Talk:Japan/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Clarification request

From the article: 'The Koizumi government is attempting to privatize Japan Post, one of the country's largest private banking and insurance institutions, by 2007.'


That phrase doesn’t make sense, how do you privatize a private institution? And are we sure that Japan Post is a banking and insurance institution?? My guess is that instead of a ',' there should be a 'and', but in that case what is the name of that 'largest private banking and insurance institutionE Could someone with the correct knowledge on the topic fizz this? Thank you.

Japan Post is not a private company yet, it is a public company operated by the government. It is now planned to divide the company into four, which are postal services, postal savings services ("Yucho"; banking), postal life insurance services ("Kampo") and window networks (post offices), and privatize each on April 2007. ref: http://www.japanpost.jp/top/profile/english/3.html However, I am doubting if this phrase should be in this place (too much in detail, isn't it?). NOR 12:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Influences on Japanese Government

Someone added a phrase indicating that the Japanese government was influenced by the British system, but I was always under the impression it was the Prussian/German model that the Japanese were most influenced by. Anyone know more? CES 02:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My way-old college studies taught me that the Japanese founders were influenced by the constitutional monarchy of UK but the Prussian/German model jurisprudence. I would try to find some type of reference to support this however, I could be wrong and the influences were more in certain eras (Meiji) versus others (post war). Revmachine21 10:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the Meiji era, Japan adopted British political institutions and a German legal system. Large parts of the Japanese civil codes are still basically translations of the German civil codes today, but the prewar Diet, peerage system, etc. were much closer to the British monarchy. (This sort of thing happened across the board: their army was based on Prussia's, but their navy was based on Britain's [which is why they still eat British-style curry, or so the story goes].) During the postwar era, they adopted a few American institutions, like a written constitution, two elected chambers in the Diet, etc., mostly because the people running the show were Americans. So there's quite a lot of influencing going on from various parts of the Anglo-German sphere. Sekicho 04:59, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Biased Article

I think this article has a large bias towards a Western view of Japan. In particular the claim that Perry "forced" the opening of Japan seems somewhat suspect. I just edited the religion section because the previous writer claimed that Japanese religion is dead or dying out. Let me know if you agree that this page needs major changes.

Could you give us some references? I remember I was taught that Perry forced the bakufu to open Japan. Besides, what is a Japanese religion? Have you heard of British religion, American religion? -- Taku 03:38, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Shinto is a definitely Japanese religion. There are also local superstitions of the Ainu and other isolated Japanese. The person proclaiming that Japanese religion is dying would need to show figures, not someone not saying anything about it. Someone needs to quote figures to show that these are not being practiced widely, or some sort of evidence that its more custom than spirituality (not by using P.O.V. sources).--ZayZayEM 07:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am making several changes to the religion section based on the following quote from the Lonely Planet guide to Japan:
In many respects, the term 'religion' can be misleading for Westerners when it is applied to either Japan or China. In the West and in Islamic culture, religion is connected with the idea of an exclusive faith. Religions in Japan, for the most part, are not exclusive of each other.
Shinto (the native 'religion' of Japan), Buddhism, Confucianism and even Christianity all play a role in contemporary Japanese social life, and are defining in some way of the Japanese world view. If you are sceptical of the inclusion of Christianity, you need only attend a Japanese wedding to find certain Christian elements mingling happily with more traditional practices.
I also call attention to the statistics on NationMaster [1] where they say the Japanese "observe both Shinto and Buddhist 84%, other 16% (including Christian 0.7%)" The other facts I mention can also be verified if people are sceptical.
Of course, we have to do more researches on this. But I don't think your change reflects the figures or the quote you cite at all. For example, there is no Japanese religion just like there is no American religion, and you have not shown there is one. Also, the Japanese "observe both Shinto and Buddhist" does not mean they would say they profess to believe in Shinto and Buddhist. In any case, I will try to find some authentic sources. -- Taku 03:00, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
For the time being, the religion section should reflect its main article Religions of Japan. I don't think your new version is in line with this. -- Taku 03:02, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Empire

It is obvious that Japan is still an empire formally at least, since the emperor system exists still.   -- 10.56, 22 Apr. 2005 (UTC)

Any opinions on the Liancourt Rocks issue?

The last line was added by the same IP address that blanked the Japan article and replaced it with the text "Alright pinkos, the show is over. Japan is an enemy to the majority as far as I am concerned. Go get out of your mom's basement you 40 year old loser. Please?" My opinion is that we should not use Talk:Japan to run a flame war about this subject.

I THINK THIS ARTICLE IS TOTAL BIASED. WHERE'S THE PART OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR?? THE PART WHICH JAPAN INVADED CHINA?? GONE??

In History of Japan and more specific articles. This article is just a brief overview. — Gwalla | Talk 00:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
There's also a prominent map of the empire. I agree with Gwalla: this summary covers Japan from prehistory to the present. All periods could use more detail, and the separate articles provide it. Fg2 01:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Culture

I question the influence of "Greco-Buddhist" influence in Japan. It seems to me that by the time Buddhism reached Japan, it became much more Chinese in character then Indian, much less Greek. Also I think that anime and manga, as well as video games deserve more then just a mention as part of a list here. These are subtle points but ones I think need to be made.


Impact of Yayoi-period Imported Technology

In the interests of precision of language, I'd like to start a discussion about the following line on culture.

 'The start of the Yayoi period around 300 BC, marked the influx of new technologies
  such as rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making, brought by migrants from 
  Korea. These formed the basic elements of traditional Japanese culture, still seen 
  today.'

