Talk:Japan/Archive 5

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

Toward Featured Status

Being the flagship article of Wikipedia's Japan-related content, this article should be improved to featured status. Wikipedia:What is a featured article? outlines the criteria for this standing. These are the major topics for discussion.

Best work?

Does Japan exemplify Wikipedia's best work? To answer this question, and discover directions for improvement, we can look at featured articles. Especially, the Geography and places section has many examples that are relevant.

Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable?

Well-written?

Which prose can we correct, or tighten? Can we make a passage compelling, or brilliant?

Comprehensive?

Have we omitted any important topics?

Factually accurate?

With all the recent vandalism, it's time to check the facts of the article as it stands.

Neutral?

Are any passages biased toward Japan, one of its neighbors, the West, or another point of view?

Stable?

Apart from vandalism, does the article contain any passages that because of factual inaccuracy or selective reporting, or other cause, bring excessive editing?

Style manual and Wikiprojects?

Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) are relevant. Members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries will scrutinize the article when eventually it comes up for peer review and featured-article candidacy.

Lead section?

Text

Is the lead section concise? Does it summarize the entire topic and prepare the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections?

I rewrote the lead section with the topics in sequence according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead section). I tried to avoid being redundant. To make the introduction smooth, I did not put in the writing/pronunciation template. The link to Names of Japan is clearer, and by putting the template there we can make the lead-in read more naturally. I removed the statement about being an economic giant, since that's irrelevant to the information about islands, which followed in the same sentence. And added one fact, about Honshu's rank by area, to dispel the notion that Japan is a tiny country, but refrained from providing similar information for the other islands, because all that information is only a click away in List of islands by area. Any comments or edits to the lead section? Fg2 06:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:C says "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article)."

Wikipedia:Lead section says, "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:Summary style and news style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of ...' and similar titles).

"To get a better understanding of what a great lead section should do, the perfect article: 'Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. So we aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—we are eased into it.'"

It further gives a guideline for length of the lead section, suggesting 3 or 4 paragraphs for an article of this size.

To follow these guidelines, I've made some substantial changes to the lead section. These include the following:

  1. The first sentence. It was over 50 words long. For accessibility, I divided it into smaller pieces.
  2. Subject matter. The lead section formerly had only two topics: geography and name. I've added history, economy, and culture. These are the most extreme distillations of the topics I could provide, as I hoped to "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
  3. The "world power" sentence. It returns to the lead section as an excellent introduction to the new economics paragraph.
  4. The things that Japan is known for. Like the windmills of Holland, the shoguns, poetic and dramatic forms, manga and J-pop are icons of Japan, so I gave them a place in the lead section.

Please let me know any concerns you have. Fg2 05:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact box

Comparing the article with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Facts table ("WP:C") (bold indicates issues to investigate or discuss): We have the official name and the English name. We have the flag and the nearest thing to a coat of arms. If Japan has no motto, should we specify "none" to clarify the fact, or simply omit it — if a part of WP:C is irrelevant, must we include it? WP:C specifies next the national language (our box has it, although lower down). Political status: our box does not state that Japan is a sovereign state. Capital city: We list Tokyo, which is probably the best compromise. Even if it's not a city, it's the capital (for all practical purposes). Formation: WP:C does not ask for this information, and so does not specify what types of facts to include or exclude. Remove this section? Largest city: We name Tokyo and detail it as 23 Special wards, but we don't include the population of the wards (one number, not 23!). Land area and percent water: we have it. Population, density and ranks: we have recent data in the box. GDP, per cap, and ranks: It's in the table. HDI and rank: It's there. Currency, time zones, anthem (out of sequence), calling code, TLD: all present.

WP:C specifies a sequence slightly different from the one in the article.


Hierarchical headings?

Can we improve the heading structure? Add or delete a level in some sections? Aim for consistency in grammatical structure, relationship to content?

WP:C specifies the following sections:

  • History
  • Politics
  • (Subdivisions)
  • Geography
  • Economy
  • Demographics
  • Culture
  • Miscellaneous topics
  • External links - Links to (official) websites about the country.

Japan has the following second-level heads:

  • History
  • Government and politics
  • Geography (I just removed "of Japan")
  • Economy
  • Society
  • Military
  • References
  • Further reading
  • Miscellaneous topics
  • External links

Our article (1) has Government and politics (which I prefer to Politics); (2) is missing Subdivisions (as a second-level header); (3) has Society instead of Demographics and Culture sections (again, I prefer our section organization); (4) has Military (Can we find another place for this, e.g. a link to it from Miscellaneous topics?) and (5) has References and Further reading sections.

History

History: Japan's section checks in at 1500 words. For comparison, Great Britain has 360, USA: 1300, France: 500, China: 2400 (multiple sections). If we could cut this section to 750 or 1000 words, we'd make major progress toward a concise article.

I've trimmed it down, almost to a thousand words. The guiding principle was to list only extremely important facts, leaving all discussion of analysis, cause and effect etc. for the daughter articles. Fg2 06:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It's probably still too long and should be cut in half. WP:C suggests four to six paragraphs. We have that many third-level heads!Fg2 06:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
History sections in featured articles on countries: Australia (1,000 words, no third-level sections); Belgium (700, no third-level heads); Bhutan (1100, no third-level divisions); Cambodia (1900, with heads); India (525; no heads); Nepal (850 words, no heads); People's Republic of China (1000, no heads) (as examples). Perhaps it's brief enough as it stands. Fg2 07:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Our Miscellaneous section has 26 links that seem quite random. They range from List of Japan-related topics (huge and all-encompassing) to Japanese wolf (a single extinct species). Does anyone want to unify the list (and perhaps include an internal comment stating a principle for inclusion or exclusion in the list)?

I've followed Sekicho's lead (thank you, Sekicho!) and organized Miscellaneous topics in a table. The guiding principle was to link to umbrella articles on the left (matching section titles in the article above) and specific articles on the right (omitting words like "Japan"). I tried to link only to "big" topics to keep it reasonable in length. Some links got omitted... such as the (second of three) link to the Portal. Please help by moving articles from one row of the table to another, or rearranging within rows, etc. Fg2 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The same applies to External links: 17 of them, heavily oriented to government and politics (can they be moved to the daughter article, one click away?) Finally, does anyone have layout skill to make some visual sense of the boxes at the very bottom of the article?

"Japanese Wolf" is supposedly extinct? Then where did those wolves in my part of Japan come from? They come down from the mountains every winter!

Table of contents?

Does Wikipedia:Section have any advice that pertains to our ToC?

