Talk:Japan/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Hello, You Locked Up Outdated Info (Revisited)

Like Japan's import and export rankings according to the CIA World Factbook, aka World Factbook -- not the other way around, sheesh. WK, also known as Wikipedia, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.149.243 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody with access, please edit the import and export ratings, as they are contradictory to both the CIA World Factbook and the pages they link to.--68.98.226.249 (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please also edit the life expectancy infor from the CIA Factbook: Life expectancy at birth: total population: 82.07 years male: 78.73 years female: 85.59 years (2008 est.) Thanks, Dori —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doristein (talk • contribs) 07:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

section on environmentalism

shouldn't we have a section on environmentalism, like the Kyoto treaty, etc?

Japan's comitment to the enviroment is very serious compared to other countries and it should be elaborated. Good friend100 04:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The offenses committed against the environment in Japan are also quite grievous. Meanwhile, Environmental protection in Japan could use some expansion, but does exist and is a good start. That is to say, do we necessarily need a section on environmentalism in this main article? LordAmeth 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, there shoule be a comprehensive paragraph about how "green" Japan is!

Yeah. It's a really environmentally conscious country. </sarcasm>. I've expanded on the section somewhat; I harbor no illusions that what I've put is well written or anywhere near complete, but my hope is that it'll inspire other editors to expand upon it even further, tighten up the section, write something solid. Maybe if there's anyone out there who actually has solid sources to work from? I have Lost Japan on my bookshelf, and a few journal articles on Edo period environmental issues, but that's about it. Still, a quick trawl through the NY Times archives (or those of pretty much any other major news site) should help find some pretty solid sources. Thanks all. LordAmeth (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2007

Please fix the Hokkaido photo caption

The Hokkaido photo caption appearing in the Japan article (for this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_road_in_Hokkaido_001.JPG) currently reads: "Hokkaido is subarctic climate." Please fix the grammar. It should say something like: "Hokkaido has a subarctic climate." Markstevo 10:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the suggestion. Fg2 10:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

BRAPPPPP RAPPP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.21.163 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Whaling

How come there is no mention of whaling in the aricle? Sab Cav (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly it isn't important enough to merit inclusion in the main article. It is mententioned elsewhere in the Economy of Japan and Whaling in Japan articles. Showers (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Whaling in Japan should be linked in this article if not briefly covered. Sab Cav (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Within subjects related to whaling and related concerns, I'm sure that Japan plays a big role. But, within the range of subjects related to Japan, that is to say, the huge range of all of Japanese culture, religion, history, politics, economics, and language, whaling is just not that important. As the subject is not well covered in Environmental protection in Japan, please go ahead and add whatever you feel appropriate to that article. Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I think of after thinking of Japan is Whaling, yet there is no mention, It is a major international relations issue with Australia at least 58.6.99.191 (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Major overhual

This article was in really bad shape considering how it was a few months ago [1] so I took the liberty of restoring many of the older pictures and moving things around a bit to make it look more like the featured article it is. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You need not do such an unnecessary thing. Please do not delete the effort of our edit. --Tyangarin (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with my edits Tyangarin, all I did was restore some of pictures from a few months back to bring the article back to it's former quality. If you look at the article the way I edited it and the way it is now you would clearly see that it is a major improvement and very similar to the way the article looked when it became a featured article. I would also like to add that perhaps the reason Tyangarin is against anybody making changes to the layout is because he/she was the main person that changed the article's layout from what it used to be. Also Tyangarin accuses me of vandalism, which is not true because I made legitimate edits and any logical person could see that my edits were/are not vandalism. Tyangarin is the vandal in this case because he/she reverted legitimate edits that greatly improved the article for absolutely no reason other than "You need not do such an unnecessary thing. Please do not delete the effort of our edit.". I would like to point out that my edits were not unnecessary and that the only thing that was unnecessary was you reverting my edits. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Also I would like to point out that Tyangarin is not a responsible nor logical editor at all, for example his reason for removing the picture of the Atomic bombing of Nagasaki was "But it is a negative image and tragic affair to Japan. I don't like bad matter". Also he left me a baseless vandalism warning and said "Please do not reedit Japan any further" along with this warning [2] and he was even warned by another user about this inappropriate comment [3]. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Also I would like to mention that I have not yet violated the WP:3RR rule as I have only reverted twice, Tyangarin has reverted my edits three times. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh last but not least, User:Souso maybe be Tyangarin because he/she reverted User:Rewster's revert of Tyangarin's vandalism. If this is the case (I'm only speculating) then that would mean Tyangarin violated WP:3RR and needs to be delt with accordingly. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you also accuse Tyangarin of being a vandal. In my opinion, you two are doing exactly same things. If your edit were supported by others, your revision would've remained but it is not true. You say your edit is legitimate edit but the current article is accumulated by community. Other can say your trying to restore old version with your POV. You and Tyangarin didn't violate 3RR yet, but both reverted 3 times. Adding old version is certainly considered as a "revert". --Appletrees (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add an old version, I added pictures from an old version and made a similar layout but I did not revert to an old version so technically I can revert one more time. Also I do accuse Tyangarin because he/she didn't give a very valid reason for reverting my edits. I implore you, look at my edits and then look at the way the article is now tell me which one is better? The current version is cluttered, poorly laid out, and the pictures don't really match each other so the page doesn't look very uniform. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll make it even easier for you, here is my version [4]. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, 3RR defines a revert as undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. So even if you are not doing a full revert it can count as one for the purpose of 3RR. Please remember that 3 reverts in 24 hours is a guideline and not a right - you can be blocked for 3 reverts in 24 hours.

I suggest you two guys start a RfC on the photographs. We need to decide how many we need in each section and what they should be. John Smith's (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I just re-edited the article, but I did not revert any work done since my last edits because I edited everything individually. Now before anybody goes and reverts my edits let me ask you all something, do you think it looks better? This is a featured article and the way it looked does not look the way a featured article should. The way I edited it is similar to how the article looked when it became a featured article, so ask yourselves if you think it looks better now or how it was before I edited it before you go and revert my edits. If you do revert my edits, well then oh well the article will look bad and it wouldn't be my problem. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for creating this,and for all the time an effort you have put into this. It helped me a lot, i would love to go to Japan! thanks Gab T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.151.121 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Warring

Please discuss the current edit warring on this page and talk about your differences instead of continually reverting each others edits. This is what the talk page is for. Ben W Bell talk 15:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Tourism in Japan

SilkTork added a proposal to Tourism in Japan suggesting merging that article into Japan. _{This poll is suggested by Fg2}

• Oppose The article on Japan is already too long, and Tourism in Japan is a valid daughter article. Fg2 (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree it is already too long, but I suggest that the article Tourism in Japan be expanded. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Fg2. John Smith's (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Several months ago, we toiled to get this article's size reduced. There is no sense in reversing that effort now. Neier (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per everyone, but I think keeping the section at this article is useful for readers to access to the whole Tourism in Japan article.--Appletrees (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per fg2. --moof (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Fg2. Showers (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Fg2. Oda Mari (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Japan article is too long as it stands, though I agree the Tourism article could be expanded considerably. Ben W Bell talk 17:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Overfishing

I've added the brief paragraph on overfishing back into the article, with a few links to related NY Times articles. I read an article some years ago speaking directly about the threat of Japanese fishing fleets to particular species all around the world; it even included a map (e.g. salmon off the eastern coast of Canada & New England, octopus in the Mediterranean, certain kinds of shellfish in X place, certain kinds of tuna in Y place). Unfortunately, that article has not come up in a simple search within nytimes.com (my search terms were "japan overfishing"). To be honest, I'm not 100% positive that the article I have in mind came from the Times...