I'm not sure it's entirely helpful or informative to say that shamanism, iron and bronze-making form the basic elements of traditional Japanese culture. There probably is some connection between Shintoism and shamanism, and probably iron and bronze-making do contribute to Japan's modern mighty manufacturing industry, but it seems a rather vague and undefined connection. I have to comment that probably a lot of early civilizations went through a shamanistic phase, and went through the iron and bronze making, and such things have an effect on the basis elements of that culture. But to go as far as to definitively say that the basic elements of a culture are from "rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making" seems not befitting. I suggest changing it to

 'The start of the Yayoi period around 300 CE marked the influx of new technologies such as rice   
  farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making, brought by migrants from the Korean peninsula.    
  From archaeological evidence, these had an impact on early cultural developments on the islands of 
  modern Japan.'

Another possibility is that the author intended to write that the "new technologies" formed the basic elements of traditional Japanese culture. I'm open to these possibilities. Wilgamesh 21:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

When we speak of civilizations during this period, we often call what is now China, "China", and what is now Japan, "Japan". But with Korea, there is a tendency among some people to reduce that civilization to the "Korean peninsula" as if it was a simple geographic area at the time rather than a true civilization. The fact of the matter is, civilization long existed in Korea (and even longer in China) before Japan was even making its first steps into it.

There is indeed a strong connection between shamanism and the Shinto religion. The use of sticky rice changed Japanese eating habits and helped with the invention of sushi. Iron-making is important in the samurai tradition. I cannot think of many other things that are symbolic of traditional Japanese culture. Do not reduce the significance of these important contributions to Japanese civilization.--Sir Edgar 06:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

See how this article uses the terms "Japan" and "Korean Peninsula": http://www.bookrags.com/history/worldhistory/yayoi-period-ema-06/

This just goes to show the bias out there. I do not want that bias repeated here at Wikipedia.

The article does talk about how important the Yayoi period was in the formation of what is "Japan". This is really when a distinctly Japanese civilization emerges. Even though it was heavily influenced by Korean culture (and later Chinese culture), this early Japan is when we see the roots of today's Japan.--Sir Edgar 06:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


I think we ought as well add Japanese pronogrpahy's link at the bottom since japanese fetishes and sexual pervert video are so world famous and shokcing that we, at wikipedia, actually have an extensive article that proves that japanese culture is far more related with their porns than any other nation that existed on earth. so, why not add this link.

and since, we mentioned anime, why don't we mention Hentai?

I am going to add those two links and maybe someone with more scholarly commnents into japanese perversiity can edit the matin article introduce about their bdsm, bondage sex, a little bit; since those are inevtiably parts of the japanese culture, as proved in the japanese pornography article at wikipedia.

thehammerspake at thehammerspake-at-yahoo.com

Sorry, I removed those links (one was repeated twice); I don't object (or hold a strong opinion, for that matter), but I think the sexual cultural influences need to be better qualified, rather than somewhat mechanically added to that particular passage (itself a bit problematic). El_C 08:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: Ok, i see that you revised your reply and it is MUCH clear what you meant. thank you for making yourself comprehesible to others; it is a great helpt to the rest of us and the whole wikipedia community!

                                                    thehammerspake

Emperor

A common fool, probably one of the many annonymous political nut cases that get off on tampering with articles, changed the emperor to 'Kennedy'. This was on the article for the past 6 months (at least). I have now returned it to it's original form.

It is certain that Japan is still an empire formally at least.

Japan is an empire same as that Sweden is a kingdom, since Japanese Emperor system still exists.   But Japan's Government has called Japan "Japan" as the formal name and will do so.   Perhaps Japan's Government wants to avoid that Japan may become "notorious" as an empire.    [17:00, 05 May 2005 (UTC)]

The Japanese Emperor system may still exist, but the emperor no longer holds any political power and is simply a national symbol. He is strictly banned to take part in any form of politics, and is only a figurehead who sometimes presides over certain government events. Therefore, I would not go as far as to say that Japan is still an empire. I am not sure what exactly you are trying to imply when you say "Perhaps Japan's Government wants to avoid that Japan may become "notorious" as an empire," but I doubt that is the case.

Youth suicide

Someone added the following line: "People have speculated that the high stress academic life might be the reason for high suicide rates." I've heard this kind of comment before, but I thought I'd also heard that Japan having an unusually high youth suicide rate is not true (and media hype is to blame for this perception). Personally I have no idea which is true. Does anyone have concrete data so we know if this comment should be kept or not? CES 03:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

According to this, Japan's youth suicide rates seem about average. Of course it may still be true that those suicides which do occur are prompted by academic stress. Mark1 03:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I just removed the sentence without seeing the comments here; I think it's a subject area worth writing about, but not as a speculatice one liner (who are "people"? How is "academic life" defined - there are - I believe - big differences between university and pre-university schooling for example). Ianb 06:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The main article Education in Japan can go into education-related subjects in greater depth. Similarly, the sentence "Such a change would likely improve Crown Princess Masako's mental and physical health, which has deteriorated under pressure from Imperial Household bureaucrats to bear a male child." might find a better place in another article such as Imperial Household of Japan, or might be judged speculation and removed. Fg2 07:37, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Geography of Japan

The post read:

About 73% of the country is mountainous, with a chain running through each of the main islands: the highest mountain, Mount Fuji, has a height of 3,776 m (12,388 feet). Since flat land is limited, many hills and mountainsides are cultivated all the way to the summits, and major cities have developed on every sizable plain.

I changed it to:

Japan is the 16th most densly populated country in the world List of countries by population density. However since about 73% of the country is mountainous, with a chain running through each of the main islands, flat land is limited. The population density is exacerbted by a traditional shinto belief that the hills were for the gods and hence there is very little agricultural or architectural development on Japan's mountains. Partly as a result major cities have developed on every sizable plain.

