Talk:Japanese people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Japanese population in People's Republic of China & Republic of China?

It says that in China, there is the 2nd largest number of Japanese residents. What are the numbers for residential Japanese? The chart just skips from Brazil to US (incorrect since there are more Japanese in the US than Brazil) I'm going to fix it and write than the US has a larger Japanese population than Brazil. I believe there are around 1-1.2 million Japanese living in China...

Okinawan ethnicity

Just because Okinawans do not consider themselves culturally Malay, it doesn't mean that they aren't related ethnically. In fact, the Japanese have closer linguistic relationships to the Turks than to the Chinese (grammatical structure). And ethnically, they are closer to Native Americans than to Chinese. All in all, the Japanese have ended up being ethnically distinct from just about everyone, except the San bushmen of Southern African. I don't know why, but there it is. -mhc

-Intranetusa- "And ethnically, they are closer to Native Americans than to Chinese. All in all, the Japanese have ended up being " Rofl, that's ridiculous. Okinawans are very much related to the Chinese, and the Chinese are related to the Japanese, Koreans, etc China is about 200 miles from Okinawa, American Indians live more 2000 miles away from Okinawa. Okinawans related more to Native Americans than Chinese/Japanese? RIDICULOUS! -Intranetusa

Okinawans may distinguish themselves from people in mainland Japan because they are ethnically closer to Malays.

Really? Currently I can't imagine an Okinawan native saying that they identify themselves as Malaysian more than as Japanese. China and Japan has had the greatest cultural influence on Okinawa, and the Okinawan and Japanese language used to be the same language, which is why Okinawan speech is also sometimes referred to as a dialect of Japanese. Maybe the author meant to say Okinawans are genetically closer to Malays? If they are indeed genetically closer to each other, does genetic proximity really influence one's core identity? For example, would an African American today whose generations have been in the United States since before 1776 identify themselves more as a member of a specific African tribe than as a US citizen, just because of their genetic closeness? --69.212.100.126 11:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I found the original edit that introduced this: it was on 00:29, 21 Feb 2004 by 207.245.58.40. The edits he/she made are... rather amusing. Most of what s/he has said didn't survive long. S/he has also made the claim that the Ainus are Caucasian :/. I think it's safe to for me to edit this line that she/he introduced. --69.212.100.126 11:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. A Cambridge History in Japan, vol.1: Ancient Japan says "The Jōmon people were once identified with the Ainu, now occupying parts of Hokkaido and often regarded as having northern caucasoid connections." (p. 79, emphasis mine). So I can sort of see some justification for that claim too. I admit I know very little about this, but it seems that it shouldn't be entirely dismissed out of hand. --Cohen the Bavarian 22:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, the same anonymous person. True, there have been a theory made in the past that Ainus come from a northern Caucasoid background but that theory was very speculative and it is now quite outdated. Recent investigations show Ainus have a mongoloid blood type. Either the source you referenced has outdated facts that somehow survived revisions or it is not a recent publication. Either way, the modern Okinawan & Malayan ethnic connection seems very thin or non-existant, so I think it is safe to have it removed until someone can explain it well. --69.214.227.179 04:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Does this definition include the Ainu? What about other ethnic Asians who are born in Japan and speak the Japanese language? -- Zoe

A beginning to this issue has been added. Tuf-Kat 05:32, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

• The sentence" "The identity as ethnic Japanese and race is very little" does not make sense in English. orthogonal 12:04, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I was thinking that too :)

I think what the author was trying to say is that most Japanese don't make a distinction between Japanese citizenship and being of the Japanese race/ethnicity (being a largely homogeneous society). Still, that's only a guess. -- stewacide 16:45, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think the author may consider that most Japanese don't care about their own citizenship and race/ethnicity because of a largely homogeneous society. Perhaps! My English dose not make sense, too. Sorry! --A-research 06:42, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

as the line doesnt make any sense, perhaps it should be deleted?Steeev 11:31, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Change article?

Moved from Japanese person. Will make some attempt to modify it to correspond to the changed title, though the de-Engrishification is beyond me at this point. -Smack 07:31, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Doho

I've read that "doho" (meaning compatriot) is used in Japan to refer to people of Japanese ancestry outside of Japan. Perhapse someone Japanese could explain further?

I'd like to get this strait before I try and fit the article. -- stewacide 18:39, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From redirects for deletion:

• Japanese people --> Japanese person.
  • The redirection should go the other way around. Seems to have been created as a redirect on the premise that the title is a plural of Japanese person. Has no edit history, unlike the target article. If you delete it, please perform the move operation as well. -Smack 19:05, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • You may want to take into consiteration the fact that people is not the plural of person. Persons is the plural of person, people is a singular collective noun. People means "a group of persons". Noldoaran 21:06, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
    • According to my dictionary, and indeed also according to Wiktionary, "people" is also a plural noun meaning "persons". Onebyone 21:53, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

This article is the most amateurish one i've ever seen. LoL

Really? What makes the article so? -- Taku 06:24, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

I've (added headings and) rewritten the origins section. Corrections and clarifictions (and corretions of my apalling speling) are sought.

Zeimusu 12:38, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

---

"and live their entire lives in Japan". - Does this mean that someone who fulfills all other criteria but has spent several years working/studying in another country is no longer a Japanese person? Markalex

---

I know it would be a shameless rip-off, but the website http://www.kimsoft.com/ has a very good article about the Japanese people at http://www.kimsoft.com/2004/jp-origin.htm . The website says that all of the servers' pages may be copied and redistributed at will. Shouldn't we incorporate this text into this article? --Ce garcon 18:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I say, why not? The article seems very detailed and pictures are very nice as well. Just remember that NPOV is attained, as always the case in data dumping. If you are not going to dump, I will. -- Taku 21:16, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

You might as well do the dump; Neither anthropology or ancient Japanese history are my forte; I wouldn't really know what in this article is POV or not. --Ce garcon 21:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Data dump

Since I dont see anybody doing the dump, Ill add the contents of the article to this page. It will need to be adapted to comply with Wikipedia NPOV.

Ive hacked at that article a little. Cut a lot of extraneous stuff. But it will need a lot more cutting. Zeimusu

Sorry I haven't done more to clean this article up recently, especially since I'm the one who did the dump... I put the new stuff under the category "Origin of the Japanese People". --Ce garcon 06:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't really have the technical skills to do it, but is there anybody here enough of a Wikipedia geek to know how to insert any of the pictures, graphs, etc, that are in the original article? Once again, I'd do it (I've had practice inserting logos into articles and such) but I'm not really sure about the finer points of positioning pictures in articles. --Ce garcon 06:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reliability of "the text of the Korea Web Weekly article"

1 What is the meaning of 'Shilla Archives' The oldest record　in Korea, 'from Shilla to Korea' is Samguk Sagiin 1145. With Chinese records, without myths, most historians agree that Shilla is a country from 356 AD to 935 AD. I have never heard of 'Shilla Archives'. c.f. Nihonshoki, the Japanese official record was completed in 720 AD. (Nihonshoki=Nihonki)

2 This article describes as follows. 'The first Korean nation, Han-gook was established in 7,197 BC and lasted 3,301 years. The Han colonists subdued these tribes and established a new nation, Bai-dal in 3,898 BC. Go-Chosun (also called Dangun Chosun) followed Bai-dal in 2333 BC Where is the original References to support the 'fact'?(see History_of_Korea). The text was written by Korean, and half of the text is to cheer up koreans. It's OK for Koreans to read such text by themselves. But this is Wikipedia.

Ce garcon, could you explain me the reason, why you thought the text is 'a very good article'? Poo-T 08:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No need to complain about it, if anything in this article is inaccurate, feel free to improve it. This IS Wikipedia, after all.