I realize that the "I think I read it somewhere sometime" argument is a really poor one, but this is a genuine problem, referred to in countless articles, even if not addressed exclusively and discussed in detail by any I can find right now. I invite my fellow scholars of Japanese studies to apply your own knowledge, both of the subject itself and of sources which can be used as reliable references, to expand upon this subject, rather than simply deleting it out of hand.

Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're going about it the wrong way. You should have made a request for the addition whilst doing your own research, instead of throwing something in. Yes, "I think I read it somewhere" is not good enough - especially when you insert very strongly worded material without properly formatted citations that don't even support the points made.

If someone wants to add some proper sources (formatted please!!) and tidy up the paragraph to make it more impartial (are there really no people in authority that would question the very wide-sweeping statements made?), great. But it should be sorted out here on the talk page and then added through consensus. I'll remove the paragraph if the necessary work isn't carried out in the next week or so. This is an FA article, and we shouldn't have poor material like that in at all. John Smith's (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, let's just remove it and not cover the topic at all. After all, nothing is better than something, right? If I had the time, the inclination, and the resources to do serious research and come up with an excellently written and excellently referenced paragraph on the subject, I'd agree with your tactic completely. But, unfortunately, I do not. I was simply looking to add a bit to make an already Featured article a tad more thorough. LordAmeth (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I would say that it is better to not include something with a FA article if it isn't at a FA standard. It's very easy to discuss and improve it on the talk page - there's no need to dump something half-finished in. John Smith's (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to remove the paragraph. I rather should have moved it to here and then discussed. Since this article has archived FA, I think the changes should be based on the reflection of improvements of the sub articles. This way will help the consistency of the articles yet improving sub topics simultaneously. Current Environmental protection in Japan article is really poor and needs improvement. I hope WP:JP hosts (monthly) improvement drive of these sub topics in this article.

My another comment on the paragraph is if we add description about overfishing, Japan should be prominently written in the related articles such as fishery. The current global concern is that the world would run out of wild-caught seafood by 2048. The major fishery countries are PRC, Peru, Japan, the United States, Chile, Indonesia, Russia, India, Thailand, Norway and Iceland, and PRC's fishery is still quickly growing.

I completely agree with LordAmeth that Japan is not "green" and I am also tempted to add something to support the feeling (to prevent misleading), but we should first summarize the environmental problems or impacts of Japan in the related articles or cite using some articles based on the global statistics rather than specific aspects.--Jjok (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see. Editing the various sub-articles (e.g. Environmental protection in Japan) and other related articles like overfishing and fishery, and then drawing upon that to alter this one... I like that plan. That makes sense. Thanks all, for having a well thought through plan, for being organized, and for not jumping down my throat. If/when I ever happen upon a particularly relevant (i.e. useful) article, I shall make the appropriate changes to the sub-articles and such. LordAmeth (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Japnses have over fished there waters to long. The have destroyed the fish around the island. Also they dump huge amontes of wastes in to the water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.52.94 (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Education

Under the education heading it states that Japanese 15-year-olds are ranked 6th in knowledge skills by some global survey conducted. If you follow the link and look at the statistic they are in fact only rated 6th in Science, not in mathematics and reading. The article should be changed to reflect this and remove the bias shown in 'knowledge'. If children was struggling with a subject, they would stay at school till very late until they mastered the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.35.71 (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Japanese school uniform from Main template

Here is the reason I removed Japanese school uniform from the {{Main}} template. That article is a subsidiary article rather than a main article. It's already in Main template in a section of the article Education in Japan. That's a better place for it. Fg2 (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - good call. John Smith's (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Japan gun politics

Over at the article Gun politics#Japan the sourcing comes from an article written by a well known USA gun rights activist. I am curious if there is a Japan expert source available to use to source this section. What is a neutral and reliably sourced description of 'gun politics' in Japan? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[5] could provide some hints. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Profess to believe"

As far as I know, most Japanese consider themselves non-religious. The high estimates of 80-95% come from people having ties with a specific temple. My source is adherents.com. Also, the sources for the 85-90% amount of Japanese Buddhists and Shintoists don't say "profess to believe", they say follow. There's a big difference. I'll change it now. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with a lot of what you posted, as it smacks of original research. You may believe it is correct, but it's not what we do here. Furthermore you are relying on one source, which is of questionable reliability. And you stuck unformatted citations in, which is not helpful. John Smith's (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it smacks of original research or not, and regardless of the fact that he's relying on a single (and non-academic/professional) source, he's right. Though I too do not have a proper source to cite from, I have heard time and again in Japanese religion and society classes that while the vast majority of Japanese are formally registered with a Buddhist temple, and will acknowledge connections to both Shinto and Buddhism when asked, the same people are to a great extent quite wary of the idea of being "religious" and will deny that they themselves truly believe, or are "religious". LordAmeth (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Being "right" isn't enough. You need good sources and the comments phrased in a non-OR way.

It's thinking that "X is right so it can stay in" that kept the article from getting FA status. If we go down this road the page will lose it as soon as someone applies for a review. John Smith's (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put it in as absolute truth, I used words like "it is possible". I even left in the other statistics... 60.240.85.65 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but "it is possible" is original research - that is forbidden on the project. We deal with facts or opinions expressed by experts/notable commentators in newspapers, journals, etc. For more information I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:No original research so you can understand the policy. John Smith's (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess we just have different attitudes on this. I see an accurate statement that's uncited, and I think, "someone should really find a citation for that." You see the same statement and think "let's delete it." ... I'd like to say "let's just agree to disagree", but that doesn't exactly solve anything, does it? LordAmeth (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything had to be deleted - please do not misrepresent my views. I said that it was original research. OR is forbidden - period. It needs to be re-written and properly cited post-haste. It can't stay up there for weeks on end in the hope someone might sort it out. If you and Saimsudan want to keep it, edit it so it complies with the rules. Otherwise it may well end up getting deleted. John Smith's (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Whatever. I changed the wording, removing the words "it is possible" so as to sound less like OR. As that sentence indicates that a great many people are associated with temples but are not true believers, I would like to add a brief explanation, giving context for why that is the case. But, as I don't have any sources that say that outright in so many words, and I thus can't directly back it up with citations, I fear that I will be accused of original research. What do you say? Shall we add some context, so that the section makes better sense? Or shall we leave it out, because explaining it would constitute original research? (I'm not trying to be sarcastic; I'm sincerely asking your opinion, Mr Smith's, as I'm not sure what would be best to do.) Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ameth, it isn't really any better. For one thing citation 75 does not mention syncretism, so we should stick to mentioning the figures. The "adherents.com" sources are not reliable enough, because there is no evidence of where the data is coming from, nor does it go into enough detail. The website doesn't even properly explain where it gets its sources/citations from. You also can't assert facts with just one questionable source - you need at least a couple so you can pick 2+ for verification.