WHY:

Firstly the Fuji Height information is already in the article
Secondly it is just untrue that many hills and mountains are ‘cultivated all the way to the summits’. There is little or no human activity in Japan's mountains except for the shinto shrines on almost every hill. Source for this are my own experience of living here and travelling around. However there is mention of this issue in 'Dogs and deamons; tales from the dark side of japan' by Alex Kerr.
I added the population desnsity in order to clarify what ‘limited’ means in terms of flat land and population generally.

-- Have you never been to Okayama, Niigata, Shimane, Shizuoka, or even remote places in Kyoto Pref.? Did you fail to see the terraced rice paddies all over the hills, especially in places such as Sado Island? I would suggest a rewording of the section, leaving this part in. Any opposing opinions? (BTW- it helps discussions to sign your posts). --Christophernicus 01:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Living in Shimane I know that many hills are cultivated to the tip, but no mountains....
Hello original poster here Gorgonz sorry for not signing my comments. I Live in Miyagi but have travelled around a bit. I am an architect and am very interested in why Japan's hills and mountains aren't developed more. Although I have seen some (at most a few) low hills which are terraced with rice paddies (and it may be true that there are lots I haven't seen) I would not say that it is true to say that "many hills and mountainsides are cultivated all the way to the summits" which was the original point.

Heisei Era

OK, I'll give you the argument that the current emperor is not called specifically the "Heisei Emperor" yet. However, I think this article is lacking in two areas: 1) There is absolutely no mention of the current era as "Heisei" or the calculation of dates by era names. 2) Although every official document I fill out (outside of the immigration office) uses these era names, there is no mention of either the Showa or Heisei periods, yet most Japanese today identify most with these eras. Any comments? --Christophernicus 02:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. Is it really noteworthy that the current era is Heisei or any other mention of era names? The criterion for inclusion is, because this is an article about Japan as a topic, if it is helpful understand Japan. -- Taku 04:10, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's worth talking about. When my coworker came to Japan, she always confused by written dates in part because she's used to European date order (which is backwards from Japanese order) and in part because she wasn't aware that it's the year 17 over here. I think it's worth say, "Imperial reign years are still in common use in Japan, and officially required for government documents. The reign of Emperor Akihito is referred to as the Hesei Era…" --Carl 15:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a strong position on this. The question is how. The relationship between an Japanese emperor and era name is not that simple as the above. Technically, Heisei is not an era referring to the reign of Emperor Akihito. This is the very reason why it is wrong to call Akihito the Heise Emperor. What usually happens is that when an emperor dies and a new emperor gets to the throne, "as a convention", an era name changes as well. This convention was adopted, I think, after Meiji restoration. In other words, it is perfectly ok (whatever ok means here) to rename the era name or keep it regardless of changes in emperor. With those in mind, try to come up with some idea. -- Taku 23:03, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I am aware the convention of re-naming an era without any direct relation to the Emperor is PRE-Meiji, hence several emperors in the Edo period ruled over more than one era. After the Restoration it was decided to tie the era to the emporer, so it is not incorrect to refer to the Emperor Shouwa or Emperor Meiji. However, I agree that we cannot refer to the Emperor Heisei...one usually only uses the era name to refer to a deceased emperor (possibly related to the Bhuddist custom of granting post-mortem names?). Of course I may just be speaking out of my rear... ShimaneD

Regions

In the regions section of the article, the map illustration is clearly numbered, but the article reads "From north to south...". Can someone who knows which are which number these regions so as to eliminate confusion, and take advantage of an otherwise ugly feature of the illustration? siafu 22:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. It should be some kind of mistake made when someone was editing the article. -- Taku

Classes

I was interested in the presence of a class hierarchy in today's Japanese society and ran across this article: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Japanese%20class%20system

I was thinking this information deserves a place here, maybe as a subheading under culture or history. --Lenehey 23:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Unique?

I find the use of the word "unique" in the Japanese culture section baseless. The first paragraph and half of the second paragraph talks about all the outside influences Japanese culture received from China, Korea, and elsewhere and then suddenly the article claims that "Japan developed a unique original culture, in its arts, crafts, and traditions, as well as a unique cuisine." Is there any justification for the use of the word "unique" twice in a single paragraph?

Can someone please explain to me what is so unique anyhow? Do the Japanese paint with their feet and make clothing out of glass? Do they eat trees and greet each other with burping noises?

Or do they do calligraphy (like the Chinese and Koreans), make celadon pottery (like the Chinese and Koreans), drink green tea (like the Chinese and Koreans), eat soy products (like the Chinese and Koreans), and bow to each other when greeting (like the Chinese and Koreans)?

The Japanese are famous for telling foreigners about the "uniqueness" of their culture. They even claim their four seasons are unique. I think this kind of cultural propaganda should be removed.

Japanese culture is not unique. In fact, no culture on Earth can be truly unique unless it has been completely isolate and uncontanimated. Even then, universal human traits can be observed.

The third paragraph of this article then talks about European and American influences in modern-day Japan. So, how could a culture that has received so much outside influence be truly "unique"?

The view that Japanese culture is somehow "unique" is not only false, but antiquated and even... dangerous. I cannot understand how this type of racial ideology can be accepted in a discussion of Japan when certainly such a claim in an article about the Aryan race in one about Germany would cause an uproar.

That's why I'm editing this now.

