they are hijacking the article. This is not the right attitude to work on an article. This has been going on for a long time. Its getting ridiculous. Good friend100 21:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).