I would say that it is better to leave it out until better sources can be produced. There is no reason why you, Saimdusan or someone else can't work on something elsewhere and then present it here for discussion when ready. I am quite sure that if this is left in little will be done to sort it out, because that's precisely what happened in the past here. I won't remove it now, but some serious work needs to be done over the next week to justify it staying. Those who want to keep the section can make the time to find the relevant information. If they can't find anything/can't be bothered then they have no reason to complain next week if I or someone else puts things back as they were. John Smith's (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User Saimdusan is right. These are not good sources though, please take a look. [6] [7] Oda Mari (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it has been a week and a half since the discussion ended. Guys, if you want to keep this bit you need to show some attention to it - otherwise I'll pull the material. You can play around with it in a sandbox to get it right and then bring it back here later. John Smith's (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the relevant statements are right there in the sources already cited.

The difference is that in those European countries, those people are at least nominally adherents of the religion that claims them. "Nominally" here means if asked their religion, they can recall the name of the church they were baptized into as an infant, and don't mind citing that as their religious preference. In Japan, the majority of adherents of Shinto, as claimed by the Shinto organizations, don't even consider themselves adherents, even nominally. In polls, only about 3.3% of the Japanese people give Shinto as their religion. A high world-wide figure for people who consider themselves primarily practitioners of Shinto would be about 4 million. Certainly most Japanese people participate in holidays which have Shinto roots, but in this list we are trying to track self-identification, not general vestigial influence. Also, the strongest active religions which have Shinto roots (such as Tenrikyo) no longer claim to be "branches" of Shinto, and can be listed separately.[8]

Estimates of the percentage of Japanese who are Buddhist vary widely. Perhaps 85% of the population will cite Buddhism is asked what their preferred religion is, but 75% of the population claim to be nonreligious -- to practice and believe in no religion. Frequently seen high figures of 85% or 90% of Japanese being Buddhist come primarily from birth records, following a longstanding practice of family lines being officially associated with a local Buddhist temple. Japan has a large and thriving Buddhist community, but surveys indicate it to be closer to 20% of the population. Certainly there are high numbers of nominal Buddhism and secularism in other countries on this list, but not as pervasively as in Japan.[9]

Believe me, if I had other sources, I'd cite from them as extensively as I needed to in order to convince you. But I don't exactly own an extensive private library, and I don't have access to any university library or the like. I'm sorry if you don't like the adherents.com website, but for now it's what we have. It's not the greatest, but it's what we have.

In any case, this shouldn't be about trying to convince you - it's not your call whether or not a source is good enough. When someone finds better sources, more sources, we can go into more detail, and cite it more professionally, more solidly. But for now, the statement is not lacking a citation. Shall we hold a vote to see what others think, if the statement should be kept? LordAmeth (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but if you want a straw poll to see where people stand, go ahead. However, having a source is not enough - it needs to be reliable and verifiable. And I have been given zero reason to believe that is a credible source. Also not having better sources is not a valid excuse for keeping something poor instead. If what you have is sub-standard then it can be pulled. John Smith's (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(a) It's not my sentence, nor is my source. (b) Who made you in charge of what is and is not a credible source? You blame me for not having good enough sources for your personal standards, but I haven't seen you make the slightest effort to find better sources yourself. The goal here should not be to simply criticize others and shoot others down, but to improve the article. Improving the article means adding, and keeping, important, relevant and accurate information, and finding credible, reliable, verifiable sources to back that up. It does not mean simply criticizing others for not having said sources at their fingertips, and removing any information you don't like.

And can you please format new citations. Use the templates - that's what they're for. John Smith's (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not a novice editor. I used the "ref" tags as I always do, and formatted the citation best I could, given what information was readily available about the document - author, then name of the article, website name & address, and accessed date. I have been editing on here for a long time, and citing quite frequently, and I have no idea what templates you are referring to. LordAmeth (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

He's probably referring to the templates in the Category:Citation templates, which has I think at least one for every kind of source. I noticed the question about the sources for the religion section elsewhere. Can anyone give me a clearer idea which specific sources and statements are considered most contentious? John Carter (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The contentious text and sources are in the demographics section.

representing a large number of believers in a syncretism of both religions

As far as I can see, neither source mentions syncretism so it is inappropriate to have the text there. I note further down the page it says religion in Japan tends to be syncretic in nature so there is no need to have the duplication earlier on.

However, these estimates are based on people with an association with a temple, rather than the number of people truly following the religion.

Although I don't question the source cited there, I can't see the direct relation between it and the figures that the text follows. It would be better to say something like "Robert Kisala has commented that figures for blaa-blaa often blaa-blaa" - if someone can identify the appropriate page number. There is a better version (more official) of the article on google books that we should use instead of the current link.

This means that the amount of Buddhists in Japan could be as low as 20%, and Shintoists as low as 3.3% if one were to go by the amount of people formally self-identifying as adherents to those religions. This would mean those who identify themselves as non-religious would be as high as 75%

This is only cited by a website called "adherents.com", which as I have said does not appear to be a good source. It does not explain how it compiles its figures properly, and the advertising on every page does make me wonder how professional it is. Ameth's justification is that "it's all we've got" or some such is not sufficient per wikipedia standards. As they say, "truth" is trumped by verifiability. John Smith's (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with you on that last bit - if you don't trust the source for specific statistics, I won't argue with you on that. My only argument is that the fundamental idea behind the section - the paradox that shrines and temples count nearly everyone as devotees, while the vast majority of people deny being religious. We can eliminate the numbers, the statistics entirely if it'll make you happy. But I think that expressing this fundamental aspect of the current state of religion in Japan is important.

As for identifying the exact page number of the Kisala article - thank you very much for finding it on Google Books - most of the crucial elements are spelled out quite clearly on pages 3-4. "Religion in Japan is marked by almost universal participation in certain rites and customs but low levels of self-acknowledged affiliations to a religious group." He then provides statistics - 90% make annual visits to their ancestors' graves, 75% have either a Shinto or Buddhist altar in the home, 30% identify themselves as belonging to a religion. "- this despite the fact that the religions themselves claim an overall total membership that approaches twice the actual population of 126 million. This is mainly due to the fact that much of the population is automatically counted as parishioners of both the local Shinto shrine and the ancestral Buddhist temple."

That pretty much covers everything I wanted to see included in the article. I hope that this source, by a professor at Nanzan University, meets with your approval, and I thank you again for making the effort to help find it. I don't know why I didn't think to look at Google Books; I was just using regular Google searches in the hopes of coming up with something worthwhile that didn't require a JSTOR password.LordAmeth (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into re-writing the section slightly and tweaking the sources at a later date. I will, however, bring any proposals to the talk page first to see if there is any opposition. John Smith's (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In the end I didn't make a re-write, just adjusted the source into a proper format using the citation template - also gave some info on the author as I don't think he's important enough for a decent article.