I am also deleting the influence of Central and South Asia from the second paragraph and adding "rice farming, ceremonial burial, pottery, painting, writing, poetry, etiquette" as it is really these imports from China and Korea that had a bigger impact on Japanese culture.--Sir Edgar 07:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not see what the problem is in the statement that "Japan developed a unique culture." You seemed to have drawn a parallel with the Aryan race, but that is clearly irrelevant. The article is NOT claiming that "Japan has a superior race" or that "Japanese culture stands out like a brillliant star"; it is simply saying that Japan has a culture that is different from those of other countries. Yes, I am aware that certain cultural practices in Japan are also performed in other countries such as China or South Korea (i.e. tea drinking, calligraphy, bowing, etc.), but that does not automatically make Japanese culture "non-unique". Just because Japanese, Chinese and South Korean cultures share some features, it does NOT make them identical (Surely if you lived in Japan, South Korea or China, you would know that their cultures have many differences). If you think about it, it should be obvious that every culture is unique in its own way. By saying "unique", the author is not implying that "everything about Japan is completely original and cannot be found anywhere else on earth." My guess is that the author of the article stated "Japan developed a unique culture" because he feared that many people would wrongly believe that Japan has an identical culture to South Korea or China (since he mentioned that Japan borrowed from various cultures). Also, to answer your question, "how could a culture that has received so much outside influence be truly "unique"?" --- First of all, the question should be "how could it NOT be unique?" With such an enormous diversity of ideas and cultural influences permeating into Japan, it would have been easy, even natrual, for something unique to develop. Bits and pieces of Chinese culture, Korean culture, etc., would all be picked out according to Japanese tastes, mixed in with indigenous culture, and mashed into something distinctly Japanese. Yes, no one will deny that there was cultural borrowing, but can you honestly name a country that has NEVER borrowed anything from anyone? the United States borrowed bits and pieces of culture from Brittain, Central America, Canada and even the Native Americans, so following your logic, would that make the United States "non-unique" too? If you have ever been to the United States and Brittain, you would know that they are very different, and that both are unique.

Anonymous User, please calm yourself down. Then go and edit every country's article adding the word "unique" to the culture section.--Sir Edgar 07:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Following your logic, nothing in the world can be unique, so perhaps we should all stop using the word. While we do that, why not put a halt on the use of other adjectives such as "ideal," "beautiful," or "wonderful," since they are all subjective or "technically false". Maybe you should browse through every single wikipedia article and criticize each of them for using adjectives. Unlike you, most people know that each country is unique, so it does not have to be written on EVERY SINGLE country's culture section. Also, most people, including me, would not mind if someone wrote that "South Korea has a unique culture" or that "China has a unique culture" because both of those statements are true. Only you are cynical enough to interpret such a simple statement as "Japanese culture is unique" to be some sort of dangerous nationalistic propaganda. Obviously you have something against Japan.

Here we go. Are you going to accuse me of Japan-bashing? That is cheap and in poor taste, especially considering how much I have positively contributed to Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. The use of the term "unique" in the way that you describe is POV, just like "ideal", "beautiful", or "wonderful" (all three terms I think that should be avoided in Wikipedia anyhow). I'd like Wikipedia to be a place that dispels myths and sticks to the facts.
The logic that you have used fails to convince me that the use of the word "unique" is essential here. There does not seem to be any justification for describing Japan as unique any more than any other country listed at Wikipedia. Thus, it is unnecessary.
And please sign your comments.--Sir Edgar 23:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


The use of the word "unique" is indeed necessary for people like you, who seem so convinced that Japanese culture is identical to China and Korea simply because the Japanese borrowed several features of their cultures. What are you trying to prove by making such comments as "Or do they do calligraphy (like the Chinese and Koreans), make celadon pottery (like the Chinese and Koreans), drink green tea (like the Chinese and Koreans), eat soy products (like the Chinese and Koreans), and bow to each other when greeting (like the Chinese and Koreans)? " Are you trying to imply that Japanese culture is unoriginal and has nothing distinct? The author obviously believed the word "unique" was necessary so that people like you would know that Japan has a different culture than China or Korea. Clearly, if there are ignorant people asking such ridiculous questions as "how could a culture that has received so much outside influence be truly unique?", there needs to be someone to tell them that Japan is indeed different (and no, I am NOT saying "Japan is special") - and that Japan is not just a bland, unoriginal, copycat culture. I apologize if I wrongfully accused you of Japan-bashing, but I can hardly consider your comments to be "positive contributions to Japan-related articles" when you say such things as "The Japanese are famous for telling foreigners about the "uniqueness" of their culture" or when you draw parallels with the Aryan race. I guess you did not find those comments inconsiderate. I am sick and tired of hearing people making accusations about how the "Japanese are self absorbed and extremely nationalistic." Many Japanese youths are hesitant to show any pride for their nationality , fearing that someone will pounce on them, figuratively and literally (Did you see what happened at the Finals of the Asia Cup in Beijing?). I will disclose to you that I am a Japanese girl in an American Middle School who has been yelled at by fellow Asian classmates with assertions similar to yours. I worked as a camp counselor this summer and I had a Korean 2nd grader tug on my shirt and say "the Japanese are selfish people!" Again, I apologize if I wrongly accused you of Japan-bashing, but I am honestly fed up with people who so passionately insist that the Japanese spread "cultural propaganda" and "racial ideaologies". --06:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)nyannko