Images?

We have lots. We can ask if any are redundant, if they're in the best place, if they relate directly to the content, if they're visually strong. Also, we can check the copyright status, and improve the captions in accordance with Wikipedia:Captions.

Length?

Is the length appropriate to the subject? Is the article tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail on a subtopic that's in (or should be in) a daughter article? Does the article use summary style to provide a survey of topics that those daughter articles discuss in detail?

Referencing

It would help to footnote, as we only still have two references, and none of them are linked to any part of the article.

Consider supplying footnotes for these statements:

  • Lead section: 3000 islands
  • Fact box: population, area, GDP
  • Pre-history: Dates for earliest artifacts, start of Jomon, earliest pottery
  • Geography: Percent mountainous; climatic zone classification of Japan
  • Economy: Growth figures; rank
    • "small defense allocation (1% of GDP)"CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
    • "Usually self sufficient in rice, Japan must import about 50% of its requirements of other grain and fodder crops." CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
    • "Japan maintains one of the world's largest fishing fleets and accounts for nearly 15% of the global catch." CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
    • "For three decades, overall real economic growth had been spectacular: a 10% average in the 1960s, a 5% average in the 1970s, and a 4% average in the 1980s. CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
  • Agriculture: Numbers
  • Service sector: the 3/4 assertion
    • "GDP - composition by sector: agriculture: 1.3% industry: 25.3% services: 73.5% (2005 est.) CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
  • Demographics
    • "Ethnic groups: Japanese 99%, others 1% (Korean 511,262, Chinese 244,241, Brazilian 182,232, Filipino 89,851, other 237,914) note: up to 230,000 Brazilians of Japanese origin migrated to Japan in the 1990s to work in industries; some have returned to Brazil (2004)" CIA Factbook Retrieved March 20, 2006
  • Religion, Education: Numbers
  • More...

which redundant sentence should go?

The current text in the Modern era history says (with repeated sentence in boldface):

By 1910, Japan controlled Korea, Taiwan, and the southern half of Sakhalin. World War I enabled Japan, which fought on the side of the victorious Allies, to expand its influence in Asia, and its territorial holdings in the Pacific.

The early 20th century saw a brief period of "Taisho democracy" overshadowed by the rise of Japanese expansionism. World War I enabled Japan, which fought on the side of the victorious Allies, to expand its influence in Asia, and its territorial holdings in the Pacific. In 1936, however, Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, joining with Germany and Italy to form the Axis alliance.


Now, which of these redundant sentences should be deleted? --Tachikoma 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! I took the first one out. It was in a paragraph that started in Meiji, so WWI is a bit of a reach. Fg2 01:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction is too long now.

I'd like to keep the previous introduction which was clear and concise. The revised introduction seems POV and too long.--Sir Edgar 07:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sir Edgar,

As I wrote above, Wikipedia:Lead section suggests three or four paragraphs, and I wrote four, so it doesn't seem too long. If we can shorten it while still meeting the needs, so much the better. So let's work out a new lead.

Please tell me what seems POV or cluttered to you we can improve it. I tried to stick to facts but if I expressed a point of view, I'm eager to correct it.

"Lead section" says that the "lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in the article." The summary you posted doesn't address history, government, or culture; yet these comprise three of the major sections of the article. Can you help me write a lead that summarizes the article? I'm trying to bring it to featured status, or at least featured quality, so when I read in "Lead section" that "Wikipedia articles should heed these rules" I bow and obey! What can we do to improve the lead?

Fg2 08:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's some additional information that you might find relevant. I looked at featured articles about countries and found the following:

For comparison, my edit of 14:38, March 21, 2006

  • Before: Three paragraphs; 135 words
  • As a result: Four paragraphs; 271 words
  • After your subsequent edit: Two paragraphs; 101 words

I agree that conciseness is a virtue, but I'd like you to consider conciseness in the light of other featured articles on countries. I invite you to visit the articles and evaluate my lead section by comparison to them.

Fg2 11:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you not understand the beautiful simplicity of a Zen-like introduction? :) All kidding aside, sure, the Japan article should have a similar length introduction as other country articles. But one of the reasons why it was selected to be a featured article was because it was well-written. One of the new paragraphs seems to overemphasize foreign influence on Japan, especially that from China. It reads as if Japan is a Westernized Chinese country. Most of the POV seems to have been edited out now, but I still think this introduction needs some work. Many people will read this and it needs to give the right impression of Japan.--Sir Edgar 06:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come now. Japan didn't become Japan by meditating alone in a rock garden. Do you have a better way to sum it up? - Sekicho 23:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Germany article is only three paragraphs and about 160 words long. It looks fine to me. Anyhow, since the Japan article has been recently undergoing so many changes, especially in its introduction. Unless there are some real inaccuracies or misportrayals, I am going to wait out until the dust settles before commenting/editing.--Sir Edgar 01:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Lead section proposal

Here's the text I put in as the lead section. I'm copying it here to make discussion easier. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Fg2 11:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Japan (Japanese: 日本, Nihon or Nippon, literally "sun source") is a country in East Asia. It is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, the Sea of Japan, the Philippine Sea, the East China Sea, and the Sea of Okhotsk. To the west lies Korea (North and South), to the north Russia, and to the southwest, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The largest of its 3,000 islands are, from north to south, Hokkaidō, Honshū, Shikoku, and Kyūshū. Honshū ranks 7th in the world by area. The nation has 47 subdivisions, the prefectures. Nicknamed the "Land of the Rising Sun, the country's English name "Japan," and similar names in European languages, are derived from an old Chinese name for the country.

The earliest records of Japan chronicle expeditions from China in the year 57. Later history includes periods of rule by the Emperor and regents, by shoguns, and recently by elected officials.

A major global power, Japan has an economy built on a strong service sector and an export-oriented manufacturing sector. Its agricultural sector meets its needs for rice, under tariff and quota protection; the nation imports 50% of other grains and most meats.

The culture of Japan includes indigenous and imported elements. The writing system and early forms of music come from its East Asian neighbors, while its long tradition of poetry and early novels are native developments. Buddhism spread from the continent, whereas the Shinto religion developed in the islands. The nation has its own Noh and Kabuki dramatic forms. Recently, artists in media like motion pictures, J-pop and manga have found world-wide acclaim.