I and another guy (I don't know who he is) overwrote some part of the page. And it still needs some error correction. As you can see, more than half of the original text was needed to rewrite. It's alike, rerwriting the story of 'Johnny appleseed' into 'History of america'. It is possible, but not easy. Not a smart idea. I have to complain about your choice as a template of the Wikipage. Poo-T 12:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Questionnaire for "the text of the Korea Web Weekly article"

1. Who are Korean in this text? Living in Korean Peninsula does not make one a Korean just as Celts, Picts, Scots, Saxons, Vikings are not refered as "English".
2. What and who are such references like "Diamond 1998", "Riley 2002", "Crystal 2004"?
3. It is significant that the art of wet rice cultivation followed the same pattern, suggesting Jomon pottery and other tools of civilization came from Korea. How old is the oldest pottery found in Korea? Unless there had been one older than 12,700 years old one discovered in Kyushu, it can be reasoned that Japanese taught Korean to make pottery. Also, how did the rice cultivation spread in Korea? Rice is a native plant in regions like Southern China, Thai and Vietnam. When and from where was the rice farming started in Korea? Before "wet rice cultivation", there had been "dry rice cultivation". Has there been a period of dry rice cultivation in Korea?
4. In about 250 BC, floods of immigrants from Korea began to arrive in Japan and exterminate the Jomon people. Is there any evidence that floods of immigrants from Korea arrived in Japan or that they exterminated the Jomon people?
5. The Neolithic Jomon culture was overwhelmed by Iron Age culture from Korea. Where did the "Bronze Age" go? What exactly does being "overwhelmed by Iron Age culture from Korea" mean?
6. This Iron Age culture of Japan is called the Yayoi, named after a district of Tokyo where in 1884 pottery similar to contemporary South Korean pottery was unearthed. What justifies the use of "South Korean pottery" in this sentence which isn't even the proper name the peninsula was called at this time?
7. Japan's population increased by an astonishing 7,000% during the Yayoi period. It is estimated that the Jomon people numbered less than 75,000 in about 400 BC. Korean farmers found the Japanese islands with warmer climates and abundant water a land of golden opportunity, and millions of them crossed the Tzushima Strait to Kyushu, and from there, to the other islands of Japan. How many people were in Korea at Yayoi period and how can kingdoms in Korea cope with such a large immigration? The Yayoi period is as short as 550 years and as long as 1200 years and increasing population by 70 times over a millenium is quite possible without a massive immigration. What evidence is there that an immigration had happened or that the population increase was "astonishing"?
8. Archeological excavations dug up large tombs with lavish burial goods and frescos, which are identical to those found in Koguryo tombs. Which tombs are similar?
9. Some historians believe that Puyo warriors from Korea invaded Japan and established the Yamato period of domination of Japan by Korea. Who and what are "Puyo warriors" and what evidences support this arguments?
10. In Nihonshoki and Kojiki, it is written that the Yamato kingdom ruled over a part of Korea. Why is this omitted and ignored here?
11. Como (2000) shows that Buddhism was introduced to Japan by monks from Silla, and Silla scholars, merchants, and military held influential positions in Japan. "Influential" is used here without pointing out what positions they held. What positions did they occupy?
12. Genetics and Biology talks nothing about what resulted from DNA studies and talks only about outward appearances which is heavily debated right now as how much is dependent on genetics and how much is on environment. What did DNA studies show?

Please answer these questions. Revth 14:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. There are archaeological excavations where the Yamato tombs are filled with artifacts almost identical to those found in Korea. Just pick up any book on this subject and you will see. It is certainly not a myth. Or you can just google the web for Yamato tombs.
2. Rice was very likely brought over to Japan via Korean peninsula. Since at the same time the artifacts were similiar to those found on the Korean peninsula. And I would say nearly every genetic study has placed Koreans and Japanese closer to each other than Japanese to Southern Chinese.
3. Puyo were a people of northern Korea. There has been a whole book written about the vocabulary similiarities between Old Japanese and the what we know about the Puyo language. This is debated because so little of the Puyo language has survived.
4. In Nihonshoki and Kojiki, it is written that the Yamato kingdom ruled over a part of Korea. Why is this omitted and ignored here? So what does that have to do with the Japanese people?
5. Genetics and Biology talks nothing about what resulted from DNA studies and talks only about outward appearances which is heavily debated right now You clearly haven't picked up any books on human genome written in the past 10 years. "Outward appearances" were used like 100 years ago when scientists didn't have the advanced tools. Do you really think all that genes do is influence your outward appearance? 216.2.193.1 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The text of the Korea Web Weekly article:

Prehistoric Korea

By about 25,000 ago, the harsh climate had decimated the homos and only small tribes survived in warm pockets along Lake Baikal and other bodies of water in Siberia, India, China, Africa and the Near East. In addition, some tribes survived in the Altai mountains. These homos are called the "paleoasiatics", who were stone-tool users. Later these Peleo-Neolithic tribes were overwhelmed by Bronze-Age tribes from the Altaic region.

Lake Baikal is thought to be the oldest lake of the world (about 30 million years old) and it is fed by over three hundred rivers and more importantly by hot springs, which shielded Baikal from glaciation. It was an oasis for various life forms during the Ice Ages. Lake Baikal is the the 'Jewel' of Siberia. It is the largest body of fresh water in the world and its surface area is about one third of South Korea. The lake sits on a large rift in the earth crust which is still expanding at about 2 cm per year. Most of the 2,500+ species of plants and animals of Lake Baikal are not found anywhere else.

Map: The migration paths of the Korean civilization. Nomadic tribes from the Lake Baikal (in Siberia) region began to migrate when the climate turned too cold. They probably numbered less than 100,000.

The rich plants and animal life in and near Lake Baikal had kept our forefathers alive amidst of harsh frozen desert that surrounded the Lake 10,000 or so ago. Today, the Briat Autonomous Region of the Russian Republic control Lake Baikal. The Briat people's culture, language and physique are strikingly similar to those of the Korean people.

As the glaciations receded in Europe, the sea level rose gradually and by 15,000 year ago, the Sundaland (East Asia Lowlands) became submerged and their inhabitants were forced to migrate to higher-elevation lands of India, Indochina, China, Japan, and Korea.

The first Korean nation, Han-gook (also pronounced whan-gook, ÆŸ?Í), was established in 7,197 BC and lasted 3,301 years. According to an archive recently discovered (ÆŸ¿»•j?O), this nation was made of 12 tribes in the region of Lake Baikal in Siberia. About 5000-10,000 years ago, the climate in Siberia began to cool down and people from this nation began to move out in several directions. One group, sumiri (ºˆ<pi>–¿Ã ?<sum>±K?? -- called the Sumerians by the Westerners), migrated to Mesopotamia and established the Ur, Urk, Lagash, Umma and other city states. The Sumerians had dark hair and share a common linguistic origin with the Koreans.

The king of Han-gook dispatched about 3,000 colonists to the area around Mt. Baiktu, which was inhabited by primitive tribes - the Tiger and the Bear tribes. The Han colonists subdued these tribes and established a new nation, Bai-dal (<pi>Ë¥fi±<pi> !=ø<pi>F?Í, also called ±??Æ §Eæ§ and «—ø? ÆŸ?Ø in Chinese chronicles) in 3,898 BC. This new nation occupied much of Manchuria and expanded into China: at its peak, Bai-dal occupied Habook, Hanam, Shantung, Gangso, Ahnwhi, and Julgang provinces of China. Its culture flourished: creation of 'Chinese' characters, codification of the Oriental medicine, advances in farming methods, and other innovations commonly attributed to the Chinese. The Bai-dal kingdom lasted 1565 years under 18 kings.

Photo. A warrior - from a Koguryo tomb fresco. Note the resemblance to samurai armor and swords.

Go-Chosun (also called Dangun Chosun) followed Bai-dal in 2333 BC and lasted 2096 years. It was the most powerful nation in Asia of its era but it is rarely mentioned in history books because Japanese and Chinese historians shy away from glorifying the Korean people. Fortunately, Soviet-era academicians have established with certainty the veracity of Go-Chosun, this nation did in fact exist, and the new generation of Korean historians - untainted by Uncle Tomism that prevails among the 'senior' Korean historians who were educated by the Japanese - have picked up where the Soviets had left. According to the Soviet historians, Go-Chosen was made of three regions (sam-han - the three Hans ¡?) - Jin-han in Manchuria, Ma-han in Korea, and Bun-han in the area around Beijing. Jin-han was ruled directly by the Go-Chosun kings but Ma-han and Bun-han were ruled by viceroys appointed by the kings.