The perception, and self-perception, of uniqueness has often been used to justify massacres of other races in the past and strange practices that allow legal discrimination of foreigners residing/working in Japan. I don't think Wikipedia should be used as a platform to continue this false and dangerous premise.
Yes, Japan has a distinct culture (just like China and Korea have distinct cultures), but it is no more "unique" than any other culture on the planet. Using the term "unique" in this way seems to stem from a desire to somehow differentiate, be apart from, the neighboring cultures. All East Asian cultures share similar traits with each other, much like all Western European cultures do. By claiming that Japanese culture is somehow "unique", you are indeed saying that other cultures are not. That is why the use of the term "unique" is unnecessary.--Sir Edgar 08:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I like "distinct". It seems to me to satisfy both points. Mark1 09:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Since when did the statement "Japan is unique" suddenly imply that other cultures are not. You seem to have disregarded everything I had said in my previous comments. I am well aware that every culture is unique, including those of Japan's neighbors (which, by the way, I had said many a times). In case you have forgotten, YOU were the one who was so fervently arguing that Japan and other cultures are NOT unique. Also, how can you say with such confidence that the author of the article had a "desire to somehow differentiate, be apart from, the neighboring cultures"?. You simply twisted a simple statement, written without malice by the author, and you interpreted it to mean that "Japan is special and is better than every other culture in the world." You said Japan "is no more unique than any other culture on the planet," but if you read the article carefully, the author NEVER said that "Japan is more unique than any other culture on the planet." The only thing the article said was that "Japan is unique." However, being the cynic that you are, you pounce on the statement, jump to conclusions and antagonize Japan. Yes, I will not deny that during the War, the Japanese people were taught to believe they were special, and that this belief led to the massacre of countless Asian peoples. I will also not deny that some people in Japan, especially the ignorant older generations in rural areas, look down on foreigners (perhaps you, having traveled to Japan, experienced this time of discrimination and is holding a grudge against all Japanese). However, if you were truly informed of modern Japanese culture, you would know that this type of Japanese view is rapidly deteriorating. With an increasing amount of influence from Western popular culture, the Japanese - especially the younger generation - are looking at foreign cultures with admiration, even reverence. Just as we speak, there is a "Korea boom" in Japan, in which women are swooning over Korean actors and dramas, while thousands are traveling to Korea. Furthermore, Japan is in a craze over soccer players David Beckham from England and Ilhan Mansiz from Turkey. Foreign Fighters are also gaining a huge amount of Japanese fans as The K-1, an all-out fighting tournament in Japan, is increasing in popularity. Next time you travel to Japan, perhaps you should keep your eyes open and take note of such things, because your fear that the "Japanese people will justify massacres with nationalism" is clearly outdated. And how paranoid must you be to truly think that the author was trying to use this wikipedia article as a platform to spark Japanese nationalism? Is the author of the article even Japanese? Clearly the innocent author did not expect someone to call him an "Aryan equivalent" just for saying that a country is unique. Dear Mark, I do not mind if the word "distinct" is used as well. However, Sir Edward might criticize us for implying that "Japan is more distinct than any other culture" or that "Japan stands out more than other cultures." He might force you to write the word "distinct" in the culture section of each country's article. -- 04:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)nyannko

Sorry Sir Edward, but I'm going to have to agree with the young lady nyannko here. I don't find anything about that statement to be demonstrating Japanese nationalism...perhaps you are making too big of an issue over an innocent sentence? There's nothing evil about saying Japan is unique on wikipedia, but it undoubtedly IS inappropriate to relate the Japanese to the Nazis or to say that the Japanese are famous for boasting. Those are racial stereotypes and extremely rude. I just hope you weren't the one who also said (on the below post on geography) that the Japanese boast a myth about experiencing uniquely severe climatic conditions. I have never heard any Japanese person boast that kind of thing during my years teaching English in Japan (which I loved by the way). Give the poor girl a break and leave her country alone, you're going overboard and you're definitely about to cross a line (if you hadn't crossed it already at this point in time). How would you feel if she started making offensive accusations about your own country? Be a gentleman and back off...it's obvious she's tired of defending her own country from other people. Let's be more positive and respectful when we comment here on wikipedia (That goes for you too, nyannko). John Epstein 05:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

For the record...

1. The statement in the Geography of Japan (see below) was not made by me. I do not necessarily disagree though.

2. I did not refer to anyone as a Nazi nor did I ever use that term.

3. The above statement by Anonymous User who has resorted to name-calling is offensive to me. Ad hominem attacks show signs of weakness in an argument. It is for those who have nothing to rely on except personal attacks because their argument stands no ground. I would like to ask the Anonymous User to refrain from them. Regardless, the statements by Anonymous User appear nothing more than rants to me. I do not see how they contribute to the discussion of the article.

4. We need to be careful in wording for country articles. I would find it difficult to swallow any text in an article about Germany using the word "superior" in its culture section. That's why I find "distinct" more appropriate, and more accurate, than the use of the term "unique" for Japan's culture section. I am the one who edited it to "distinct", by the way. It seems everyone is in agreement, including Anonymous User, that the use of "distinct" is acceptable. So what's the issue? Let's move on.--Sir Edgar 07:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sir Edgar, Not once in my post did I resort to name-calling...I'm not sure where you got that idea. The reason why I accidentally referred to you as Sir Edward (instead of Sir Edgar, I apologize) is because I was looking at the post above mine (the post by nyannko, the Japanese girl) which also accidentally used "Sir Edward" as your name. Also, you may not have directly referred to the Japanese as Nazis, but you drew a paralell involving Germany and the Aryans, clearly suggesting that the Japanese act as the Nazis acted in WWII. I agree with you that using the term "superior" would be unacceptable, but we are not discussing the term "superior" here; we are discussing the word "unique," which does not carry the same implications as the term "superior." And I'm not sure I understand why you can accept the word "distinct" but not the word "unique." Going by your logic, wouldn't "distinct" also be interpreted as "stemming from a desire to somehow differentiate, be apart from, the neighboring cultures"? If you're satisfied with the word "distinct", that's also fine with me, but it seems as if you're contradicting your arguments. One last thing...you never actually seem to respond to the arguments of nyannko, and it appears to me that you're just stubbornly insisting the same things. If you dismiss other people's arguments as "rants," then quite clearly you are not taking time to consider the opinions of your opposition, and therefore people will consider you to be a weak debator. It seems we're settled on the use of your suggested word "distinct," although I would have to say as a third person that the winner of this entire argument is the Japanese girl. With that said, yes, let's move on. -- John Epstein 16:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you John Epstein, I greatly appreciate your support. I only wish that more people like you will begin to dissipate the negative light which has focused so intensely on the Japanese people. -- 17:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)nyannko