The original text is clearly inadequate- it make no attempt to summarise the article. Fg2's is better, but the history section is so short as to be pointless, while the 'year 57' date is given too much prominence (more than it has in the actual article). Could I suggest an expanded history section, with some mention of a) the prehistorical period, b) the important 5th/6th century date, c) something like the existing 'Later history sentence'; and d) a mention of Japan's emergence as a major economic power. We can then remove the separate economy paragraph in the interests of concision. Markyour words 17:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, Markalexander100. Concrete directions for improvement can put us on track quickly. I agree with your note about the year 57. Regarding "so short as to be pointless," it might have come out that way. I hoped to mention things that are often associated with Japan (as Wikiproject Countries suggests), i.e. emperor and shogun, and to draw the reader into the article where they could find more detail (as Lead section suggests), but Sekicho has accomplished that more capably than I could (see below) while also avoiding mention of the year 57. Sekicho also mentioned Japan's status (but not emergence) as a major economic power; if the word "emergence" is crucial, can you find a way to incorporate it into Sekicho's text? And that leaves only the fifth/sixth century to work on. With your suggestions and Sekicho's lead section (a vast improvement over mine), we may be within a whisker of nailing this down! Fg2 20:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sekicho's text: Japan (Japanese: 日本, Nihon or Nippon) is an island country located on the Pacific Ocean, east of China and Korea, stretching from the Sea of Okhotsk in the north to Taiwan in the south. It is composed of over 3,000 islands, the largest of which are Hokkaidō, Honshū, Shikoku, and Kyūshū. Most of Japan's islands are mountainous, and many are volcanic; the highest peak is Mount Fuji.

Japan is the third-largest economy in the world and one of the world's leading industrialized countries. It is a unitary constitutional monarchy with an emperor and an elected parliament, one of the oldest legislatures in Asia. Despite its rugged terrain, it is one of the most populous countries in the world, and one of the most densely populated. Its capital, Tokyo, is the largest metropolitan area in the world with over thirty million residents.

Historically, Japan adopted many Chinese customs and institutions beginning in the 7th and 8th centuries. From the 12th century to the mid-1800s, Japan was a feudal country led by clans of warriors. After the Meiji Restoration of 1868, Japan adopted many European and American customs and institutions. Its culture today is a mixture of these influences.

Japan's name in Chinese characters is often translated as "Land of the Rising Sun", and comes from the country's location on the east coast of Asia. Its English name is derived from Chinese names for Japan.

infobox source

anyone know the source for the data in the infobox? cia world factbook says gdp ppp is 5th, not 3rd [1], & gdp pc is 22nd, not 12th [2]. i'm sure there are other reliable sources besides the cia, just wondering where. Appleby 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC) oops, sorry, found it by, um, clicking on the link. Appleby 18:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The rankings on Wikipedia are by country. In the World Factbook, dependencies, the world, the EU, etc. are added to the list, moving the real countries down a few notches. - Sekicho 23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

religion

This section seems both awkward and wrong. 95% of the Japanese I've met merge Shinto and Buddhism in their lives. And the weddings are faux-"big Church" style as they are entirely free of religious doctrine. - Sparky

I think the best example of Japan and religion comes from a story told to me by a penpal in Oji. When she was younger, her mother would walk her to school. As they passed the butcher shop in their neighborhood, her mother would always make the sign of the cross. When she asked her mother why, she said because her mother (my penpal's grandmother) had always done it as she passed a butcher's shop. So she was using a Christian symbol to ward off Shinto's concept of the ritually unclean brought about by Buddhism's prohibitions against killing for entirely non-religious reasons. - Kuzain 04:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

intro thoughts

Full disclosure, I am not a Japan expert in anyway, whatsoever. Surely, all of you who have worked on this and other Japan related pages are the experts and have done a great job! The intro to the Japan article, as well as the full article, looks well-written. I've a two questions.

1. > and one of the world's leading industrialized countries.< Is that necessary? If people understand what nominal GDP & purchasing power are, surely, they'll know that Japan must be an industrialized country, a world-leading one at that.

2. >Its capital, Tokyo, is the largest metropolitan area in the world with over thirty million residents.< I think this causes some confusion. The capital isn't the entire metro area is it? Also, the Tokyo page mentions the Tokyo pop and the metro pop. The metro pop is given at 33-35 million. 30? 33? 35 million? Shouldn't we be a little more specific with that figure (on both the Japan and Tokyo page)?

Well, there are lot of discrepancies regarding populations of any metropolitan cities in the world; it's just simply too hard to set a boundary as to where the city begins and ends. I'd like to hear more about experts on census systems and classifications of Japan. Deiaemeth 06:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Japans GDP

I updated Japans GDP based on the IMF 2006 list. This link will take you directly to the list: Report for Selected Countries and Subjects (IMF Retrieved April 1, 2006)

Map is wrong, wrong, wrong

Image:LocationMapJapan.png is totally wrong, it shows that two of the southernmost Kuril Islands belong to Japan. Unless the miracle that Russia has finally given back stolen territory has happened, the map is wrong. Please, someone change that and make sure that propaganda and POV stay out of Wikipedia. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


Argh

Some random idiot deleted the whole Japan article <.< —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.4.75.127 (talk • contribs) .

It's been fixed. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 18:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Add Smithsonian Education link?

Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "Japan: Images of a People" is available at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/japan_images_people/introduction.html

It contains a background essay and lesson plans. The focus is on Japanese paintings from the Smithsonian's Freer Gallery of Art, and the clues to culture and history that they contain. If you think the audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention.

Immortality and Origin

Isn't there a "legend" that the first japanese settlers came from china, and they were in search for the "grand elixir of life" or "pill of immortality/philosopher's stone"? 128.6.175.86 20:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of this, but if there is I'd love to see an article on it. I do not think though that it would be appropriate in the main Japan article. This is for generally accepted, broad facts on the country, not obscure (though interesting) trivia.--Sir Edgar 23:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I've heard of this too. first time i've read this was in an aricle on qin shihuang and the terracotta army in a very old edition of "national geographic".

Atheists

The article asserts that "most of the people are not atheists". According to Adherents.com, 64-65% of the Japanese are "Atheist/Agnostic/Nonbelievers in God" [3]; it seems that most do in fact fall under the "nontheist" category. - 68.33.120.32 22:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

does "atheist" specifically mean someone who doesn't believe in the christina/jewish/muslim god, or does it mean someone who does not believe in deities in general? i think if taken in a broad sense, then it's safe to say most of them are not atheists.