When the fortune of Go-Chosun began to nose-dive, its subjects rebelled: the Mongols and the Huns left the domain and began to move westward. The Huns made all the way to Europe and survive today in Hungary. The word Hun came from the Korean word 'han' («— ¡?, ¶?). Some of the Huns settled in Turkey. Facial reconstructions from Hun skulls show facial features that are Korean.

Go-Chosun was followed by North Buyo (?œ?Œø© - later became Koguryo) and other smaller states. In time, three kingdoms - Koguryo, Silla, and Baikje - emerged. Of the three, Koguryo was the largest and the most powerful. The Koguryo kings attempted to restore the glory days of King Chi Wu of Guri (aka Bai-dal), whose domain extended as far west as Tibet. It is believed that Koguryo was originally called Ko-Guri - the Higher Guri nation.

The three Korean nations fought amongst themselves. Baikje and Japan attacked Silla, while Silla and China attacked Koguryo. After centuries of warfare, Koguryo fell to China. The Chinese victors took some 30,000 Koguryo citizens as slaves, many of whom were sent to slave labor camps in Burma. Today, there are several villages in the Golden Triangle that are inhabited by the descendents of the captives. These 'forgotten' Koreans speak archaic Korean and retain much of the Koguryo customs.

Map: Koguryo occupied much of today's Manchuria and part of Siberia. Since its formation in 57 BC. Koguryo became the most powerful nation in the Far East until it was toppled by the Silla-China alliance in 668 AD. Gaya (Kara in Japanese), being the closest to Japan, was the gateway to Japan. The first emperor of Japan came from Gaya.

The remnants of Koguryo people, led by General Dae Jo-yiung (¥Î¡?øµ §jØÆ?a), formed a new nation called Bal-hae (698-926 AD - ¥ÒƸ) in Manchuria and Siberia. Bal-hea excelled in deep-sea navigation and had a powerful navy. Bal-hea made Japan one of its subjugated nations and protectorates. At least 47 official records of Bal-hae and Japan contacts exist today. Bal-hae navy and merchant ships sailed from Wonsan, Vladivostok and other ports, and reached as far as the Philippines.

The Bal-hae army waged wars against the Chinese and regained the Shantung region and the Pacific Siberian region. But Bal-hae was defeated by the Chinese in 926 AD. Silla conquered Bakje and unified Korea, which was reduced by that time to the Korean peninsula south of the Daedong River, a tiny fraction of the mighty Korean nation of Guri and Ko-guri. Silla and its successor nation Koryo waged war against China and regained the Korean land south of the Yalu river and the Kan-do north of the Tuman River. Several attempts to regain Manchuria and Siberia failed

The Yayoi and Yamato Mass Immigration from Korea

Around 400 BC, a sudden change occurred in the Japanese culture. The Neolithic Jomon culture was overwhelmed by Iron Age culture from Korea. Iron tools and irrigated rice fields with canals, dams, banks, paddies, and rice residues have been uncovered by archeologists. This Iron Age culture of Japan is called the Yayoi, named after a district of Tokyo where in 1884 pottery similar to contemporary South Korean pottery was unearthed. "Many other elements of the new Yayoi culture were unmistakably Korean and previously foreign to Japan, including bronze objects, weaving, glass beads, and styles oftools and houses." (Diamond 1998)

Japan's population increased by an astonishing 7,000% during the Yayoi period. It is estimated that the Jomon people numbered less than 75,000 in about 400 BC. Korean farmers found the Japanese islands with warmer climates and abundant water a land of golden opportunity, and millions of them crossed the Tzushima Strait to Kyushu, and from there, to the other islands of Japan. The Koreans brought Korean farming practices, culture, language, and genes. The Koreans overwhelmed the stone age Jomon people.

Photo: "Chongryung" or a blue dragon in Kanso Middle-sized Mound, 7th Century. It is of Koguryo origin. (Chon 1997)

Another major and sudden change occurred during 300-700 AD - the Yamato Period. Archeological excavations dug up large tombs with lavish burial goods and frescos, which are identical to those found in Koguryo tombs. During this period, many nobles from Koguryo, Gaya and Baikje fled to Japan when their kingdoms collapsed. Some Korean historians believe that some of the Korean kingdoms ruled over Japan during the Yamato period. Some historians believe that Puyo warriors from Korea invaded Japan and established the Yamato period of domination of Japan by Korea.

Como (2000) shows that Buddhism was introduced to Japan by monks from Silla, and Silla scholars, merchants, and military held influential positions in Japan. Evidence exists that a small group of immigrants from Siberia arrived in Japan via Hokkaido some 1.500 years ago, but this "Amur" group left little legacy.

Linguistics

It is true that today's Korean has little in common with today's Japanese. The Japanese and Ainu languages have little in common and it is logical to assume that the Japanese language came from offshore. Where did it come from? Riley (2003) has made an extensive research on the common origin of the two languages and has established that in fact the Japanese language has evolved from the language spoken in Go-Chosen and Buyo in about 2,500 years ago and later in Koguryo in the first millennium. Silla united Korea in 676 AD and the Korean language evolved from the language of Silla.

Riley employed well established linguistic methods to correlate Japano and Proto-Korean. She went back into a period of time far beyond historical documents to dig out the prehistoric languages. For example, many borrowed terms can be eliminated by using non-cultural vocabulary such as body parts, natural objects, plants, animals, pronouns, and lower numerals. In contrast, technological vocabulary such as words for horse trappings and farm instruments are most likey borrowed from an alien language.

Cognates of Koguryo and Old Japanese

Japano is more similar to Koguryo language. Source: Riley (2002)

Riley concludes ".. evidence from a variety of fields in order to strengthen the hypothesis that Japonic and Korean are linguistically genetically related to one another. Non-linguistic evidence supports the hypothesis that the Japonic language was introduced into the Japanese Archipelago approximately 2,500 years ago over a thousand year period, where a culturally and technologically advanced group began migrating into the Japanese Archipelago from the Korean Peninsula through Northern Kyushu. A constant and steady influx of Continental culture, language, and people, resulted in the near-complete extinction of the original language."

Riley examined 8th Century Japanese texts and 15th Century Korean texts, expanding upon the work of Samuel Martin who published in 1966 the first comprehensive reconstruction of Proto-Koreo-Japonic, including sound correspondences and a list of reconstructed proto-segments. Silla was founded by the Saro tribe of Chinhan (a substate of Go-Chosun) and the Saro dialect became the official language of Silla (the Middle Korean language), which is extant now but can be reconstructed from place names and surnames in the archives of Silla. The number of cognates found for the Middle Korean and the 8th century Nara dialects is significant.

Genetics and Biology

As in the case of pottery and other artifacts, DNA, skeletal, and dental features show a population cline: that is Korean traits are most prominent in Kyushu, the closest site to Korea and they taper off further south and north.

This cline is also seen in Japanese dogs and field mice. (Riley 2002) Studies on canine breeds in Japan show that one breed came from Southeast Asia some 10,000 - 12,000 years ago and that a second breed came from Korea 1,700 - 2,300 years from the Korean peninsula. Mitochondria1 DNA data from wild mice show the same distribution with dogs.

Skeletons of Jomon and Yayoi people have been examined and detailed DNA studies have been made in recent years. Most Jomon and Yayoi skeletons are readily distinguishable. The Jomon people were shorter, with relatively longer forearms and lower legs, more wide-set eyes, shorter and wider faces, and much more pronounced facial topography, with strikingly raised browridges, noses, and nose bridges, while the Yayoi people averaged an inch or two taller, with close-set eyes, high and narrow faces, and flat browridges and noses. (Diamond 1998)

Studies of teeth show two distinct patterns - Sundadonty and Sinodonty. The former represents Southeast Asians, Micronesians, and Polynesiansn and the latter Koreans and Manchus. The former is preeminent among pure-blood Ainu and Okinawans. The teeth evidence supports the thesis that "ancient demic diffusion commencing with the Yayoi era at about 300 B.C. when an immigrant population from continental Asia entered the archipelago in north Kyushu and expanded eastward, assimilating the aboriginal inhabitants". (Riley 2002)

Kojiki, Nihonki, and Silla Archives

Riley (2002) states that the Kojiki and the Nihonki, the primary Japanese archives, point strongly to the Korean origin of the Japanese Empire. Kojiki was compiled from earlier archives and tells the story of the colonization of the Japanese islands by gods, and the story of Jirnrnu, the first emperor and his descendents until 641 AD. Kojiki was completed in 712 AD and Nihonki in 720 AD.