I happen to think this whole quarrel is pointless. All three of you should just grow up and drop this whole thing entirely. Unique, distinct, whatever. It's just one word and they mean basically the same things. You make such a big fuss over nothing. Sir Edgar, have more respect for the girl's culture. Nyannko, have more respect for Sir Edgar. John Epstein, don't waste your time sticking your nose into other people's arguments, you're only making matters worse by taking sides. This will be the end of this silly fight, go somewhere else if you want to continue arguing and insulting cultures/people. WIkipedia isn't for that. From hereonby, if any of you three try to put in a last word (which you've been doing for the past million posts), everyone will ignore it and that person will simply appear in our eyes as the immature baby. Please, no more, we don't want to hear it. The End. -- 23:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Pre-history

This section does not conform to widely accepted and proven theories on Japan's origins. That's why I'm going to edit it.--Sir Edgar 00:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Pre-history is an illogical term because it assumes that there is a period that happened before history, but history began at the beginning of time. Trav.company 15:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

WRONG. There is another, older definition of "history". According to it, history begins with the invention of writing. With the invention of writing, written history starts, and thus history. Thus, "prehistoric" means "before people left written history". -- Mkill 19:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Geography of Japan (AGAIN)

Like the issue of 'Unique' in Japan I feel that there is a something incorrect about this paragraph of the geography section:

"However about 73% of the country is mountainous and unsuitable for agricultural, industrial or residential use due to the generally steep elevations, climate and risk of landslides due to earthquakes and heavy rain".

I think this (like unique culture or the unique four seasons) is another myth: that japan is subject to uniquely severe forces of nature. There are other countries in the world with similar geological and climatic conditions yet with many hill/mountain top towns and extensive agricultural development. Italy, California (San Franscisco), Chile and Peru jump to mind.

You seem to have something against Japan when you so fervently argue that "Japan is NOT unique." First of all, the paragraph never even mentioned that "japan is subject to uniquely severe forces of nature." It NEVER boasted that Japan is in any way special, or that "Japan is superior because it has to endure harder climatic conditions." All it said was that "the Japanese people do not find the mountains suitable for development because of what they deem to be sufficient reasons." Yes, there are many mountain top towns in Italy, San Francisco, Chile and Peru, but how is that relevant? The people of those countries chose to build on mountains, but the Japanese believe it is risky, and that is all there is to it. Are you going to force the Japanese to build on their mountains? Also, in case you were not aware, the geological and climatic conditions of the regions you mentioned (Italy, San Francisco, Chile and Peru) are not exactly similar to those of Japan. True, the regions you mention DO experience earthquakes like Japan, but they do not experience the monsoons and the accompanying heavy rainfalls that swipe across Asia (Some may argue that California experiences the North American monsoon, but anyone who has visited California and Japan would know that San Francisco is much drier and Japan is much more humid). So please, let Japan make its own judgements about whether or not to build on its mountains --- I think the people living there would know enough about their own land and climate to make their own decisions.

What evidence is there that 73% of Japanese land is really unsuitable for development?

The reasons for Japan's lack of development in the hills and mountains I believe are as anthropological as they are geographical and I feel this is not being represented. There are of course many steep and volcanic mountains in Japan which are not suitable for development however there are also many small hills which are but remain untouched. I changed this before to mention the cultural idea (from the Shinto religion) that the mountains were where the gods lived, this was deleted. Perhaps it was too simplistic... I think something a bit less cliched needs to be said about this.

I will have to disagree with you on your idea that "Japan's lack of development in the hills & mountains is due to their cultural belief (in particular Shinto) that the mountains are the dwelling places of the gods." I am Japanese, and my grandparents on my mother's side follow Shinto to a great extent. It is true that Shinto emphasizes respect and reverence for nature. It is also true that there exists a Shinto belief that deities reside in natural objects or places (i.e. rivers and mountains). However, having lived in Japan, I find it hard to believe that these religious beliefs are the chief reasons why the mountains are undeveloped. According to Shinto, deities also resided in the plains, but that did not prevent the people and industrialism from building huge cities (ie. Tokyo) on top of them. I am not implying that the Japanese have completely lost respect for nature and their religion; I am simply saying that religion nowadays is not a strong enough force to fight off industrial development (as is the case with most industrialized nations). In other words, if the Japanese could safely and effectively build atop these mountains, they probably would have done so by now. In my personal opinion, I think there are more realistic reasons why the Japanese do not develop atop these mountains --- i.e. cost, danger, steepness, elevation, distance from cities, etc.

What does everyone else think? --Gorgonz

It's very good idea to eliminate writings from the point of view that Japan is unique. In writing a travel guide or introducing Japan to people from other countries, it is helpful to stress the differences, how Japan differs and most importantly, how it is unique. But in writing an encyclopedia article, it cannot be right. -- Taku 12:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
to the editer above please sign your comments or at the very least indent them so we can clearly see what your point is and what you are responding to.
That Japan is "unique" is one of those national myths, like Germany the "Land der Dichter und Denker" (land of poets and thinkers), America the "home of the brave and the land of the free". Don't take it as a scientific fact, take it as a cultural self-definition and means of identification. Then you will understand what "Japan is unique" means. The discussion about Japans uniqueness belongs to the article Nihonjinron (a term that roughly translates as "Japaneseness debate"). -- Mkill 19:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of International rankings

I removed "International rankings", which I think is uninteresting. The infobox already lists GDP rankings, and the text already contains a lot of mentions of ranking like density, area, etc. In addition, it is practically impossible to list every ranking. For example, the rank in Reporters Without Borders is important but irrelevant to the article. -- Taku 12:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Number of Japanese Islands?