Useless statistics. Go elsewhere on that site and you'll see that they have wildly varying numbers for the number of "Shinto followers" in Japan, ranging from 70 million to 115 million. I would say that practical agnosticism is fairly prevalent in Japan—religion is more ritual than spiritual—but that doesn't make the people atheists, just different. - Sekicho 00:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

etymology

hi, just want to point out that in at least two chinese dialects or at least in accents within these dialects, the inital consonant of "sun" is quite close to a "j". Not quite the english j, but close to say, a french j (ʒ i think). you can hear this in mandarin, chaozhou, maybe hokkien and shanghainese

Pro-Korean vandalism / anti-Korean vandalism / anti-Chinese vandalism.

Anti-Chinese vandalism (Anti-Chinese vandalism is not found.)

Anti-Chinese vandalism is not found.
Neither a Chinese user nor a Japanese user are fighting in this article.
In the article on Japan, Japanese and Chinese are making up a good relation.

Pro-Korean vandalism

In this page many pro-koran vandalism were writtn. Ex. the influence of china was weak than that of korea. It was err without no explanation. Chinese character, Buddhism, Japanese envois to Tang Dynasty China,and so on.Polaris36 21:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It can't say if Japan adopted chinese customs ,culture and socal system and part of it through Korean Nations, she adopted 'Korean ones'. Bright888 22:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder which major cultre adopted form Korea. Sorry. Please list some of it. Bright888 23:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Japan introduced chenese cultre and a part of it were throgh Beakje in 6th century. But Japanese envois to Tang Dynasty China in 7th were avoid korean peninsula for dangers. And formal Buddism system were introduced directly after the 7th. Many chinese systems and chenese came from China to Japan directory. One of them was Jianzhen. So we can't say Japan introduced chinese culture by Koreans only. It was one of Pro-Korean vandalism.Bright888 14:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Korean vandalism

I would like to ask people to:

1. Please stop removing references to Korea in this article. 2. Please stop changing "Korea" to "Korean Peninsula" or "Asian Mainland".

There is overwhelming archaeological, historical, genetic, and other evidence of massive Korean influence on Japan (perhaps even more than Chinese influence). We have discussed this issue over and over and provided links, etc.

I am one of the people who have brought this article to the quality that it is now, so that it could be listed as a "good article". I will not allow vandals and those uneducated in the basics of East Asian history to dilute its quality.

Most of the edits have been from anonymous users, but anyone registered who engages in this behavior will be reported as a vandal.--Sir Edgar 00:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am very astonished at the Koreans' patronising request.The Koreans ask people to describe the Korean influence on Japan, however , the Korean deleted the description on their rapid economic growth since 1960s owing to the soft loan from Japan as the result of the Basic Treaty in 1965,in the South Korea Page.Japan owes Korea ANYTHING,but Korea owes Japan NOTHING??? --Trilozengy 14:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
At the cost of our own culture, resources, people, terrority and pride. Koreans were forced to be guinea pigs for Japanese projects, koreans and chinese were sent to fight for Japan (frontline), korean and chinese women were indiscriminately "used", stealing of Korean islets and claiming it as their own (Dokdo is closest to Korea and Korea owned it before the Japanese annexation of Korea, COME ON), and not to mention, the resulting deaths because of Japanese participation in World War II, GOD, I wonder why these Korean pricks don't feel they owe anything to Japan? I mean, rapid economic growth based on Japanese post-analysis of WW2 should be good enough! BECAUSE MONEY SOLVES EVERYTHING RIGHT? Not to mention, they have yet to formally apologize for Japanese atrocities during WW2. Seriously, them Koreans (& Chinese) have no reason to be angry with Japanese folk. Let's not forget that Japanese are trying to erase what happened during WW2 in student textbooks! It's like they are trying to teach their students that what they did during the war was right for heaven's sake? Furthermore, erasing such historical facts and teaching selective history prevents Japanese repentence and learning from their mistakes, god forbid if Japanese repeat their actions in the future. What more do you want? So what if Japan allied with racists nazis responsible for the death of millions of Jews and other ethnic minorities? I think Korea and China should be nicer to Japan no? Haha
Let me add that it is vandalism to remove the words "China" and "Chinese" also.--Endroit 15:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

:In response to Sir Edgar, with respect to the Yayoi people, "mainland Asia" (or "Korea and China", or variations thereof) is more appropriate. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. See discussion at Talk:Japanese people#Satoshi Horai data cited incorrectly.--Endroit 17:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is considered vandalism as 1) no reason for deletion is given 2) Any mention of Korea is deleted and replaced with "China", not even "Mainland Asia", and 3) Properly cited information is deleted. It IS an act of vandalism, but the cause of vandalism stems from content disputes. What difference are there between this case and Neo-Nazis frequently vandalizing the Holocaust page and blanking sections just because they believe such actions did not take place? Well, yes, I agree that the Korea/mainland thing is more of a content dispute, but what the anon IP user does as a whole is considered vandalism in Wikipedia. Well, I guess all we can do is try to [Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]], as I've seen even the most heinous internet trolls come around =). Deiaemeth 23:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
A lot of users are not Neo-Nazi. Will you think that it is a nationalism that the South Korean steals the activity of China?　Why are they evaluating the Netherlands and China if they are exclusive patriots?　--Kamosuke 00:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Chinese doesn't demand the Tang dynasty of the word. The South Korean demands the name of Begja kingdam. This is not POV. --Kamosuke 04:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:NPOV to actually grasp the policy of NPOV. Deiaemeth 06:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

TAKESHIMA IS JAPANESE!!!!!!#%#$FHGWHGADS - Sekicho 08:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Deiaemeth 08:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Translation: This debate is getting so absurd it's comical. Like, uh, every other debate between Koreans and Japanese, basically. - Sekicho 08:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay.... I thought for a moment that your account was hijacked or something.. Deiaemeth 08:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As Sir Edgar indicated, this article is a Wikipedia:Good article. But the criteria for good article requires that there be no problems with factual accuracy (verifiability), NPOV, and edit wars. I'm afraid we have an active edit war here, because people have been adding and deleting the words "Korea", "China", "Chinese", and "Korean" without much discussion. I believe there is can be a legitimate content dispute in most such cases, despite both parties accusing each other of vandalism. Here's a 3-part proposal to resolve this problem....