The authors of the Japanese archives attempted to hide the origin of the founding rulers of Japan by shrouding them in mythology. Thus the rulers came from Heaven or arrived on a giant turtle from a far place unmentioned. The authors had done the best to hide the true origin of the founding fathers of Yamato. The archives depict the life and death of two sets of gods - one from Heaven and the other native (Korean immigrants vs. the Jomon people).

Figure. An artist's rendition of Amaderasu in a shaman's dress. It is believed that she was in fact a Korean shaman named Himiko who ruled a tribe in the 4th Century AD, some 1,000 years later than the Japanese myth claims. She started Shinto religion based on shamanism of Korea. Courtesy of http://www.goddessmyths.com/Amaterasu-Epona.html

Amaterasu sends her brother to rule over Japan but he ends up in Silla for some reason, and Amaterasu sends her grandson Niniki to rule Japan. According to Riley (2002), Amaterasu was most likely a shamaness from Korea. Shamanism began in Korea and spread to Japan, becoming Japan's national religion, Shintoism. The foundation myth of Japan was based loosely on actual events and people - except the actual events occurred about 1,000 years later.

The first mention of Japan appears in the Chinese archives in 297 AD. The Japanese nation was referred to as Wa (dwarf), ruled by a female shaman by the name of Himiko. Wa was a nation of more than one hundred squabbling tribes. Somehow this chaotic nation turned into a strong united nation by the reign of Emperor Keitai (507-531 AD), thanks to the influx of a large number of "horseriding" warriors from Korea. (Douglas 1978)

According to the Silla Chronicle, Queen Hamiko (®?¿±•G) sent an emissary to Korea in 173 AD, and about at this time, her son married a daughter of King Kim Su-ro, from which Niniki (¬‚¬‚?¿) was born. Queen Hamiko and Amaterasu (§—<sum>”§jØ´) are believed to be one and same. Japanese archives claim that Niniki's grandson became the first emperor of Japan - Jinmu Tenno, but Silla archives show that Jinmu was in fact a grandson of King Kim Su-ro, Lee Pa-ri (•Ï™i¬ß I-Wa-Re in Japanese). Strangely, Kojiki mentions that Jimmo came from Korea and established a base in Kyushu, from which he advanced to other islands of Japan. .

Conclusion

Scientific studies in different fields - dialectology, archaeology, anthropology, genetics, geology, and histology - indicate that proto-Koreans began to colonize the Japanese islands some 2,500 years ago. The immigrants from Korea pushed aside the stone-age Jomon inhabitants. Silla maintained a close tie with Japan but after the fall of Silla, Japan and Korea evolved relatively isolated from each other."

This section will need to be wikified, and the images will need to be uploaded onto the Wikipedia.org website, and the article needs to be made compliant with Wikipedia NPOV.

I can't think that Silla Chronicle is reliable historical material. Please show me the source.

The name of Korean can't go back at least to 7th century of Silla's unification of Korea nation's.

And Paekche and Silla's the governing classes were very close to Yamato people acording to Nihonshoki.

Edit War: Solve it here

-In around 400-300 BC the Yayoi began to displace the Jomon. The Yayoi people were a bronze-age people and they introduced metalworking and rice cultivation to Japan. The Yayoi were descendants of people living in what is now the Gobi desert. (According to genetics data, Buryat share the common ancestors) Displaced by the desertification of their land they spread east. It is possible that the Yayoi language eventually developed into modern Japanese. The Shinto religion also probably developed from Yayoi beliefs. +In around 400-300 BC the Yayoi began to displace the Jomon. The Yayoi people were a bronze-age people and they introduced metalworking and rice cultivation to Japan. Yayoi language left no records, but many assume that modern Japanese should have descended from Yayoi speech. There is no direct evidence of shinto religion in Yayoi archeological remains; this too is postulated only.

This is part of the edit war halted by a 3rr violation block Please solve here in discussion.

The Yayoi people were a bronze-age people and they introduced metalworking and rice cultivation to Japan. The Yayoi were descendants of people living in what is now the Gobi desert. (According to genetics data, Buryat share the common ancestors) Displaced by the desertification of their land they spread east. Yayoi language left no records, but many assume that modern Japanese should have descended from Yayoi speech. There is no direct evidence of shinto religion in Yayoi archeological remains; this too is postulated only.

Addtional portion exiced after consideration.

--Tznkai 02:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear 82.136.220.37:

Could you check the sources of the following claims in original studies ? Please provide evidence in standard referencing convention.

claim no. 1: Quote=Originally Posted by 82.136.220.37:

"The Yayoi were probably descendants of people living in what is now the Gobi desert."

Please define this idea more clearly. What evidence do you have that proves that the Yayoi were direct descendants of early Gobi residents ? What is known of early Gobi environment and culture in terms of anthropology, paleobiology, paleoclimatology, linguistics, and archeology ? What numerical probability are you suggesting ? Please define your idea more clearly.

claim no. 2: Quote: Originally Posted by 82.136.220.37

"Genetics data suspects, Buryat share the common ancestors (with modern Japanese)."

What is the relationship between modern Buryats and the supposed ancient inhabitants of the Gobi region in ancient times ? What are the main arguments that Buryat-Japanese theory of common ancestry was proposed instead of other, possilbe alternatives ? In fact what is the time range that you assume that the ancestors of modern Buryats and modern Japanese resided in the Gobi region ? What kind of genetic data was studied, and what was the method of collecting data, and the interpretation of collected data ? What was the sample size ? What statistical analysis was employed ? How were the statistics interpreted and represented ? What internationally recognized journal carried the article, and what kind of analytical scholarly peer reviews did it/they receive in general ?

claim no. 3: Quote: Originally Posted by 82.136.220.37

"Displaced by the desertification of their land they spread east."

Please define your idea in a general setting of paleoclimatology. What pieces of evidence exist that supports your assumption of migration ? What standard references adopt this model you are quoting ?

claim no. 4: Quote: Originally Posted by 82.136.220.37

"it is possible that the Yayoi language eventually developed into modern Japanese."

We know nothing about Yayoi language. How can you employ an undefined idea to help define another ?

claim no. 5: Quote: Originally Posted by 82.136.220.37

"The Shinto religion also probably developed from Yayoi beliefs."

Please define Yayoi beliefs, and your model of development from the Yayoi beliefs to modern shintoism in such detail as is acceptable by international scholars.

Thanks in advance for your reply. (signed) User:Lexico

On Nihonjinron

I totally reject this move. Nihonjinron is a subject on which volumes have been written; it deserves its own article in spite of it currently being a stub. Where was the discussion of this prior to the move? Exploding Boy July 5, 2005 02:53 (UTC)

You meant merger? I agree that it deserves its own article, but because it is the study of Japanese people, it makes sense to discuss it until the section gets long enough to separate. -- Taku July 5, 2005 03:26 (UTC)

Yayoi and Korean people?

1. What does "Korean people" mean?

It doesn't necessarily follow that the people living in the Korean peninsula 2400 years ago are direct ancestors of modern-day "Koreans." I guess "Korean people" before unified Silla (668) makes no sense.

2. Goguryeo or Baekje did not exist around 400-300 BC.

3.This paragraph contradicts the expression in the first;

"The most accepted theory is that present-day Japanese are descended principally from both the Jomon, a paleo-Asiatic people, and the Yayoi, a neo-Asiatic people, "

4. The the origins of the Japanese language is a controversy. Refer to the Japanese language page.

5. The origin of Shinto is a controversy. Refer to the Shinto page.

6. It is argued where the Yayoi people came from.

In 2001, the National Science Museum of Japan has held an exhibition named "Long Journey to Prehistorical Japan" which estimates the Yayoi people came from southern China where bones resembling Yayoi people were discovered. Yayoi Bones

Nobu Sho 22:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

---

No, Sinodonty isn't a trait of "Koreans and Manchus", it's highest frequencies are among northern Chinese and native Americans.

