Talk:Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japan article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Featured article star Japan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 15, 2007.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:
This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Japan, or visit the project page for more details.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on its quality.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] 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 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Economy/keiretsu paragraph

I have changed each of the (primary) company links to the group articles. I also simplified keiretsu listing since many of them are too outdated. The flagship banks have been merged and Sumitomo Bank, Fuji Bank, and Mitsubishi Bank do not exist anymore.--Jjok (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy section

this section was created by copying from [1] 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). [1]

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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] Major overhual

This article was in really bad shape considering how it was a few months ago [2] 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 [3] and he was even warned by another user about this inappropriate comment [4]. 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 [5]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.35.71 (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] "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. [7] [8] 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.[9]

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.[10]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Hello, You Locked Up Outdated Info

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Religion

Japans most popular religion is both Buddhism and Shinto.

[edit] Religion

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit]  % 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Tango

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)