  1. In each disputed case, proper citations are needed to show whether Korea (only), China (only), or both are historically involved.
  2. When both Korea and China are involved, in each case we must determine the wording: "mainland Asia" "continental Asia", "Korea and China", or variations thereof. I believe "mainland Asia" "continental Asia" sounds NPOV, but some people may seem to believe otherwise.
  3. Part of the problem is that Japanese people (and others) don't know enough about Korean culture and history, and so the word "Korea" may be misunderstood by them. Korea can be "Korea (高麗 goryeo)", "Korea (高句麗 goguryeo)", "Korea (百濟 baekje)", "Korea (新羅 silla)", "Korea (朝鮮 joseon)", "Korea (韓國 hanguk)", or the area occupied by the above in prehistoric times, depending on the situation. (Some of this area overlaps into today's Manchuria and China). I suggest if we use the word "Korea", we shall need to specify which Korea is being referenced in each case.

If we don't improve this situation, the "good article" status may have to go.--Endroit 15:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well its too late now, this is the Good Article collaboration of the week :). Sounds like y'all have a bit of a dispute going on then I take it? Homestarmy 01:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations for "Yayoi culture was brought to Japan by migrants from mainland Asia" (both Korea and China)

  • Superceded by the citations in the next section below.--Endroit 15:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

*Citation claiming migration from "mainland Asia" (including prehistoric Korea) — This citation shows a strong Yayoi link with today's Korea
 *Citation claiming migration from "the lower basin of China's Yangtze River" — This citation shows a strong Yayoi link with ancient Jiangsu, of China
 *Yayoi people#The Origin of Yayoi Culture Note: The term "Mainland Asia" includes both Korea and China, and seems to be the preferred terminology for Yayoi migrators used by some researchers. And I believe it is the most NPOV.--Endroit 15:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Most links I found state "Korea", not "mainland Asia" as Yayoi origins:

1. Many people from Korea emigrated to Japan. Those people brought rice cultivation and metal work to Japan during the Late Jomon Period. Jomon people started to learn and practice those new things. The cultural effect from Korea was reflected in the shape of earthenware vessels, tools, technology and society in Yayoi period. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/japan/yayoi/yayoi.html

2. According to one estimate, Yayoi Japan received several million immigrants from Korea, utterly overwhelming the genetic contribution of Jomon people (thought to have numbered around 75,000 just before the Yayoi transition). If so, modern Japanese are descendants of Korean immigrants who developed a modified culture of their own over the last 2,000 years. http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2350.html

3. The Yayoi period brought also the introduction of iron and other modern ideas from Korea into Japan. http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2131.html

4. Unlike Jomon pottery, Yayoi pottery was very similar to contemporary South Korean pottery in shape. Many other elements of the new Yayoi culture were unmistakably Korean and previously foreign to Japan, including bronze objects, weaving, glass beads, and styles of tools and houses. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so191/PacificRimReadings/JapaneseRoots.html

5. In this sense, a very great part of Japan's origins, both culturally and ethnically, can be traced back to Korea. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ getarticle.pl5?nn20020312b6.htm

Etc, etc.

The use of the term "Korean peninsula" and less commonly "mainland Asia" seems to come from mostly Japanese sites.

This might be the best compromise from the Met Museum site: While some aspects of Yayoi society evolved from the Jomon, more important to its development was the technique of wet-rice cultivation, which is thought to have been introduced to Japan from Korea and southeastern China sometime between 1000 B.C. and the first century A.D. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/yayo/hd_yayo.htm

I think most Yayoi were from Korea though. The wet-rice cultivation had spread to southern Korea by this time and must have been brought to Japan by migrants from this area. Though I think it is somewhat misinformation considering that most evidence overwhelmingly points to a Korean connection.--222.233.205.185 02:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, of the two links you provided, only one uses the term "mainland Asia". The other does not even mention it.--222.233.205.185 02:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
"Mainland Asia" includes "the lower basin of China's Yangtze River" as well as "Korea". But being specific is fine too. I just found a citation for a more comprehensive DNA study by Hammer below, rather than our generarizations and speculation so far.--Endroit 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, only one of those links says "mainland Asia".--Sir Edgar 23:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation for "Yayoi culture was brought to Japan by migrants from Korea, who in turn trace their roots to southeast Asia/south China."

by Michael F. Hammer, Tatiana M. Karafet, Hwayong Park, Keiichi Omoto, Shinji Harihara, Mark Stoneking, Satoshi Horai
Published online: 18 November 2005
Selected summary pertaining to Yayoi....
  1. Describes the Yayoi migration from Korea based on the O-SRY(465) genes and other genes with close lineage (haplogroups O-M122 and O-M95).
  2. Reiterates that "the entire O haplogroup has been proposed to have a Southeast Asian origin." (Their definition of Southeast Asia includes southern China). Then hypothesizes that "the dispersals of Neolithic farmers from Southeast Asia also brought haplogroup O lineages to Korea and eventually to Japan."
  3. In the concluding paragraph, it states "we propose that the Yayoi Y chromosomes descend from prehistoric farmers that had their origins in southeastern Asia, perhaps going back to the origin of agriculture in this region."
  4. Hammer's DNA study is based on a "global sample consisted of > 2,500 males from 39 Asian populations, including six populations sampled from across the Japanese archipelago."

--Endroit 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

by Han-Jun Jin, Kyoung-Don Kwak, Michael F. Hammer, Yutaka Nakahori, Toshikatsu Sinka, Ju-Won Lee, Feng Jin, Xuming Jia, Chris Tyler-Smith, Wook Kim
Published online: 18 September 2003
Selected excerpt regarding Yayoi: "... these results provide convincing evidence for recent male migration, originally from China into Japan moving through Korea."--Endroit 07:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You really seem to lack a knowledge of East Asian history. Southeast Asia did not have any of the technologies listed. You are engaging in an edit war without good reason.--Sir Edgar 23:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyhow, most DNA evidence points to a Korean-Japanese connection.--Sir Edgar 23:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar: Obviously you misunderstood. I DID say "...was brought to Japan by migrants from Korea..."
It's what I said after that which matters, and you are urged to at least print out the "2005 Hammer" document (which I cited above) and glance through it. Obviously you didn't read it because Hammer's definition of Southeast Asia includes Southern China.
I'm sure you misunderstood. But just in case, the articles Bronze Age#Asia, Iron Age#East Asia, and Rice#History collaborate the belief that at least 3 of those "technologies" occurred in China first and then in Korea later.
Anyways I wasn't even referring to the technologies being invented there. I was referring to the Yayoi people who were "migrants from Korea, who in turn trace their roots to southeast Asia/south China". If you don't like the "southeast Asia" part, I will omit it. But the 2005 Hammer DNA study suggest that the forefathers of Yayoi genes originated in Southern China, brought rice to Korea, and then from Korea to Japan. Please read it and let me know what you think. It's very interesting to read (although a little technical). It even goes into details about Jomon (and pre-Jomon), how the Japanese are a hybrid between Yayoi and Jomon, how the Tibetan genes are similar to the Japanese, etc.
By the way, if you disagree with me, I would at least like to see you provide some citation proving your point. Perhaps you can find a more comprehensive DNA study? Please show some courtesy like I am doing now. Please either restore what was there before, tell me how you want it to be, or let me know if you disapprove completely. Thank you, Sir Edgar.--Endroit 00:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the way the current Japan article has worded the statements, using "China and Korea" or "Korea" or "Korea, and possibly southeastern China" (depending upon the context in various sections). Hammer's "Southeast Asia" does not conform to Wikipedia's usage of the term, just like Horai's "mainland Asia" is a blurring of "Korea". Thus, I do not agree with the use of vague terms like "mainland Asia" simultaneously with specific terms like "Japan". That implies an inequality in perspective and dilution of the former in favor of the latter.