Should Koizumi's portrait be removed from the japanesepeople.img?

Why should some contemporary popularist neo-con (my sole opinion atleast) be juxtaposed with contributing historical figures? I motion that he be replaced with Sharaku or Akio Morita.

Copue441 15:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'd be happy to replace him. Can you think of someone better than the two you mentioned though? --Khoikhoi 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Gotta be "The Godzilla" Matsui, Nakata, or Ken Watanabe IMO--Endroit 00:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

---

A Japanese's opinion. Chinese, South Koreans, etc. are written in the order of "family name - given name" in accordance with the form of their own country. Only as for Japanese, it is strange to be written as "given name-family name".

That's a good point. Maybe the Japanese should start doing that? I've seen most Japanese names with the given name first. I would speculate that it's because Japanese make more efforts to follow Western rules than Chinese or Koreans.--Sir Edgar 01:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That's generally the reason I've gotten from my Japanese friends. This isn't usually the case with my Chinese friends, though this seems to be changing some with my Korean friends. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 01:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've noticed the opposite with Koreans. It seems to me that before the given name came first a lot and now it's the family name first. See "Syngman Rhee" of the 1950s as opposed to "Kim Daejung" today. Anyhow, all Asian names should follow the same system. But this goes against Western naming conventions, making it all confusing.--Sir Edgar 02:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Yayoi

The passage in dispute is about what "most scholars" believe. That remains that the Yayoi came from the Korean penninsula. The fact that there is now a suggestion that they actually came from SE China doesn't change that. That is not yet a widely accepted view. Indeed note that the recent genetic work by Hammer cited in this same article supports the Korean penninsula hypothesis. So, it isn't appropriate to change this sentence. It would be okay to insert a pointer to the discussion elsewhere in the article of the question of where the Yayoi came from.Bill 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Work by Hammer suggest that the two people of Korea and Japan today have same origin in Yayoi people not to come from Koran peninsula.And today archaeological and hereditical evidences suggest that yayoi culture and yayoi people come from SE China.This view becomes a common view. 'To look for the ancestor of the immigrant Yayoi people who made substantial contribution to the formation of the Japanese, a Sino-Japanese anthropological joint research was performed for the first time in this region. It is now an established knowledge that the wet-rice agriculture that most distinctively characterizes the Japanese Yayoi culture was originated in Jiangnan.' [1]Bright888

Hi. I agree that there is some interesting new evidence, here, but I don't think that it is either conclusive or that it has yet become the consensus view of scholars interested in the origins of the Japanese. For one thing, the fact that wet-rice agriculture originated in Jiangsu doesn't mean that the people who brought it to Japan came from Jiangsu. Wet-rice agriculture, like other such important technologies, e.g. barley and what in the Middle East, iron-working in several parts of the world, spread without necessarily being carried by its originators. Horses, for example, were first domesticated in Central Asia, but the people who brought domestic horses to the Americas were Spanish, not people from Central Asia. So, knowing where wet-rice agriculture originated doesn't in and of itself tell us who brought it to Japan or other places. Similarly, the osteological evidence only shows some similarity. It doesn't show that the Yayoi were the same people as in SE China, or even that the Yayoi are more similar to those people in China than to various other Asian populations. In contrast to this evidence, there is still a lot of evidence connecting the Yayoi to Northeast Asia. Insofar as one can make anything of a linguistic connection, it is with NE Asia, especially the Korea/Manchuria border area, rather than SE China, and a lot of other cultural factors point at that area. So, the new evidence about SE China is certainly interesting and deserves to be discussed, but I don't think it is fair to say that it is now the consensus or even majority view.Bill 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Bright888 persists in replacing the consensus view with his view that the Yayoi came from SE China, without responding to the discussion and in defiance of the consensus view. I have fixed this yet again and inserted a note to the effect that SE China has been proposed, pointing at the discussion below. To User:Bright888, please stop reverting. You're just getting the rest of us mad. If you can make an argument for your change (that is, an argument that "most scholars" now believe in the SE China origin of the Yayoi), let's hear it. Otherwise, we're going to have to take this to dispute resolution.Bill 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Koreans grew a cold-resistant version of rice from China. Korean rice and Japanese rice are very similar. Overwhelming archaeological and genetic evidence points to a direct and strong Korea-Japan connection, and only an indirect and weak China-Japan connection (see Horai study, for example).--Sir Edgar 08:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's another citation linking the Yayoi people with Jiangsu, China: http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news111.htm .

There are a lot of contradictory "evidences" out there. And if anybody wishes to refute any particular POV, I suggest that they come up with a citation which counters that POV, or evaluates it appropriately. There's no sense in us Wikipedians trying to do the researching, finger pointing, and edit warring.--Endroit 04:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is denying there "could" be Yayoi links to China. It's just that little bits here and there do not add up and compare to the overwhelming evidence and opinion of the scientific and research community that points to a much greater and extensive Korean connection.--Sir Edgar 04:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Satoshi Horai data cited incorrectly

Please review the citation showing the Satoshi Horai study carefully. It merely concludes that the Yayoi people came from mainland Asia, and were distinct from their Ainu-like predecessors in the Jomon Period. Also, the Satoshi Horai data lacks balanced statistical sample for the Chinese people, because all of them were from Taiwan. This does not allow you to conclude that the Korean genes were more prevalent than the Chinese genes, since the Chinese genes were not properly sampled. Horai himself does not say that the Yayoi came from (today's) Korea. He merely says they came from mainland Asia. Mainland Asia, not Korea.--Endroit 10:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick question, by "Taiwanese", are you refering to the Taiwanese aborigines, not the Han Chinese? Deiaemeth 10:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Taiwanese" means the people sampled by Satoshi Horai in his study, and not the Han Chinese in general.--Endroit 10:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the original research? Nowhere in the article does it mention "Taiwan" or "Taiwanese". In addition, the article implies a direct connection to Korea, not China. It does seem to refer to "Mainland Asia", but that is probably to avoid the sensitive issue of a Korean connection. Reverting edit.--Sir Edgar 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar, please look at the text in the JPEG image http://www.trussel.com/prehist/dna.jpg on there. With respect to the samples used, Horai reveals the following notes:

• Note: Detail of 293 samples are: 62 mainland Japanese, 51 Ainu, 50 Okinawan Japanese, 66 Chinese (Taiwanese), and 84 Koreans.

So in fact, "Chinese (Taiwanese)" is a more accurate citation if you wish to use Horai's research results. Also, it is Horai who concluded that the Yayoi people came from "mainland Asia". Please do not change his words based on your interpretations. (You may use another 3rd party citation to prove your point though, but you shouldn't change Horai's words yourself if you wish to cite him.)--Endroit 01:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The use of "(Taiwanese)" is only in the picture. It could be a typo. Throughout the article, Horai refers to "Chinese", not "Chinese (Taiwanese)". The article clearly refers to a closer genetic connection between modern day Japanese and Koreans, not Chinese.--Sir Edgar 01:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Typo or not, the citation has to be verifiable, and it says "Chinese (Taiwanese)". Therefore the data lacks samples from other areas of China, Manchuria, and Tugusic areas, often mentioned with respect to the Yayoi people. The only data Horai used from "mainland Asia" is from Taiwan and Korea, since he was merely trying to prove that the Yayoi people came from "mainland Asia." If you wish to claim that the Yayoi people came from Korea, you need to find research results which conclude (as you say) that the "Yayoi people came from Korea."--Endroit 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There is only one reference to "Chinese (Taiwanese)". Throughout the article, the reference is "Chinese". Why do you insist on the one citation in the picture? As for "Koreans", read the article and make a conclusion. It's obvious that Horai avoided direct reference to "Koreans" for political reasons (sensitive issue in Japan as most Japanese look down on Koreans, while respecting Chinese to a certain extent) and instead uses "Mainland Asia". By the way, Taiwanese are not from Mainland Asia. Also, please check your bias.--Sir Edgar 01:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not "one citation in the picture" as you say. What does it say throughout the article? Was Horai trying to prove that the Yayoi people came from Korea? No, nowhere in the article does he say that the Yayoi people came from Korea. Throughout the article, it says that the Yayoi came from mainland Asia. It is Sir Edgar, who is trying to change the words around to conclude that "Horai shows that the Yayoi people came from Korea."