Also I have re-sized a picture so that it fits in with others and removed a lot of changes made by User:Cvcc. We've been told in the past that sub-sections are a big no-no for FA articles so I have removed them accordingly. If someone wants to create a full section on transportation or the like I might not object - providing we discuss it here first with full citations. Cvcc unsurprisingly threw in a lot of unsourced text with some pretty pictures. Yes, it looks nice but doesn't help someone who wants to learn concrete facts. Remember, Wikipedia isn't about "truth" it's about verifiability. And it just creates huge amounts of work for editors like me if others dump text in and expect someone to clear up after them. John Smith's (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Many people know about shinkansen. Shinkansen system are adopted in UK, China and Taiwan. And we can find many Japanese food restaurant even in New York. Now Japanese food is very popular in the world. Especially Sushi is very famous. so I have some suggestions. How about (1)Make section of Infrastructure. (2)Make section of Cuisine. --Cvcc (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it might help if you start a new topic/section here to discuss it. Second, I would agree with a section on transport and infrastructure. Third, we could add to the section on culture for food.

Remember - keep it brief, no sub-sections and always provide citations. The Wikipedia:Citation_templates page will show you how to provide detailed, formatted citations. John Smith's (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree with this version. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 23:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese in Taiwan

Was Taiwan colonisied after japanese conquest? How many japanese migrated to there? What happened with that population after WWII? Is there still any Japanese (apart from tourist and recent expatriates) in the island today?. Rocha 201.6.91.122 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

i like japan if u must know that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.111.68 (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we must not know that. I don't, but I still want WK's Japan article to be the most accurate, authoritative, encyclopedic source about it on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.149.243 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

kuril islands

why are they on the japanese map? its a russian territory right now (a disputed territory, but formally its still russian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.193.220 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

They occasionally appear on the map because someone very stubborn keeps reverting the image on Commons. Guinness man (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a remark on your choice of words. The Kuril Islands are de facto a russian territory, however formally it is disputed.Taketa (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Both Takeshima and the Kurils are claimed, so why should Takeshima appear as claimed on the map, but not the Kurils? Amathev —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC).

Christian spamlinks

I have removed Christian spamlinks (see it) because it was totally extreme evangelical websites! I will invite someone to judge it soon!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a tiny bit excessive and unnecessary, but spam? This appears to have been done in good faith. Besides, you deleted a lot more than the one sentence in question. LordAmeth (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LordAmeth that Angelo deleted to much. One line about Charles Aiken and the Catholic Encyclopedia may be deleted, because that is sourced by an irrelevant and non-academic publication. --Jeroenvrp (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

AGree with above. Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 07:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Where to include language

There is a paragraph on language in the Demographics section. Although it begins with demographics, the paragraph is primarily about the language. Should we move it to Culture or create a new section for it? Or trim it down to demographics since the language itself is covered extensively in the daughter article? Fg2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced clause

In the sentence ending "precipitating the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945), after which the United States placed an oil embargo on Japan," the final clause is misplaced. The embargo was in response to the invasions, not the subsequent war. The sentence is not likely to be misunderstood but it has a jarring effect. Rewrite by breaking out a separate sentence: "In response to the invasion, the United States..." Ishboyfay (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Japans most popular religion is both Buddhism and Shinto.

You can only have one "most." Look up "most" in the dictionary. 75.30.68.33 (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you read the article, you'd see that syncretism is the rule in Japan. People tend to be both Buddhist and Shinto, a combination, a melding of the two, so it's perfectly accurate, and grammatical, to say that most people are Buddhist and Shinto. LordAmeth (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Japans most popular religion is both Buddhism and Shinto.

Japans most popular religion is both Buddhism and Shinto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.126.218 (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes... the article already says that. They are indeed the two most popular religions. However, non-religion is much larger. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In the article there is an information that "A minority (2,595,397, or 1.2%) profess to Christianity." Well that is curious, because if we assume that 2,595,397 of people is 1.2% of japanese population, then the number of population of Japan would be 211 milion. As far as I know, and it also stated in the article, the population of Japan is around 127 milion, so 2.595 milion of Japanese gives us 2.04 percent of the whole population. In the source [10] we have cumulative number of all religious affiliations, but it doesn't tells us about percentage of population, only about percentage of religious declarations. 107,247,522 of Shintoist doesn't gives us a 50.8% of Japanese population, which is in fact 84.2% of it, but only percentage of all affiliations, where there can be few of them for every person, as the source suggests. Ammon86 (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nippon?

What I would like to see addressed in this article is why we call Japan by that name while the name they use in that country is Nippon. The article for Nippon is only a disambiguation page and doesn't shed light on the subject. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hidden, but there is a link: in the article, click the words "Japan's name" in the first paragraph to go to the article Names of Japan. That has a discussion of the name "Japan" and how we came to use it. Fg2 (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

% versus "per cent"

Please keep the former as it is used throughout the article. From a MOS POV we should keep to one, rather than mix them in. As we used the former first it should be like that, unless there is consensus to change it. John Smith's (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it should never be "per cent". In writing, "percent" should generally be used instead of the % symbol. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Should there not be an "etymology" section in this article? There are many other country/(sub)continent articles with one in them, so it makes sense, I believe, to have one here as well. Additionaly, I have always wondered why we (English) have called Japan "Japan". 98.27.163.188 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead section addresses the topic briefly. More information is available in another article. Please see the section Nippon? in this Talk page. There's a link to a longer article on the subject of the name. Fg2 (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a section, though I think it needs a bit more sourcing (the Names of Japan article doesn't have a lot of sourcing in the parts I grabbed). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional Information

I was reading the article on South Korea and realised that a lot is said about its economy in the very beginning of the article. Then I clicked on Japan's link and saw that only a little is mentioned about its economy and industry, many facts being omitted. Please include information such as Japan being the top first car manufacturing country in the world (http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/all-vehicles.pdf)and that among the top 20 car makers in the world, 7 are Japanese, including the top first Toyota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automaker). Also, it would be relevant to cite the fact that Japan has the most advanced robotic industry and is a leader in electronics, semiconductors and videogame industries.

Out of date fact

I found an old fact: "although the conservatives are seeking to amend the Constitution via a referendum" (Japan#Foreign relations and military). It's out of date I think, because the reference for this fact talks about ex-premier's plans which wasn't realised - Japan remains pacifist country. So I think that fact and an appropriate reference should be deleted. --Visconsus (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hip-hop et al

I see that someone snuck in some material on hip-hop a while ago. Although it wasn't too badly drafted there was too much on it - if anything is to be included it should be a one-line comment that hip-hop also has a scene in Japan or something. Also I was concerned over the reliability of the sources - one was rather strange (what is " transition No.73, 1997"?). Really we need newspapers and the like, not private websites with unknown reliability.

I'm not sure what the relevance of "deep tanning" or whatever is for this article - it shouldn't be about strange things some young people do.

On a side-note, do we even need the "see also" section? It has one article in it, which I think is not that important for the article. John Smith's (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Permanent Link

As I was navigating off this page, I accidently licked "permanent link". I don't know what this so would anyone be able to help me reverse what I did? 71.194.63.161 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't change the article, so there's no need to reverse it. What it does is show you the latest version of the article, but with a URL that you can link to if you always want to go to that version (not later changes). (The article text will be the same, but some other things may change, like photos and templates.) Thanks for asking. Fg2 (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

someone has decided to take it upon themselves to express their belief that japaneese are rapists in the first sentence of the history section. someone want to correct this? 71.120.37.153 (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In this article under the history section it reads JAPANESE ARE RAPISTS!!!! Can someone change it? It's just plain immature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.92.166 (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

GDP?