Anyhow, I have printed out the Hammer article and will review it. Of course, it is just one of many studies on this topic and I will read it as such. The vast majority of evidence indicates that the Yayoi came from Korea. Thank you for referring me to the article though. I will enjoy reading it.

I will also look for data (from a Japanese source) that shows DNA make-up of modern day Chinese differing from that of Koreans and Japanese. There's even a pie chart showing the genetic make-up of each group for you.

My previous responses may have been a bit hasty, but I was in a hurry at the time.--Sir Edgar 04:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, Sir Edgar, I'll give it a few days. Please let me know if you read it. Hammer builds upon the work done by Horai and others. But unlike Horai, Hammer has a sufficiently large data sample ( > 2,500 people) he's working with. I expect we have quality material we can directly cite from here. In the meantime, if you have DNA information you can share with me, please do so. Thank you, Sir Edgar.
Everyone else, if there are any DNA experts reading this, please be sure to read the (above) material by Hammer. Thank you.--Endroit 06:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read the article yet, but again I would like to ask you, in turn, to read a breadth of articles on this topic and not rely on simply one or two sources. I have the feeling that you are not that knowledgeable on the subject.--Sir Edgar 23:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation requested for "...the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, ceremonial burial, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea"

By the way, some Japanese Wikipedians and anonymous users continue to change this:
"The Japanese did not start writing their own histories until the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, ceremonial burial, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea."
Into this:
"... the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, ceremonial burial, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea."
"... the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, ceremonial burial, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from mainland Asia."
No reason is given for the editing and thus this is vandalism. It used to be "from Korea" and then people changed it to "Korean Peninsula" and then it was specifically stated as "Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea" as a compromise. This was done a long time ago.
There is vast historical documentation and archaeological evidence on both sides of the Sea of Japan that that shows Baekje's contribution to Japanese civilization, especially after its collapse. In fact, it is believed that Baekje nobility constituted a large basis for Japan's imperial line. As documented in the Shoku Nihongi (and reiterated by the current Japanese emperor), the mother of Emperor Kammu (736–806) was a descendant of King Muryeong of Baekje.
Thus, "mainland Asia" is not only inaccurate, but also misleading information. "Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea" is the correct description.--Sir Edgar 04:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody please provide the citation for the above? Also, please explain why the Chinese writing system, culture, etc. was not introduced to them directly by the Chinese. The (above) choice of words is such that China did not contribute anything at the time. I understand that a revert war is going on because a citation has not been provided.--Endroit 06:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is some information that also shows a "Korean" influence.
And, if we are going to be so precise by saying "Baekje, one of the Kingdoms of Korea" shouldn't we be saying the "Yamato polity that was the burgeoning nucleas of the modern Japanese state"? When the insistence on specificity is only demanded on Korean entities, than the argument that people are just trying to downplay Korean influence is strengthened because it is a curious double standard.
  • The word Baekje is important because the Chinese characters 百濟 (zh: bǎijì or ko: baekje) are used in primary sources. Also, a link to the Japanese wikipedia entry ja:百済 (ja: kudara) may be helpful to Japanese readers here. The Korean wikipedia entry ko:백제 (ko: baekje) may be listed to make the entry parallel.--Endroit 19:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
1) Cambridge History of Japan:
A) Archaeological evidence from the Fujinoki tomb suggests that the person burried there, "like the Soga, was made up largely of immigrants with close cultural ties to Korea." Any horse related materials were imports from Korea because the native Japanese of the day would not know what the "meaning" of the artifacts "nor how to make such fittings." [4].
B) The establishment of an urban civilization that was "definitely Korean in character" based on this evidence:
a) Imported grave goods
b) The "Korean style" of the three great temples of the Asuka period
c) The "continental" origins of Asuka period treasures at the Horyu-ji Temple collection.
d) The prominence of "Korean priests" of 1384 clerics (815 priests, 569 nuns) serving in the 46 temple compounds by 624 CE
e) And the dominance of the Soga clan and its strong Korean connection (also sourced in Japan's Name Culture [5].
2) The rank system adopted by Japan in 603 CE, although based on the Chinese Wei, was most directly influenced by "Koguryeo (Goguryeo) and Paekche(Baekje)." [6].
3) Korean immigrant: Kuratsukuri no Obitotori who cast a bronze Buddha at Asuka-dera [7].
4) The "conclusion that Yamato's relations with the Korean kingdoms had become more active in the last half of the fourth century":
a) Archaeological sites that show that there was a "continuous flow of materials, techniques, and immigrants from the Korean peninsula into Japan." [8].
5) There is "little doubt that the Japanese court was determined" to "make extensive use of Korean experts for an accelerated and wide-ranging program of modernization." [9].
a) Tenji's order to adopt continental methods was finished in 671 CE, the same time many former Paekche officials were awarded high ranks for services rendered in special fields of knowledge. [10].
6) Disovering the Arts of Japan: "Early Japanese temple compounds were based on Korean Paekche temples of the sixth and seventh centuries." [11].
7) Korea: A Religious History states that monks sent to Japan include Hyep'yon (Keiben in Japan), Hyeja (Keiji in Japan) was the tutor of Prince Shotoku. [12].
8) Gateway to Japan: The famous artist, Tori Busshi, "was of Korean descent." [13].
9) A History of Writing in Japan: The Nihon Shoki states that King of Paekche sent Atiki, who taught about horse culture. Also, it menions a Wani of Paekche who tutored the crown prince. [14].
10) The New York Times: Japanese National Treasure No. 1, a famous contemplative Maitreya, was "almost certainly carved in Korea and sent to Japan. [15].
Tortfeasor
Korea by James Huntley Grayson: "Paekche(Baekje) was paramount" in the development of early Yamato-ese Buddhism. [16].
Writing Systmes: A Linguistic Approach by Henry Rogers: "Korean tutors came to Japan to teach the Chinese language" [17] (also, please refer to Wani and Atiki, sent by the king of Baekje, metioned in the Nihongi/Nihonshoki (if the source can be determined reliable) which also states that they brought written language, 1,000 Chinese characters, and the 'Analects' to the Yamato polity.
Tortfeasor 17:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Tortfeasor. I just took a quick glance. There's overwhelming influence by Baekje.
But in addition, there's some important fundamental influnce by Wei and Sui as well. I need time to review the relevant info.--Endroit 18:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion: Read a book on East Asian history.