Are there 6,800 islands or 3,000 islands? The introduction says 6,800 islands, but the Geography section says 3,000 islands.--Sir Edgar 01:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I've edited it to 3,000 islands. According to Japan's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, Japan has four main islands and "more than 3,000 small islands".--Sir Edgar 04:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I must apology. I thought a vandal changed 6,800 to 3,000. -- 07:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


I have browsed other countries articles on wikipedia, especially other developed countries' cultures such as Germany and France, and I found that whatever that is under the headline culture inevitably is either about great mathematicians of the heyday, musicians, philosophers, scientists, artists, world famous novelists, or else otherwise worthwhile intellectual creations such as the Simpsons

This is too much. The entire article on section culture has to be redone! IT's all wrong! I will do my best to improve this but all the rest of you out there has to help! to help make a good article!

The section on culture tries to sum up many thousands of years of Japanese culture in several paragraphs. It has more in it than say France, and links to individual articles which expound on various areas, especially Culture_of_Japan. It could probably be improved (the link "architecure" leads to Machiya, which is just one aspect), but certainly anime and co are not the only subjects mentioned. As the above comments aren't signed, I can't say whether the section was different when the comments were posted. Ianb 15:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I switched the machiya link to Japanese architecture. One problem fixed. @hammerspake: It all depends on how you define culture... in fact, I've found that everybody is searching for something different when he gets interested in Japan, and everybody reacts differently to what they actually find. ... Ok, so before I start ranting about manga geeks, let's just accept that this is one of the facets of Japan that people get interested in. -- Mkill 19:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

eimoji?

The section on language states: Modern Japanese is written in a mixture of hiragana, katakana, and kanji. Modern Japanese texts may also include rōmaji (the way of writing Japanese with the Latin alphabet), eimoji (non-Japanese words written in their own script), and various special symbols.

What are eimoji? 英文字?? I don't recall ever hearing it in the context described here, and it would be a total misnomer anyway, as there are no such things as "English" characters. Neither the Japanese wiki nor my 広辞苑 know such a term. Ianb 15:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that eimoji here is inadequate. However, the term 英文字 (eimoji), or more commonly 英字 (eiji), does exist (the former has 199,000 google hits and the latter has 2,570,000 google hits) and means the alphabet used in English i.e. Latin alphabet. ja:英字 redirects to ja:ラテン文字, which is interwikied to Latin alphabet. --Kusunose 01:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

Until recently, both Nippon and Nihon redirected to Japan. Now only Nihon does and Nippon has been made into a stub article. I believe this should be reverted as it would become more consistent with other countries such as Hellas and Bharat --Grmagne 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for section

Could someone please add a "Name origin" section and explain Nippon and Nihon? -- Reinyday, 03:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Reinyday, You're in luck! There's already a whole article on it. Simply click on "Land of the Rising Sun" in the first line to see the article. Thanks for the request! Fg2 04:04, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Linkspam

In light of the growing amount of linkspam being added to this and other articles, I have trimmed down the external links section to essential sources only, all links to private fourms and guides have been removed. Please feel free to let me know if you think this is a bit drastic. -Loren 07:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Scope of historic facts

We have been having for recent days an issue of how to include the specific number of death. Let me clarify my position. This article is a general article about Japan, and as such, it is impractical to include every single historic fact. I don't think anyone has a problem with this. Consequently, issues lie how we gauge the significance of each fact, and make editorial decision on what to include and what not to include. This is a hard question to answer. Obviously, people have a different view on what is important and what is not. But I think the most important criterion is "balance" and "flow". Including the numbers of death is not in line with the two, because as you can see the paragraph about world war II is concise and it doesn't include many fine details for the sake of brevity. The mention of the number of death hence looks rather out of place. Secondly, it also disrupts the flow. As you can see, the paragraphs go on event after event and putting some concrete data is distracting. Hope at least you can understand that I am not trying to "ignore" facts. -- Taku 23:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm kind of torn about this issue of mentioning numbers. We do not know the figures precisely and I do agree with Taku's opinion on the flow of the History section. It must be concise.

Having said that, the Germany article does indeed mention numbers:

"In order to create a master race the Nazis also undertook programs targeting 'unfit' members of the German population, said to have hereditary defects, which could be anything from mental illness to alcoholism. About half a million individuals fell victim to this.

Between 1939 and 1945, about twelve million people were murdered in a system of ghettos and concentration camps. The genocide of the Jewish people is known as The Holocaust."

The above figures are not precise, but they are widely accepted numbers.

On a related note, I do not think the Japanese adopted a pacifist constitution because of the losses during World War II. As I recall, it was the Americans who encouraged such an adoption. In addition, I do belive that the only reason why Japan accepted an unconditional surrender was that it could keep its emperor. That is a significant fact and worth mentioning.--Sir Edgar 23:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You made two unrelated points. For the first one, I am against the inclusion of numbers "per se" if you can come up with better wording, I am for it. There is a problem if the number is accurate but it should be possible to give some estimated numbers; so I don't think the accuracy would be the problem in the end, if that is the case for some particular edit. For the second one (last para in your post), as far as I know, it is a prevailing view that Japan learned from the loss of the war and the pacifist constitution is born as the result. That is how pupils are taught in school. This may not be truth but wikipedia is not a place to seek a truth anyway. Also I do concur with the connection between the emperor and the surrender. But again is it an accepted theory? It is not from what I hear but if it is, just go ahead editing. -- Taku 23:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but your post shows me in many different ways why there is something severely wrong with history education in Japan.--Sir Edgar 23:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hell, isn't that so? But this explains why the Japanese believe Americans or Chinese people seem to ignore the truth or distort the history. In any rate, I am going to reword the section so that it doesn't support a particular view. -- Taku 22:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
It is indeed true that Americans encouraged the adoption of a constitution. However, I believe it is also true that by the end of the war (especially after the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima), much of the exhausted Japanese population was wishing for peace. Even now, especially among the generation that endured the war, there is a strong peaceseeking, anti-war sentiment. Just saying...since Sir Edgar's post seems to be implying that the Japanese were still bloodthirsty and unaffected by the losses, and that they would not have sought peace if it weren't for the Americans...I'm certain that was not how Sir Edgar wished to have it interpreted, but I'm just saying that some people could take offense (as Taku did, if I'm not mistaken). Also, I would just like to point out that in my Japanese school, I was taught properly that Americans did indeed introduce the constitution (I think it is a widely known fact...I'm not exactly sure where Taku may have gotten that idea about the prevailing view in Japan). In the end though, I think it is important to recognize that every country teaches their history in a slightly biased light, even America. ^.^ Peace (Sorry I don't have an account) 07:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Taku,
This may not be truth but wikipedia is not a place to seek a truth anyway.
Then I believe you might be on wikipedia for the wrong reason. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Japan/Archive 3 as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.