Just a question. I'm not an economist, however, the GDP (ppp) equals the GDP (nominal), whereas the GDP (ppp) per capita does not equal the GDP (nominal) per capita. Why is there a difference? Taketa (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

vandalism??

Someone is changing my change: Edo present day Tokyo. I am just verifying that Edo is another name for Tokyo.--Mozillaman425 (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Edo is the old name for Tokyo. You did not write that. You wrote that the capital of Japan is Edo. That is factually incorrect. Fg2 (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And the fact it used to be called Edo is irrelevant, it hasn't been in living memory. Relevant to the Tokyo article definitely, the general Japan one no. Canterbury Tail talk 00:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

2.Vandalism??

"Education and health" and the rest of the article has no text but instead a grey-shaded area.Should be reverted.Bornsommer (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Seal of Japan

Isn't the "Go-Shichi no Kiri" also the official seal of Japan also the seal is on Japanese version of the Japan.

The article in japanese: 桐紋

68.190.224.129 (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

Government Seal Paulownia (五七桐, Go-Shichi no Kiri)

Shinkansen Fan (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect caption on the atomic bomb photo

The atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, not Nagasaki. A plutonium bomb was dropped and detonated at Nagasaki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.74.218 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a uranium bomb. Both the uranium bomb and the plutonium bomb were fission bombs, aka atomic bombs. Please read this. Oda Mari (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Population density outdated

The population density is outdated - should be 32nd, 339 people per sq/km (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.145.81 (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British (contains proposal for deletion of the Japanese British article). Badagnani (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Economy photos

I feel the stock exchange photo is important as it informs the reader of the importance of the Tokyo stock exchange and the 2 other photos, 1 of which is a Toyota Prius and the other is the Sony PS3 inform the reader of Japan's 2 main types of export, cars and electronics, and exports are important to the Japanese economy. Usergreatpower (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Government debt

I feel there should be some mention of the 100% of GNP government debt. Surely this is of great importance to the economy of Japan? We need a knowledgeable person to fill the Economy section in. 217.76.87.120 (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Infrastructure: Toll Roads

toll-collecting enterprises is linked to "Road toll", this is wrong, it talks about victims on roads "death toll" and not the tax variant as suggested in the Japan article. It should be linked to Toll road

Jvlekken (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out. fixed. Oda Mari (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Economy section

this section was created by copying from [11] discussing about this revert

Japan has used its wealth to improve the world - Japan has donated $662,675,039 to the UN Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculous and Malaria. This a stark difference from Japan's neighbors South Korea (with a mere 4 million dollars) and a slightly more generous China (10 million dollars).

I spent quite some time researching Japans financial donations to the world...the info comes directly from the U.N. Website. What is wrong? --Jjk82 (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The caption says "1 (a) Many pledges are subject to budgetary and/or parliamentary approval." thus they are official aids and suitable for Foreign relations/policy rather than economy section. First of all, the description should be added/consistent with other articles such as Foreign relations of Japan, Japan and the United Nations, International economic cooperation policy of Japan, Health_care_in_Japan#AIDS, and The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This article is a brief summary of those numerous related articles and not a place to add texts without discussing/evaluating the notability.--Jjok (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Japanese contribution is less than other countries such as France ($1,164,969,352), Germany ($1,295,447,426), Italy ($821,370,672), United Kingdom ($668,562,678), and United States ($2,539,614,487). Thus, Japan does not seem a very significant contributor to the Global Fund so far. It is even not worth of comparing with SK and China. At least, the significance should be discussed in Global Fund article first.--Jjok (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

The data of "Per Capita GDP" should be updated, and it should be by nominal not by PPP. PPP tend to underrate Russia, Asia, Africa.--Kaleidoscorpion (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a contradiction between the economic growth figures quoted for the 40 years before the 90's recession. In the final paragraph of the history section it states that average growth was 10% for all for all four decades - in the economy section it states it was 10% in the 60's, 5% in the 70's and 4% in the 80's. I am not very computer literate but i thought i would point this out. NK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.17.136 (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Earthquakes

We should mention that Japan is prone to earthquakes... big ones! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.53.181.70 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Which section should that go in? Fg2 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How about Environment? WalukHailey (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon

Pokémon

Maybe we should say something about the origin of pokemon in Japan? pokemon. whoop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.214.66 (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

--Drock493 (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

anime

che pa algun gringo que sepa español: podrian poner algo sobre anime en este aticulo de japon? no se ortiven che El que siembra (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This says something to the effect of, "To any foreigner who speaks Spanish: Could you put anything about anime in this article about Japan". Not sure what "no se ortiven che" means. The whole thing is written in some sort of slang Spanish. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Needs more information

This article is great, but it needs more information about its culture, entertainment, etc. . There is more to Japan than this article states. I recommend you should post topics about Japan's influence on the gaming culture, its anime, and many other things. I haven't seen anything about manga which is a big thing there and around the world.Whosthere96 (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section

In the Etymology section it reads:

Before Japan had relations with China, it was known as Yamato and Hi no moto, which means "source of the sun".

I suggest adding kanji to the names Yamato and Hi no moto, and maybe even spell moto with a capital "M". Also, I think which means to be vague, as it suggests Yamato to mean "source of the sun" too. I suggest replacing which means with the latter meaning. An example of the discussed sentence after suggested changes:

Before Japan had relations with China, it was known as Yamato (大和) and Hi no Moto (日の本), the latter meaning "source of the sun".

Spencer.vdm (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Am I the only one to see contradiction in Etymology section? First it says that origin of the 日本 name were contacts with the Chinese. And in the next sentence that before them Japan was called hinomoto which is also 日本. I would also refrain from spelling hinomoto with 日の本 without a source since particles in proper names tend to be omitted or differently expressed. Current source don't mention this spelling (it is very weak anyway - semi anonymous internet forum post). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.50.220 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is a mess.