How about the data? What does it say? The relationship is high between Korea and Japan showing a value of "8". However, other areas of China and Manchuria are not sampled, so we are working with biased data samples. Shanghai might have a value of "6" and Harbin may have a value of "7", in which case YOU CANNOT EXCLUDE CHINA and say that the Yayoi came ONLY from Korea. The data is such that the "mainland Asia" data sample is only from Korea (you're right, Taiwan is not in mainland Asia!).

It's all a matter of interpretation, but since your interpretation and my interpretation may differ, and we may not accept each other's version, I insist that you use Horai's original words, and stick to "Yayoi people came from mainland Asia. Besides, that's good Wikipedia policy to use the original words of the material cited.--Endroit 02:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down. You obviously have an emotional interest in generalizing the issue with the usage of the term "mainland Asia", instead of specifically mentioning "Korea". In fact, I see you have consistently edited other articles to delete the word "Korea". That's your issue.

Anyhow, the statement in the article simply says that Horai's study "indicates" this and that and it "suggests" this and that. If possible, an article should not be copied and pasted word-for-word. If you read this article and then want to summarize the content, then it is inevitable to paraphrase.

By the way, the study does not have any mention of Shanghai or Harbin. "Mainland Asia" means "Korea", but Horai is simply avoiding the usage of the term (just like you).--Sir Edgar 04:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that I ever excluded "Korea" by the way because "mainland Asia" clearly includes Korea. Also, I don't object to your using the words "Korea" or "Korean Peninsula", etc., as long as you don't exclude China (and Manchuria, which may be included as part of China).

Another point: Horai's data is biased because it doesn't include any other "mainland Asian" areas besides Korea. If Horai had concluded that "Yayoi came from Korea" BASED ON SUCH BIASED DATA, then his conclusions would have been biased as well. However, he didn't do that. He merely said Yayoi came from mainland Asia. Now if Sir Edgar declared that Yayoi came (only) from Korea BASED ON THAT SAME BIASED DATA, the conclusions would be biased as well, and he may be violating WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOR. I disagree that Horai was trying to prove that Yayoi people came from Korea with such limited data. He specifically says Yayoi came from mainland Asia, and that all he's trying to prove.--Endroit 04:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am agree with your readings about Horai studies. According to the recent study of yayoi people, they came from south east china (see Satoshi Yamaguch's study),and Genetic study of rice gene by Yoichirou Sato support it.So at least it has problem to declare that Yayoi came from Korea.Bright888

Perhaps you don't understand the political background of the usage of "mainland Asia", "Northeast Asia", or "Korean peninsula" as opposed to simply "Korea". It is politically-loaded terminology that tries to minimize Korean contributions (cultural, genetic, etc) to Japan. Many Japanese nationalists try to deny any connection to Korea specifically. While it is undeniable that breadth and scope of Chinese civilization was wide and impressive (especially in the West), Korea's is far less known and recognized.

Yet, Korean influence on Japan was, most likely, deeper and greater. Some try to bury this fact because Korea stagnated became such a backward country that it could be colonized and was not worthy of admiration. Thus, generalizing Korea into simply a "bridge" that transferred Chinese culture to Japan. The evidence points otherwise. The cultural transmission to Japan was distinctly Korean in many ways. Japanese nationalists try to claim that it was not "Korean" and instead "Chinese", or even generically "Asian". However, there were definitely Korean kingdoms existing hundreds of years prior to tribes even forming into cooperative coalitions in Japan.

Thus, the usage of "mainland Asia" is Horai's bias (a common Japanese bias) that keeps him from saying simply "Korea". This is just as ridiculous as saying "Northeast Asian islands" when referring to Japan.

By the way, please stop referring to me in third person. It is de-humanizing.--Sir Edgar 05:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, if anybody is revert-warring purely for emotional or political reasons, I'd strongly urge against it.

Now Sir Edgar: The 3rd person addressing I used towards you was intended for 3rd party readers reading my messages. I'm sorry if that offended you, Sir Edgar. I'll try 2nd person addressing with you from now on.

I acknowledge that some Japanese people discriminate against Koreans and the Korean culture and that is a very bad thing. I've been called gaijin before, so I know a little bit of how that may feel (being discriminated against).

Also, I acknowledge that there may be researchers who purposely fabricate data to justify their own selfish ideas, which is also a bad thing.

However, information has been presented in academic circles, which claim that some Yayoi MAY have migrated from China via Okinawa. As bogus as this may sound to some people, it is very hard to disprove such a statement, especially since the events (migration of the Yayoi people) occurred during prehistoric times. Unless this "migration from China" theory is soundly debunked in academic circles, it must be accomodated.

So in general, "the Yayoi migrated from mainland Asia" (or "... from Korea and China" or variations thereof) is more appropriate for Wikipedia.

With respect to Horai, whatever his intentions were, he also uses "mainland Asia". So unless you present other citations, I feel obligated to restore Horai's words, "mainland Asia". Also, I believe the nature of Horai's data with respect to his Chinese sample ... i.e. "Chinese (Taiwanese)" ... must be revealed so that the readers may pass their own judgement regarding this matter.

Please understand that Horai's choice of words and his method of research was his own doing. We Wikipedians are not allowed to second-guess, change, correct, nor improve upon his doings. It says so more clearly in WP:NOR#What is excluded? what we cannot do in Wikipedia.

I'm switching to 3rd person now: Any comments, for or against, anybody?

Additional side-note: The word "Korea" can be misunderstood by some readers. Korea can be "Korea (高麗 goryeo)", "Korea (高句麗 goguryeo)", "Korea (百濟 baekje)", "Korea (新羅 silla)", "Korea (朝鮮 joseon)", "Korea (韓國 hanguk)", or the area occupyied by the above in pre-historic times, depending on the situation.--Endroit 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For exactly the last reason, it should be "Korean peninsula" rather than "Korea." The latter has so many political and historical meanings, whereas the peninsula is just that—a chunk of land. Referring to the peninsula avoids this whole Korean/Japanese cultural supremacy issue, which we know is never going to go away because there are too many crazy people on both sides of the straits. I know you don't like this solution, Sir Edgar, but it seems to be the best way to make and keep this article NPOV so long as Japanese and Korean readers are poking around. - Sekicho 01:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

For the debate between "Korean peninsula" and "Korea", please see talk:yayoi. The consensus was use "Korea" instead becaues of various reasons, plus using "China" and "Japan" while using "Korean peninsula" builds a double standard. By your reasoning, we should use the term "Chinese mainland" and "Japanese archipelago" on every article? Deiaemeth 01:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As Deiaemeth has pointed out, the application of "Japan" and "Japanese archipelago" is not as equally applied as "Korea" and "Korean peninsula". This is just outright Japanese racism against Koreans, supported by some Westerners, especially Americans. Ignorance about ancient Korean civilization does not justify relegating it to the vague status of simply "the mainland", a "peninsula", or a "bridge", while Japan is "Japan". Anyhow, it looks like it was decided to just use "China", "Japan", and "Korea" for simplicity sake most of the time. I agree with this.--222.233.205.185 11:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am agree with the terminology of this problem. But the aim distinction of 'Korea' and "Korean peninsula" is not to aim the raicsm. the aim of this distinction is the modern Japanese and Korean are descendants of same ancestors and neither has superiority which is offen said by Koreans.In Confucianism (which have huge influence to Korean today) the close relation to ancestor is very imporant. But ofcause this is ridiculous thought.Bright888

Sir Edgar,

Stop making this issue out to be some kind of conspiracy theory of Japanese rightists "trying to minimize Korean contributions (cultural, genetic, etc) to Japan." You always do this. That is such a simpleton and ridiculous theory itself, and referring to it everytime you argue on this issue just makes yourself appear to be an ideologue advancing your own political agenda, namely overemphasis of the Korean influence on Japan and Korea's claim of being a "big brother" to Japan. Such a claim does not make your argument any more convincing; on the contrary it is discrediting your argument. Argue with hard facts and source-based opinions of authority only. Stop politically smearing the arugument of others whom you disagree with. Hermeneus (user/talk) 23:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This coming from a Japanese rightist.--Sir Edgar 23:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

lol you like labeling >Sir Edgar. I think a reasonless　assertion　of superiority to otherethnic is a sign of righters. and yayoi imiguration problem is one of the examples of Korean righters. Bright888 00:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Immature laughing? Great. You're really "sticking to the facts". Try to contribute instead of ridiculing others.--Sir Edgar 00:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Righters Sigh. lol.Bright888 17:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Better to be rightist than wrongist! - Sekicho 17:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

japanesepeople.img

The image is gone. What happended?