Japanese Religion

Taku,

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

-Thomas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Geography/Precise Location of Japan

Several weeks ago someone deleted my additions to the introduction with the remark "no need for all the seas and oceans surrouding Japan". I while I can understand the desire for elegance/simplicity, I have to disagree here. The precise location of a country is an essential element of its definition. Consider the introductions for other countries here on wiki:

United States" has land borders with Canada and Mexico, and territorial water boundaries with Canada, Russia, and the Bahamas. It is otherwise bounded by the Pacific Ocean, the Bering Sea, the Arctic Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. "

United Kingdom is "a country (or more specifically a constitutional monarchy or unitary state) off the north-western coast of continental Europe, surrounded by the North Sea, the English Channel, the Celtic Sea, the Irish Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean."

Russia "shares land borders with the following countries (counter-clockwise from NW to SE): Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland (only through Kaliningrad Oblast), Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia and North Korea. It is also close to the United States and Japan across stretches of water: the Diomede Islands (one controlled by Russia, the other by the United States) are just 3 km apart, and Kunashir Island (controlled by Russia but claimed by Japan) is about 20 kilometers from Hokkaido."

People's Republic of China "borders 14 nations (counted clockwise): Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, India, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Mongolia and North Korea."

India " has a coastline which stretches over seven thousand kilometres, and shares its borders with Pakistan to the west, the People's Republic of China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the northeast, and Bangladesh and Myanmar on the east. On the Indian Ocean, it is adjacent to the island nations of the Maldives on the southwest, Sri Lanka on the south, and Indonesia on the southeast. India also claims a border with Afghanistan to the northwest"

You get the picture. There is an overwhelming standard on wikipedia to precisely locate a country through its geographically bounded regions, and that is missing here. Overall it would serve this site well to ensure consistency across parallel categories, such as nation-states.

Hi, and thanks for your comment. Wikipedia has considerable variation in the location of such information. It's difficult to strike a balance between the information in the main article and that in the more precise, detailed subject articles. The article on Japan is already strained to the limit. Why not place the precise geographic location information in Geography of Japan? That sounds to me like a great place for it. Fg2 11:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Fg2. Wikipedia has variation in the location of much information, but the property of precisely locating articles on nation-states is overwhelmingly consistent, as the above examples show. If you would like more examples, France, Germany, etc. you will find it all the same. The article's lower content may be strained to the limit, but the article introduction is not; in fact, the introduction section of this article compared to others is very sparse. I hope that helps answer your question. 18.251.5.106 19:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


I'm afraid the same person has reverted the edits again, this time with no attempt at any explanation at all. If he could simply click on the discussion page perhaps he'd see this discussion. I think I've explained myself fully, honestly, and with no malice. Disagreement can be expected, but arbitrary changes with no discussion, interaction, or explanation leaves me confused and not knowing what to do. 18.251.6.66 22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please register. In my opinion, anyone without a User ID should not be actively editing or expecting to engage in a discussion here. I don't want to bother talking to any more anonymous users. Anyhow, your introduction makes Japan seem apart from the rest of Asia and only surrounded by bodies of water. Yes, it is an island, but it is also only 50km away from the continent. Unlike other country introductions, the article on Japan has no mention of its neighbors. It's like they almost didn't exist. I tried adding that Japan is close to North and South Korea, Russia, and China, but it was edited out. So we left it at "East Asia". Also, when you put it in the bodies of water surrounding Japan, you are inviting regular edit wars involving the "Sea of Japan/East Sea" naming debate. Any mention of the Sea of Japan is better left in the geography section to avoid that problem. I am going to go ahead and leave your edits in, but add more as a compromise. But you go ahead and deal with any editing of "Sea of Japan" reverting, okay?--Sir Edgar 23:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Well I am not really any more anonymous than I would be if I signed up with a screen name since you know my identity from my IP, it's just replacing a name with a number, there's no difference. I don't spend enough time on Wikipedia to justify maintaining an entire account, though I do look through the country pages occasionally... I've no problem with your edits. Also, either Sea of Japan or East Sea or any combination is fine with me. 18.251.5.106 12:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Errors Found

Japan does not have an official national anthem. "Kimigayo" (His Majesty's Reign) is only considered to be the anthem. Similarly, the "Hinomaru" (sun disk) has gained worldwide recognition as the 'national flag' of Japan, although it has never been officially designated as such. Perhaps these facts should be added to the article.

The Law Concerning the National Flag and Anthem of August 13, 1999 made those designations official. Many sources that predate the law are still current. As new editions are published, they should reflect this change. Fg2 00:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Proving once again, that in certain cases, the Wikipedia can actually be more trustworthy that other sources! --Carl 10:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, snap. That's my bad, then. *Slaps self* Sorry.