I would like to propose that I completely rewrite it, from scratch. It may take a little while, but I am confident I can make a much better article on Japan. Can someone please unprotect it so I can do so? Thanks in advance. 98.208.65.56 (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to try and improve certain parts of the article rather than attempt an entire rewrite. It would probably be a good idea to register and get an account then you could use the WP:User page or Sandbox to make a draft and allow others to see what big changes you want to make and then they could give feedback before changing the page. If you register you will be able to edit this page and others after a period of 4 days. Also the article is currently a featured article so major changes you should done with caution. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it may be featured, but honestly, I think I'm more intelligent than the people that wrote it. You forget, that something that seems excellent in the eyes of a normal person, is still far below my own capacity. I've gained a great reputation on this wiki, and watched it since its younger days. Yes, when articles were lost, and hopeless, with nowhere to turn, it was the kindness of 98.208.65.56 that saved them. I think I can save this article too. Just put a little bit of faith in me. I promise, you won't regret it. 98.208.65.56 (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Um according to your contributions you only started editing in December and have made five edits to articles, four of them vandalism. I'm afraid it cannot be unprotected so you can edit it, it's hard to assume good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 15:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Still, we are always interested in improving articles. Please tell us what is wrong with it and how to improve it. Fg2 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

;_; Contribution histories can be misleading you know... 98.208.65.56 (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No they can't, Wikipedia logs everything. Canterbury Tail talk 14:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"According to your contributions you only started editing in December and have made five edits to articles, four of them vandalism."Fail. -69.124.62.145 (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this still protected? Do you not realize that I've asked for it to be de-protected? What's taking so long? 98.208.65.56 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We're not unprotecting an article for a vandalism editor. Thanks for the reminder though, I check your history again and you're still vandalising articles so you've been temporarily blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 15:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are mean. 98.208.65.56 (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally don't see the point of having someone who doesn't have a freaking account to edit the pages.Many articles were vandalised - including the one on Singapore.LiSiaoGirl (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not by me. 98.208.65.56 (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Official language

No law defining the official languages.[1] Japanese and English are widely known and/or spoken.

Putting English on the same level as Japanese is just ludicrous. A country doesn't need a law to make its language the official one, many countries have a de facto official languages (that is, the language used by the government, the main language of education and communication etc.). And there's no doubt the de facto language of Japan is Japanese. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's wrong to imply Japanese and English are somehow comparable. Many people speak a bit of English, but fluency in Japanese is far, far more common. John Smith's (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

US troop withdrawal from Japan?

At about 0400 UTC today, CNN had a breaking news article about US Secretary of State Clinton announcing a bi-lateral agreement concerning, among other things, a US troop withdrawl from Japan. CNN said that the U.S. troop strength was 20,000. Does anyone know where a report, Wiki or otherwise, would be? This is an important move on the part of the governments of Japan and the U.S.--TGC55 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There's this Kyodo story: http://home.kyodo.co.jp/modules/fstStory/index.php?storyid=424060 It states "After their talks, Clinton and Nakasone will sign a new accord on relocating 8,000 U.S. Marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam. It will commit both sides to realizing an earlier agreed-on road map by 2014, including stipulating Japan's share of the financial cost." This has been under discussion for many years. The phrase "earlier agreed-on" indicates that it is not a surprise. If there's more than this, it might be an important move. Fg2 (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fg2 is right. As far as I know, it's misinformation. I don't know why, but I cannot see the linked page. See this one. Oda Mari (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The page is now in the subscription-only content. A summary is at http://home.kyodo.co.jp/modules/fstStory/index.php?storyid=424100. Fg2 (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you, Fg2. Oda Mari (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yomiuri article here. Govt in fix over Futenma air base / Must please both Okinawa Pref., U.S. over controversial relocation plans 　[12] This "agreement" is a point of contention between LDP and DPJ, as there's opposition to the planned relocation of Futenma Air Station to the coastal area of Camp Schwab in Nago. Shinkansen Fan (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Picking on the map here

I've just made a general case on the Village pump for a Maps minimum size standard based on the shortcomings of the map included in this article. Sorry, but the scaling needs to allow it to be read. // FrankB 20:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit this please

the music sections has this written in it. Please take out Laurence is gay etc. Japanese music is electric. Laurence is gay and us giving Krishna a blowjob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkingcobra (talk • contribs) 02:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the Cipangu redirection to Japan article

It has been proven that Cipangu is the Philippines not Japan.

http://sambali.blogspot.com/2005/02/voyage-to-cipangu.html

The map showing the alleged location of Cipangu as Japan attests that it's the Philippines. Cipangu is in the tropic of Cancer (Philippines is in here) but Japan is in the northern hemishphere. Japan is not Cipangu the Philippine is. So stop making Japan as Cipangu and continuing a historical mistake. Thank You

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

The Mandarin word for Japan as pronounced in South China is 'Ze-pen'; and in Min (Fujian) language is 'Jih-pun'. The Portuguese could have first heard these names during their trades with South China and not from the Malays (je-pun/ je-pang). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.92.139 (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Involvement in WWII

Why not explore Japanese involvement in the World War II in a little bit more detail? Japan started the war and that should be clearly noted in the article. WalukHailey (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought Germany started the WWII —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.220.64 (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Germany started it. -Sioraf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.92.20 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless you count the Japanese invasion of Manchuria as the start of WW2. --74.192.62.62 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Which many scholars do. Canterbury Tail talk 16:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not the Treaty of Versailles. Seriously, this isn't the place for detailed discussions of WWII or any other conflict. Leave it as is. John Smith's (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

With the "incident at the Marco-Polo-Brigde" on 7.7.1937, Japan invaded China and thereby started WWII. After that date there was permanent fighting till the capitulation of Japan in August 1945. TO count the September 1939 as the beginning of WWII is eurocentric, it would be useful to add this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.173.138 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If anything that event started the Second Sino-Japanese War more than anything else and that in a long series of Sino-Japanese conflicts that existed long before hand. At the end of the day like the many people above have stated there is more than one cause of WWII and focusing on a single one is highly debatable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

"From 1937 to 1941, China fought alone with limited foreign help. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the war merged into the greater conflict of World War II as a major front in the Pacific Theatre." OneiroPhobia (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup Needed

This article suffers from a plethora of unverifiable paragraphs and claims with no references. --Ublaszak (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Such as.....? John Smith's (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

most japanese people have black hair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.121.159 (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem with Wikipedia, of COURSE most Japanese people have black hair, it's so obvious no academic source will write about it. But because of this it gets hit with a citation needed. Can't Wiki come up with a new "common knowledge" or "bleedin' obvious" rule to avoid this? 86.159.19.171 (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In the common era, there are claims from China of the rape and violent inhuman assaults Japapanese soldiers had commited in world war 2. Modern Japanese unknown to this fact and claim that these events had not happen. China has crystal evidence to these events and photographs, but this is still unclaimed to Japan for all history of attacks in the WW2 has been not recorded all except ,pearl harbor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.213.7 (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh, more engrish rantings from people with very old axes to grind. For comparisons look up the Falklands or Slavs, then wish for a lot of Zyklon B and a stealth bomber. 86.159.19.171 (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Natural Disasters?

Could someone talk about natural disasters and put it into the article? I looked all over the web for info and could not find anything.

Sniper120 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Japan HDI

Japan’s HDI has been updated to “very high” to correspond with the Human Development Index as included in a United Nations Development Program's Human Development Report released on October 5, 2009, compiled on the basis of data from 2007.

As stated on the Human Development Index page, “countries fall into four broad categories based on their HDI: very high (added in the report for 2007), high (split in the same report), medium and low human development. Starting in the report for 2007, the first category is referred as developed countries, and the last three are all grouped in developing countries.

Some older groupings (high/medium/low income countries) have been removed that were based on the gross national income (GNI) in purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita, and have been replaced by another index based on the gross domestic product (GDP) in purchasing power parity per capita.”