Conflicting Facts about the Japanese Population abroad in Brazil.

Hello, I was doing some research. In this article, in the section "Japanese Living Abroad" , it states "The number of Japanese citizens living abroad is estimated to be over 1 million persons, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. By country, the highest number, were living in the United States, followed by People's Republic of China. The number of person who reside in Brazil was the third largest and that of United Kingdom came fourth." When I came the section Demographics in the article on Brazil, it stated " ...and Japanese-Brazilians are the largest Japanese population outside of Japan (1.5 million)." Which is the true fact? Thanks. --PinkCrayon 21:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've looked again on the page and it appears that the information provided in the section "Japanese Living Abroad", differs with the facts given in the box on the top right hand side, "Regions with significant populations". --PinkCrayon 22:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think this page is very reliable, I think the issue here is Japanese citizens living abroad vs. people of Japanese descent living in other countries. Dekimasu 02:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Japanese populations in the infobox

Editors have recently been changing the numbers on Japanese populations in various countries back and forth without citation, leaving us no way to know which number is correct. If you can add citations to the population numbers in the infobox, please do so. Dekimasu 02:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Japanese immigrants

I think this should be addressed in this article, the issue of people who immigrate to Japan and gain Japanese citizenship. There was an article about it in a recent issue of Time magazine (Asia edition). I will try to hunt the article down online. MightyAtom 06:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a Foreign-born Japanese article linked in the see also section, but there isn't really much information there. Dekimasu 10:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

Hey, it says Brazil has a higher Japanese population than the USA, yet it says USA has the most in the "Japanese living abroad" section.

(Please sign your comments and put them at the bottom of the talk page.) One number relates to the number of people with Japanese ancestry living abroad, and the other relates to the number of people with Japanese citizenship living abroad. It's not actually a contradiction, but it could probably be phrased more clearly. Dekimasu 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

More Pictures?

Do you think we could get one of those lines of pictures in the info box, male and female?

(Please sign your comments and put them at the bottom of the talk page.) Feel free to suggest any suitable male picture. I thought that the current picture was an improvement over the previous 1860s photographs and painting of a Tokugawa shogun. Dekimasu 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Nikkei article that was on Wikipedia? What are we erasing history?

Accuracy of the Yayoi vs Jomon picture and Credibility of Face Typing

Costumes are fine. But can someone explain or defend the voracity of the "typical faces" of Yayoi vs Jomon as shown in this picture? These face "types" can be seen all over east asia and this picture's portrayal of such "types" just looks like an illustration of slightly ethnocentric biases rather than a serious scientific illustration. You see this in Japanese and other Asian cultures all the time. Even if this image is from the National Museum of Science I certainly haven't come across any serious anthropological sources for this kind of face typing Yayoi vs. Jomon. If anyone has any knowledge on substantive face type differences or genetics research on Yayoi vs. Jomon differences that would support this type of face typing, please share. In my opinion, given the hairiness of the origins of yayoi and jomon and implied ideological mudslinging involved, posting a picture like this would be NPOV. Melonbarmonster 02:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Checked out the National Museum reference to this picture. The only link that works is a larger version of the picture. From what I can see the illustration is just an advertisement for a museum exhibition. It's not a scientific source. Looks like they just got models to dress up for the photos in a PR campaign. Moreover, there no mention of face typing even in the advertisement. There's no good reason to inject that nasty bit into this. This picture is obvious NPOV and should be deleted. Melonbarmonster 06:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in this which includes skulls. Anyway, I think science museums are scientific sources. Dekimasu 04:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on this. If the face models reflected genuine anthropological research or genetics research or were based on scientific projections made from the skulls or something then it would qualify as being a "scientific source". But this doesn't look like it. I don't see how advertisement product are scientific sources even if it's for a museum exhibition.Melonbarmonster 04:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Museums presumably hold their exhibitions to a certain standard. I refer you once again to the page I cited: 体格や容姿などの身体的特徴を比較するとともに、骨から推測される生活様式の違いも解説します。また、顔に関する考古資料を展示し、縄文時代、弥生時代の人たちがどのような描写をしていたのかを紹介します 。 It is explicitly stated that the exhbition is based on the archaeological and anthropological record. Let me know if you need a translation. Dekimasu 01:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, costumes I have no problem with. I'm sure that stuff was researched. But my gripe was with the attempted facetyping. On that issue I don't think the poster reflects any serious anthropological or other scientific research or work. Unless the page you provided makes a link with the skulls, etc., with the face types of the models in the photo in question... which I don't think is the case. Let me know if I'm losing anything in the translation though. Melonbarmonster 06:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't originally post this picture, and I am not a big fan of either the methods or application of physical anthropology (and I say this as someone who majored in anthropology). I understand where you're coming from... that kind of bias is widespread. I usually avoid editing the types of articles that discuss race issues because it pains me to see bigotry. That said, there are a lot of sources cited that claim that the Jomon were Ainu-like and the Yayoi were proto-Korean. No one, anthropologist or otherwise, will claim that an Ainu person looks like a Korean person. For that matter, I am not sure who the photo could be biased against, or who could find it offensive. The person who shot the photo for the exhibition would have been remiss not to try to find representative faces. After such a long period of time in which Japanese scientists (and Japanese people) denied any ethnic link to Korea, it could be considered a step forward to see this kind of picture. So I'm not convinced by the argument you've put forward here. Dekimasu 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What argument are you referring to? I never claimed that Yayoi weren't proto-Korean or that Jomon weren't proto-Ainu, etc.. The issue here is that the supposed face types is a fabrication based on slightly racist biases rather than any scientific fact. I specifically explained that my problem was with the face typing and the lack of scientific evidence that the supposed "face types" of Yayoi and Jomon models were suppose to reflect. The photographer or ad agent in charge of the shoot obviously had reasons for trying to find representative faces. But that's all the more reason why using an advertisement product, represented as being from "National Museum of Science", as an illustration of Jomon vs. Yayoi face types with all the possible racial, historical ideological mudslinging is quite ridiculous. And on a personal note, it's offensive whenever I see Japanese depictions of Koreans in media. Koreans are always portrayed with narrow eyes, sharp faces and unattractive. Japanese are portrayed as having western features, light skinned, bigger eyes, etc.. This photo just seems to be a perpetuation of that racist bias Melonbarmonster 04:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to sign all of your posts. If you wish to type in the middle of someone's post, please copy that person's signature and paste it just above where you write. Dekimasu 01:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The photo upload itself may be problematic; I don't think this qualifies as fair use, and copyright laws in Japan are very strict. With the glaring pink text, it is more of an advertisement than it should be (although having representations of the clothing is nice). But you didn't make any of these arguments when you commented that "whoever posted that must have crawled off the black van." After I reverted the removal with an explanation of the source, you removed it again, asking for a source. After another editor reverted the removal with an explanation of the source, you removed it again. I don't like the picture much and I'd like to see a better one, but I'm glad that we're on the talk page now, because you are being a bit heavy-handed. Dekimasu 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't keeping up with this too carefully and didn't see your cite of the source initially. I opened up a section here to try to explain myself when I realized that you had cited the source.Melonbarmonster 06:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please would User:Melonbarmonster withdraw his/her rash and unnecessarily personal accusation[2] image that I was being petty in reverting his mistaken removal of this image. Please read WP:AGF.