Sorry if I may sound rude (that's not my intention), but that's what it essentially comes down to. You shouldn't really be editing an article just because you're ignorant on the topic.

I'd suggest reading a bunch of books on Japanese and Korean history from various sources: Japanese, Korean, American, European, etc. You really need to look at a wide range of sources. Not that you are (because I don't know), but you can't rely on only the Cambridge History of Japan or one or two finds from a search engine.--Sir Edgar 23:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Actually you can, if it is good enough for the academic world to suffice requirements with at least one credible source, then why isnt it for Wikipedia? You need to look at multiple sources, cause who funds that academic institution can have an indirect effect also. If toshiba, mitsubishi, etc are the primary source of funding for the East asian studies courses at a university that university might indirectly become bias cause their funding is linked to some of the conclusions or the way they state the facts. For example Brown University's East Asian Studies Courses are more than 50% funded by private Japanese corporations.

article critique

I liked to say that this article is well written in an objective manner. Other articles I have seen in the past have displayed subtle but obvious bias, nevertheless this article does well. However, how important is the denial of Jappanese immigrants to the U.S., denial of ownership of land, power over their own kids recognized by their government, and other rights both Japanese Americans and Japan declared were necessary for fruitful Japanese-American relations. In other words, domestic policies effecting immigration of Japanese to the U.S. and rights of Japanese Americans pre-World War II were stressed over and over and over, uncountable times by Japan as a harbinger to the foreign relations between the two countries. Also, Japan asked immediately after the first World War that race be not considered an issue in creating foreign policies within the league of nations, but western nations turned this down. Japan interpreted those messages the wrong way if western nations at that time were not intentionally racist. Thus, nationalism based on race or (Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere) was created in response ( a form of the white man's burden and manifest destiny combined).

Most importantly, if a country suffers from overpopulation, what does it do?

1) Create strict laws controlling population (one child per family policy in CHina) 2) Raise the economy to support this extra load of population (China is doing now with the help of the U.S. and other nations) 3) allow massive immigration to other countries (Japan tried to do this with the U.S. before World War II, Hispanic countries are doing this method now) 4) War by gaining living space (countries like ENgland, Germany,Japan,and the U.S. through imperialism)

Japan was not willing to committ harsh policies on its own people, Japan tried massive immigration to the U.S. (what other place would be easier for a westernized nation under the initial influence of Commodore Perry), and inevitably because it was not allowed to control population through immigration, engaged in imperialism. Rarely have I ever seen these facts asserted in any paper I have read within a western nation pertaining to Japan. However, I stated these facts as a informative purpose, to keep your objectivity as an author would probably mean not including these facts, so only consider but do not implement these aforementioned premises. Without these facts included within your paper, you have done well to keep both these preceding perspectives and western perspectives seperated from the objective facts. Good job.

Thank you for your comments. Trust me, this article is under constant attack by vandals and, less frequently, rightists, sympathizers, or just plain misinformed Wikipedians. It has taken a lot of work to bring it up to the standard it has reached now. So, speaking on behalf of the many people who have actually contributed to this article's progress, I appreciate your kind words.
To address the issues you have brought up:
1. The U.S. denied access to not only Japanese immigrants, but all non-European immigrants through The United States Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins Quota Act. It established a system of national quotas which limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people who were already living in the United States in 1890, according to the census of 1890.

The aforementioned immigration act banned all asians from immigrating to the US, however, the exclusion of Chinese immigration occured in the 1890's while through a "gentlemen's agreement" between Japan and the US, Japanese immigration continued. Therefore this is why the academic community including collegiate textbooks on US history state that this act effected the Japanese more so than any other Asian immigration group, so this is why Japan had the most friction with the US over immigration.

2. Japan's statements to the Western world about racism during the first half of the 20th century were hypocritical, considering the abhorrent treatment of Japanese colonial subjects in China and Korea (see Nanking Massacre and Korea under Japanese rule). It's not like Japan was a champion of Asian rights in the international scene, just its own rights as a major power from Asia. So, I'm not sure if this really belongs in a main article on Japan.

Japan's military treatment of civilians and POWS has nothign to do with Japanese americans and Japanese immigrants. Because Japan committed atrocities against other people has no relevance in the assertion that Japan cared for Japanese immigrants and Japanese americans. Lets not commit jingoism by applying this idea to Japan but not remembering that the original colonies of the US expanded westward with horrific treatment on the indegenous population, this expansion does not indicate that the US did not care for their own Americans. Then why does horrific treatment of POWS and civiians by Japan indicate so? The above statement, I hope is now aware, is a fallacy.


3. Overpopulation is not known as having been or being a big issue in Japan. Neighboring South Korea and Taiwan have higher population densities (Japan 337, South Korea 491, Taiwan 636 persons per square kilometer). See List of countries by population density.

The overpopulation statistics you provide are from 2005 and hence not relevant for this assertion applied within the context of before and during World War II. TO strengthen your refutation, please provide population statistics from the preceding dates mentioned. Also, none of the countries you used were world powers, the unstated assumption you list is that because the aforementioned countries suffer from similar or worse overpopulation, then they have equitable losses if this problem goes unchecked.