In the report, countries that are assessed to be “developed countries” fall into the “very high” category of which Japan is a part. Japan’s HDI was initially changed to “very high”, but was once again changed from “very high” to “high” with absolutely no reason. I don’t understand how there is any room for debate about this. If this page is to be accurate, it should correspond with accurate information that should be free of bias. If the United Nations Development Program's Human Development Report has assessed Japan along with 37 other countries HDI to be “very high”, then this page and those pages should accurately represent that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Johnson (talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC) http://행정도시건설청.총판.kr

Tokyo 1890

Hello to evetybody. I'm writing an article about Tokyo in my native Wikipedia and now analyzing Tokyo's population (from the official site of the city). In 1890 there was a big decrease in population (-141 880 people). What happened then? This number is even bigger than after the earthquake in 1923. But I can't find this in the Internet. Maybe it concerns the war between China and Japan in 1894? SZ(谢尔盖) (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably because of the change of the administrative units and establishment of Tokyo City. See also History of Tokyo. Could you provide the official page you saw? Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The official page of the Metropolis Tokyo is [13]]SZ(谢尔盖) (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I know the official site. What I want to see is the exact page of population you were referring above. I tried, but the site was too large to find the past population page. Oda Mari (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, with the establishment of Tokyo City in 1889, they started to count only people in Tokyo City, excluding people living in other areas in Tokyo Fu/prefecture in 1890. Oda Mari (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is an xls-document. After having entered the site click Statistical Data and then Tokyo Statistical Yearbook and after that Population 2007. Then download the first Excel-book (Growth of Population)SZ(谢尔盖) (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I saw the Excel file. Hmm...sorry, but I have no idea. I try to find what happened that year. Maybe I'd call them and ask after the holidays next week. Oda Mari (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. I have a congecture. Since 1889 there was Tokyo-prefecture (東京府, Tokyo-Fu) and Tokyo-City (東京市, Tokyo-She). But in 1943, during World war II, Tokyo-prefecture and Tokyo-City were united and created Metropolis Tokyo (東京都). Am I right? (PS. Are you Japanese)? SZ(谢尔盖) (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Was there a change in boundaries? If some land was transferred to a neighboring prefecture such as Saitama or Kanagawa, the population would change. Fg2 (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am Japanese. According to this page, the population of 15 wards of Tokyo City was 1626103 in 1908, but the page you provided says the population was 2677500 in 1908. Therefore it's likely that the excel page shows the Tokyo Fu population. So probably the 1890 population on that page is the total population of Tokyo Fu too. It makes me puzzled more. As far as I know, nothing particular happened in the year. Oda Mari (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I called them and they said there was some calculating mistake the year before and they balanced the number in 1890. That is why the reason of the large decreased number. But they said the details are unknown. Remember, as mentioned on the top of the list in Japanese, they counted the number by koseki before 1920. So the population during that time is excluded those who were living in Tokyo but had no koseki and included those who were not living in Tokyo but had koseki in Tokyo . Therefore the number is not precise. Oda Mari (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. SZ(谢尔盖) (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis in Japan

• International Psychoanalytical Association, Japan Psychoanalytic Society, [14], [15]. I think it should be briefly mentioned. Where and how best?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.213.180 (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Difficult question. Japan has too many professional and academic societies to name in the article Japan, so we should look for a more specific article. Another approach would be to start an article on Psychoanalysis in Japan. If you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan you'll reach a lot of editors who may be able to suggest something appropriate. Best regards, Fg2 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A more specific article could be Psychoanalysis and Culture; there is a place for other countries, too, for example India.

Greetings, Austerlitz -- 88.75.213.180 (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Some famous people??

Some famous people from Japan?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohannaiw (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are quite a few. Anyone listed in Category:Japanese people (and its subcategories) are notable enough to have articles here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

6852 islands?

The Japanese Wiki version says there are 6852 islands [[16]]. Is this correct? Wakablogger (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's correct. At least Japan Coast Guard says so. See 海の相談室 豆知識(4) on this page. Oda Mari (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That article also says that there are 971 islands in Nagasaki Prefecture, 605 in Kagoshima Prefecture, and 508 in Hokkaidō. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Spam filter

Hello. I just tried to undo an accidental revert, but was unable to because it said it triggered the spam filter (rollback worked though). The link was to moneyweek, and as best I can tell, the reference that triggered it is reference #70. I'm not sure what exactly should be done about it, but I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. Cheers! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 22:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Official language

While browsing, I found Japan to make English as Official language, published in English edition of Yomiuri Shimbun, Date unknown. [17]--UserChiba (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, I think that was a April fool post. --UserChiba (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My laugh of the day. --Eugeniu Bmsg 22:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Mixed Martial Arts On Sports

Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is very popular in Japan. Many promotions such as Pride Fight Championships, Dream, and Sengoku have attracted crowds of 40,000+ and a paragraph about MMA should be included in the Japan article as Mixed Martial Arts are heavily tied into the Japanese culture and MMA has a substantial market over there. Besides baseball MMA to my knowledge is one of the largest sports over there and the article on Japan's sports is severely lacking without addressing this topic.

Hendo92 (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

City Populations

Why does Kyoto and Fukuoka have the exact number of people? Is it an error? 216.99.61.148 (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

http://행정도시건설청.총판.kr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.142.116.165 (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The populations are different but the table is repeating Kyoto’s population for Fukuoka. Some sort of software error. —Stephen (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not a software error. Someone had the formatting messed up in the template, so I fixed it. It should be displaying correctly now (you may need to clear your browser cache to see the corrected version). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nippon vs. Nihon

I thought that most Japanese use Nippon in conversation. Nihon is more feminine and is used, but rarely. Is there any clarification on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bird1455 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Recognized regional languages"

I was under the impression that "recognized regional languages" in the infobox template referred to legal recognition. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure none of these languages are recognized by Japanese law; if Ainu is I am almost certain Ryukyuan languages are not. If it's just there because they are regional languages, keep in mind that this is inconsistent with other country pages: the US page makes no mention of Spanish, (contrary to popular belief, it's not just an immigrant language, it has had a historical presence in much of the Southwest since before that became US territory), spoken by a much much larger percentage of the population than Ainu is in Japan, or any indigenous languages either. The page for Germany doesn't even mention Sorbian, even though it is legally recognized. I think that, unless the infobox text is changed from "Recognized regional languages" to just "Regional languages", the section should be removed from the Japan article. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right now it looks the like Ainu and the Ryukyuan languages have more legal recognition than Japanese itself. The country infobox has a pair of parameters, languages_type and languages, for types of languages other than official and recognized regional ones; however, these parameters are currently being used to indicate that Japanese is the national language. I'm not sure what the solution is, but this is definitely a problem. --Chris Johnson (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

about the item of “Education and health” in the article of “Japan”

The two top-ranking universities in Japan are the University of Tokyo and Keio University.[130]

Above is not the ranking about the level of the universities in japan but about the education for the students in universities. The two top-ranking universities in Japan are the University of Tokyo and Kyoto University in the former ranking. the sorce: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2009/results

Please correct the error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontsan (talk • contribs) 08:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I also think the part refered to ranking is wierd. The cited ranking (citation of 130) was made on the basis of the number of alumni listed among CEOs. However, according to ranking on the basis of the stringency of entry requirements (which is general view on ranking in Japan too), as well as the context of the sentences before, the University of Tokyo and Kyoto University would be top two.