Bwithh 03:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought we were just reverting each other's edit without discussing it. (by Melonbarmonster)

User:Melonbarmonster is mistaken when he says that this image does not have a "serious source". If you look at the image's page[3] (and as I pointed out in my reverts) it's clearly sourced to an exhibition on the very topic of Jomon and Yayoi at the National Science Museum in Tokyo (also known as the National Science Museum of Japan). The website is here:[4]. There might be a reasonable debate over the question of fair use - but clearly the source is a serious one.

I agree that the "typical faces" language was inappropriate and I specifically changed that and remarked upon that.

The revised version I created only referred to the models as representatives wearing traditional costumes

Bwithh 03:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Melonbarmonster, please also avoid language such as this (addressed to another editor, not to me):[5]. Not acceptable under WP:CIVIL. Bwithh 03:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have readded the image and took out all mentions of the models entirely. It now starts with "traditional garments". Let's start from there. Dekimasu 03:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This image still reflects racial bias and is offensive to Koreans. This is a classic illustration of a peculiar Japanese biased aesthetic that sees Japan has being more "western" than "asian". Koreans are portrayed with narrow eyes, sharp faces whereas Japanese are portrayed with round eyes, round faces, light skinned, etc.. Considering the initial mess regarding false implications that were drawn about "face types" even amongst the editors, this picture should be taken off. Melonbarmonster 04:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious? Jomon and Yayoi aren't "Japanese" and "Korean" -- their combination can be seen as "Japanese", but you also need to realize people from several thousand years ago do not look like their modern representations. You still might want to check out who the Ainu are, though. There's no need for vague conspiracy theories, especially when I doubt any of the editors involved in the editing were Japanese. You seem to be harboring a tremendous amount of your own prejudices. falsedef 07:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course Jomon and Yayoi aren't Japanese and Korean and I know about the ainu. But everyone knows that there's hairy jomon-ainu, yayoi-protokorean associations that underlie all of this. My comment was in context of preceding discussion about foolishness of face-typing Jomon, Yayoi which involve theories about proto-Koreans, etc.. Even if we don't state that the picture shows "FACE TYPES", as one of you already mentioned this photo was taken in an attempt to face type. Whoever put up that initial description for this photo was just reading into what's clearly in the photo even without description about face typing. Given the Jomon-Ainu/Yayoi-protokorean associations, this picture is biased, offensive and should be taken down. Surely, there are better pictures about Japanese people than this kooky, copyright violating photo. Melonbarmonster 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I realize that you are a fairly new user and this may be your first dispute on Wikipedia. I'm glad that we've been able to deal with the discussion rationally so far and I know you are acting in good faith in this discussion.

However, I find it strange that you find the Yayoi depiction offensive. I don't find the model to be in any way unattractive. For that matter, the model on the right is both taller and lighter-skinned. These are both "better" in the supposed "Japanese aesthetic", which itself doesn't represent the feelings of all Japanese people. As I said, the traditional Japanese bias is to dispute any ancestral connection with Koreans. Other editors who worry about a Japanese bias against Korea frequently change articles on Japan to increase the degree to which "Korean" things are represented.

You seem to be in the minority with the line you are taking in this argument. I have already stated what I personally find to be the issues with the photo: the advertisement feel, and possibly copyright issues. Can you find any pictures that can represent those cultures that are better than the one we have on the page now? Dekimasu 01:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pressed for time these days. I'll look for a better picture eventually but to explain my position, both of these models are not really attractive in my opinion but what's more relevant here are the models' facial features which are representative of stereotypes that are based upon traditional japanese ethnocentrism and biases toward Koreans, or protokorean as is the case here. Regarding my argument being in the minority, I'm not interested in increasing or decreasing korean content on this article. My complaint is that everyone knows there are hairy yayoi issues linked with proto-koreans. Traditional biased notions about what's stereotypically korean is being perpetuated here by having a model with narrow eyes, sharp faces, etc. represent yayoi. This kind of stereotyping goes on in Japanese media all the time and this picture example and perpetuation of that racist imagery. It's offensive and NPOV material just on its own merits. btw the Japanese "aesthetic" I was referring to is a very Japanese notion popularized in late 1800's that Japan should disassociate itself with the rest of Asia and align with the west. This resulted in Japanese being depicted in drawings of the day with "western" features whereas mainland asians were depicted with narrow eyes, etc.. This thinking provided the intellectual basis for the very virulently racist ideology for Japan's imperial endeavors. Unfortunately, you see modern manifestation of this in some Japanese claiming Japan is not part of Asia, drawings (including much beloved anime) still portraying Japanese people with caucasian features, etc.. I'll try to look for a better photo. Melonbarmonster 04:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick addition - the picture seems to be a simple poster that the museum is using to attract visitors (there doesn't seem to be anything on the site that says that these are typical faces of the Jomon or Yayoi, although I didn't read the whole site). The exhibits show actual implements, bones, etc., but I would guess that the poster is just a poster. Edededed 05:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to earlier discussions of this above earlier in this section. Melonbarmonster 06:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Lovely. The photo was deleted without warning - possibly deemed to fail fair use? Anyway, let's move on and search for an alternate photo. Dekimasu 15:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Who deleted the picture? Can't say I'm disappointed. I'll look around for a photo.Melonbarmonster 03:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Literacy

Despite the fact that the literacy rate cited (99%) is technically correct, it is also misleading. While that rate certainly applies to hiragana, it applies less to kanji and is unrepresentative of the ability to accurately read and write all the jōyō kanji. See this post by Mark Liberman on the topic.--BrettR 02:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

By and large I agree with you - it probably isn't 99% for writing. As far as that goes, the data makes a big deal about people with 6-7 or 8 years of schooling not being able to perform well. But students are not supposed to be able to read all of the jōyō kanji until they finish 9th grade. After 6th grade they are only supposed to know the kyōiku kanji. The numbers improve drastically at grade 9 and above. For that matter, with most students having at least 12 years of education, I'm not sure what any of those numbers show. Native English speakers certainly don't read at a very high level in 6th grade, either.

I highly doubt that the kanji system is going to go away. By and large the Kanken information cited applies only to writing and not to reading. I myself use the Kanken DS program (not that I'm Japanese) and writing is much harder than reading. With the adoption of kanji word processing and text messaging, it isn't as necessary to learn the exact stroke order as recognize the correct kanji from a given set of choices. The concerns about people forgetting stroke order have led to the great popularity of the kanken itself, which is often advertised as 200万人の漢検.

Anyway... do you have any ideas about how to explain the literacy rate better in this article? Dekimasu 05:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not referring to the Kanken DS stuff which, as Mark points out, is highly suspect. Rather it was the academic stuff. In particular,

"An interesting perspective on the future of the Japanese writing system some from Christian Galan, "Learning to read and write in Japanese (kokugo and nihongo): a barrier to multilingualism?", International journal of the sociology of language, Issue 175-176, 2005. He begins with the premise that

'Today, it has been fairly well established that assertions that there are no problems with teaching reading in Japanese schools, or evaluations of the literacy rate of the Japanese population at near 100%, are as much founded on "myth" as the supposed linguistic (or "racial") unity of Japan. In Japan, like anywhere else, there are problems with teaching reading in the schools, and there are various levels of literacy within Japanese society.'"

I would simply add a comment along the lines of "Because of the nature of the Japanese writing system, this rate, while technically correct, may not accurately represent functional literacy rates as understood in English-speaking countries."--BrettR 14:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotally (I work in a very poor school district), I'm not sure I agree with that comment. I think that functional literacy is extremely high, and it is "literate" literacy which is somewhat lower. People may be unable to read some kango terms or kanji that are outside of the jōyō set, which might be necessary to read novels or technical works, but that condition is as much a problem of vocabulary as literacy (in the same way that many people can't understand Shakespeare). I think that literacy for common words used in everyday contexts approaches 100%. That said, you have a source and I don't. I haven't got a major problem with putting a disclaimer in the article. Dekimasu 15:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also say, anecdotally, that Japanese people may be able to read well enough to get by, but their writing is even worse than that of American high school students, which is kind of scary. I was getting top marks on all my homework and tests in 国語 kokugo class (the Japanese equivalent of American "English" class) after about six months in Japan, and I was honestly writing at a higher level than most of my Japanese classmates. No, I am not boasting! My Japanese friends were just really terrible writers. Ebizur 10:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)