Therefore, the possible correction would be, 'The two top-ranking universities in Japan are the University of Tokyo and Kyoto University.'

See; ‘Practical Information’ of University Rankings from World Education Services http://www.wes.org/eWENR/06aug/japan.htm#select —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milestone0911 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected. [18]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not refernces of Albanian influnce in Japan

Hello, I would like to say that Japan culture, language and people were affected a lot by Albanian culture many years ago, I know this because there are many Albanian texts who say that.

I inputed ctrl+F and wrote "Alban" in this article and did not found any results, I want this to change, I represent the Albanian race that has feeded many cultures (Greek, Roman, Turkish, Jewish, Japanese, South American).

Thank you and please change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.41.168 (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, some references for such a claim would be a start. Given the vast geographical seperation of Japan and Albania, the two-century long Japanese policy of sakoku, the extremely low Albanian population of Japan (<50, at the last count) and the fact that the Japanese and Albanian cultures bear (to my eye, at least) no discernable similarities, I'd say you have an uphill struggle ahead of you... Yunshui (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RS might help first. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Japan GDP 2008-2009 problem

According do this site (IMF) : http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2009&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=158&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=55&pr.y=16 Japan's GDP in 2009 will be $5,048.634 billions (it was $4,910.692 billions in 2008).

How is this possible ? We know that the Projected % Change of Japan's GDP for 2009 is -5,4% ! (http://www.imf.org/external/country/JPN/index.htm) --Zhonghuo (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

>>There is no problem. The $5,048.634 billions figure is nominal GDP in US dollars, while the rate you mentioned is the growth rate of REAL GDP in yen. These two indicators are not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.137.46.121 (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor issues (grammar, voc., etc.)

Japan's main export markets are the United States 22.8%, the European Union 14.5%, the China 14.3%

Cut 'the' for China! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.142.122.100 (talk)

Done. Next time, sign your posts please. Thanks, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Economy Section: Junichiro Koizumi administration commenced... edit: Junichiro Koizumi's administration

Infrastructure: As of 2005, one half of energy in Japan is produced from petroleum, a fifth from coal, and 14% from natural gas.[86] Nuclear power produces a quarter of Japan's electricity.[87]

This adds up to 109% resulting in -9% for renewable energies. Plus, the 2 sources talk about different years, so the whole implicit connection between the 2 statements should be sorted out.

219.142.122.100 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)小s

Meetup in Tokyo

How about planning a meetup between wiki users around Tokyo in late February 2010? --Saki ^talk 08:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made Wikipedia:Meetup/Tokyo for anyone who wants to try and coordinate a meetup. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Weird... Republic of Japan?!

Every time i search Republic of Japan it redericts to Japan. which is stange sinds Japan is an EMPIRE, yet Wikipedia redericts to Japan. Not that the article itself makes a reference to any republic, but i was/am searching for a fictional Republic, and not the real EMPIRE. --82.134.154.25 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

One, Wikipedia is not the place for fictional fluff. Two, Japan ceases to be an Empire since 1945, thanks to the discovery that high energy can be released from the fission of Uranium-235. I wouldn't call it an "Empire", today or last week. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dngkgkrh, 14 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the article, it is shown that Japan lies east of Sea of Japan and in the sub topic climate, it has also included the climate of the Sea of Japan. However i believe that the original name of the Sea of Japan is East Sea and which belongs to the territory of Republic of Korea. Currently there are controversies over this problem, however i strongly urge that a website such as wikipedia, which millions of people log in to, should contain proper informations. Currently the Japanese government are claiming the Korean island, Dokdo as their territory, Dakesima because of the natural resources under ground and the fishes. To earn this territory, they are advertising that the East Sea is no longer East Sea but Sea of Japan. Since Korea wasn't in the economic stability past few years, they were prolonged to take an action.

http://www.dokdocorea.com/ < this website has reasonable reasons that Dokdo is Korean island.

Dngkgkrh (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I would personally deny, but that's up to those resposible to decide. Denied. Please read Sea of Japan naming dispute and Liancourt Rocks dispute, and note that Wikipedia takes a neutral stance on both issues. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article protected because it's not that good?

Hmm the settlement of Japan by a group of peoples from the Korean peninsula in the third century BC is treated with such low key acknowledgement its belies disbelief. Overnight they transformed the stone-age culture of Japan into an agricultural and metal-working society. If it were not for the sustained emigration from Korea, there would be no modern day Japan.

But then the inherent bias to this fact can be read in this section reads:

The Yayoi period, starting around 500 BC, saw the introduction of many new practices, such as wet-rice farming,[16] a new style of pottery[17] and Metallurgy [18][19] brought by migrants from China and Korea.

The Japanese first appear in written history in China’s Book of Han. According to the Chinese Records of Three Kingdoms, the most powerful kingdom on the archipelago during the third century was called Yamataikoku.

Buddhism was first introduced to Japan from Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, but the subsequent development of Japanese Buddhism and Buddhist sculptures were primarily influenced by China.[20] Despite early resistance, Buddhism was promoted by the ruling class and eventually gained growing acceptance since the Asuka period.[21]

It continually gives the impression that some form of indigenous "Japanese" existed and they subsequently absorbed the immigrants, which is not the case at all. It reveals that the people who actually edit this article have absolutely no academic credentials. As they are resistant to the idea that Korea and China founded Japan. I see on other pages linking to Japanese culture whenever this point is raised phrases such "but others say" or "critics argue" etc muddy the issue. As a reader on the subject, the archaeological record, sic Yayio pottery found in Southern Korea is conclusive.

That Korean and Chinese entered Japan, took over its stone age culture and modernised the society is without question. As a result, they established new kingdoms in Honshu possibly through intermarriage with the local populations. From this article, it read though as if the indigenous "Japanese" absorbed the newcomers, learned new skills but carried on as a single society. But the early ruling elites were the immigrants who had overlordship over the pre Yayoi societies. The Chinese and Koreans are the founding fathers of Japan, its language and culture! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.57.116 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your fervent nationalistic rant. Article quality has nothing to do with an article being protected. There were several native groups in the Japanese archipelago when the Yamato people arrived, so your claims otherwise are false. The Emishi, Ainu, and Ryukyuan are the most well known groups which existed in the archipelago before the Yamato arrived, and their existence is supported by piles of research and evidence. The Ainu and Ryukuan peoples still exist, too, as separate groups today to some extent.

The classification of Japanese is also something on which linguists can not seem to agree, so your sweeping generalizations that all Japanese language and culture came from China and Korea is an extreme over-simplification. It is likely a combination of many different influences, just like any other culture on the planet. If you are here to help improve the article in a neutral manner, you are welcome to do so (and i recommend you create an account). However, if you are here only to spew nationalistic rhetoric, you are not welcome. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In the history section there is this strange sentence "The abundance of the prerogative and the resignation of the shogunate led to the Boshin War and the establishment of a centralized state unified under the name of the Emperor (Meiji Restoration)." What on earth is "abundance of the prerogative"? Sounds like a wrong translation of something that may have been meaningful in Japanese. Could someone please clarify. Thanks. dmward