4. I think you might be referring to a sort of Japanese Lebensraum, but I don't recall this ever being mentioned as a reason for Japanese expansionism in Asia. I'm sure it was discussed as a justification for occupying places like China and Korea at one point, but not significant enough to be discussed as in the article on Hitler (where Lebensraum is mentioned in the second paragraph).
--Sir Edgar 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I provided the sources to support this but you erased them and kept your refutations online. This action is not only disrespectful but unwarranted and also if your actions are not explained , may very well be prejudicial as those actions single out one individual without supported and documented evidence to accusations as such. I understand if you have a problem with my approach in disemminating information, but to ignore the facts I provided because of the methodology in which it was delivered hinders not only the progression of the public audience that view these Wikipedia articles but also to yourself. For example, to clarify, "I dont lik the way you say things or what you are saying, so Im going to ignore you." Please do not erase my refutations and statements but answer back in the spirit of ascertaining truth because of your respect for such. Also, if corrections to my bahavior online needs to be employed, then make me aware of what it was that upset you to partake in your behavior and also be fair in comparison to other's decorum when making that evaluation. Though what I have stated upset many people, if those people didnt argue or refute those facts, then why even participate in Wikipedia or any academic discipline? As long as what I or anybody states can be supported with evidence, then they are making a contribution. If you disagree, I have informed Wikipedia, please speak with them so that we may argue this issue of contribution and make any necessary corrections on yours or my part. Thank you

Misinformation vs. Perceived misinformation vs. Accuracy in the "Classical era" section

This discussion pertains to the following text in the Classical era section:

The Japanese did not start writing their own histories until the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, ceremonial burial, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea.

In reading Tortfeasor's citations, I was particularly moved by how much the Baekje (Paekche) and Goguryeo (Koguryo) contributed to jump-starting Japan's culture, particularly the introduction of Buddhism. See Korea - A Religious History by: James Huntley Grayson p. 33

In the span between 538 and 607 (and perhaps before that too), Korean influence was great in Japan.

Misinformation

Although I tried to be 100% NPOV, I was using over-generalized wording, "mainland Asia", and ended up making the article less accurate. I don't blame others for accusing me of misinformation for doing so, and I do appologize. If it wasn't clear from my most recent edits though, I have retracted my intention to insert the words "mainland Asia" (or "continental Asia") into this article. (Actually, I only tried that for a couple of days, then gave up.)

Perceived misinformation

Although Sir Edgar strived to be 100% accurate, he ended up using wording which implied that Korea was the original source (and inventor) of all the culture. In reality, Korea acquired a significant portion (at least 30% to 50%) of this culture from Northern Wei Dynasty's China, and somehow we seem to be short-changed if this information is missing.

Accuracy

I propose to use wording which explicitly specify who did what: Baekje Korea, Goguryeo Korea, Wei China, etc. And yes, Baekje (百済) appears in Nihonshoki. And yes Baekje and Goguryeo appears in Tortfeasor's citations. And yes, Northern Wei (of China) also appear in Tortfeasor's citations.

I believe that Korea (mostly Baekje, some Goguryeo) was 100% responsible for the culture, etc., being introduced to Japan, and we need to word it that way. But at the same time, we should use wording which mentions that China (particularly Northern Wei) was a significant source (but not necessarily the inventor) of these culture. I request Sir Edgar and others to cooperate with me in accomplishing this.

--Endroit 17:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Comments, anybody?--Endroit 19:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the reason to have deleted Japanese envoy to Tang Dynasty China. It is an event that is more important than the South Korean.　--61.116.115.64 23:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the importance of previous event.

Details

Buddhism　- Chinese Buddhism Buddhism introduced to Japan. Dharma character schoolRitsuKegon, They are Buddhisms of China.

advanced pottery - advanced pottery was introduced into Japan by the prince of Silla "Amenohiko" [18]

ceremonial burial　- Ceremonial burial of traditional Japan started in the eighth century. [19]

Immigrant of Wu Emperor Yuryaku sent forth an emissary to China, and requested the immigrant.

If you write a really neutral article

"when the Chinese writing system, chinese Buddhism, advanced pottery, and other aspects of culture were introduced by aristocrats, artisans, scholars, and monks from Korea's Baekje and Goguryeo and shilla Kingdoms or Wu which in turn derived some of that culture from China's Northern Wei Dynasty."

It will be able to write simply. --Kamosuke 23:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please keep discussion focused on Japan article. (Re: Comments by Collective Conscious)

Tangential topics and talk related to an individual Wikipedian should go to the appropriate section. This is not a space for rants and personal attacks. Discussion about Japanese immigration to the U.S. should go be in the Immigration to the United States article or by creating a Japanese emigration article. Unless anyone objects, I would like to edit all of this out, so we can keep the valuable content that actually relates to the main article on Japan.--Sir Edgar 00:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

sir edgar, please do, this page has become unreadable & unusable.
66.32.117.147, please provide specific, concise editing suggestions based on Wikipedia policies. nobody's going to read, analyse, & respond to your book-length thesis here, because that's not what we've gathered here to do. please mercilessly prune the verbiage to a short list of suggested edits, or move your comments to your own user page, or possibly move them (after pruning) to the more specific articles suggested by sir edgar, before he or another wikipedian deletes them. thanks. Appleby 01:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I admit the list of facts were very long, however, please be objective and attack my facts and logic, not make mentionings of my stlye of writing which is less important. Is this concise? In addition, I have noticed you have done the same thing I did which you are complaining about on the discussion page of Korea. You know the 3 paragraphs worth of resources on the use of the word brutal in describing Japanese atrocities. Why is my same action offensive to you? It just is contradictory, which I hope explains why I am questioning motives.

This article has a lot of factual errors,please clean it up. Arent the Japanese and Northeastern asian languages similar or something? I think I remember this from class on Asian history.

What factual errors? That 'something or something you think you remember' is not in the article? If you look in the Language section, you'll find "There is no consensus on what, if any, relationship Japanese has with other languages, but scholars continue to research the issue." HenryFlower 11:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, this is a good response about the consensus part. This is accurate. I only mentioned it as a factual error because as you said there are many theories about the origin of the Japanese people including the relationship pertaining to language. Which theory do are we using in this article?

I think the Language section should indeed mention correlation to Korean and other Altaic language, but this is only a theory. In all likelihood, modern day Japanese had strong influence from both the Goguryeo language and the Pacific islands as well as Chinese vocabulary. However, not mentioning this is not a "factual error".--Sir Edgar 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to help with this article too since its the GA collaboration, but all this ranting about racism and whatnot, yeesh. Homestarmy 12:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Racism as I have stated in the follwing parapgraph is unfortunately a coomon topic within the hitories of many countries. It is so common that the only people I have witnessed to adamantly oppose any mention of racism are right wing racists, proud southerners, and fundamentalists. I agree though that too much talk of racism is boring and repetitive.

All of that has been edited out. Please feel free to contribute.--Sir Edgar 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The ranting part I can agree with, methodology is important in conveying your message, so apologies about that, (I was a little frustrated because I supplied a lot of significant and credible evidence that contributed to racism and diplomacy for the two countries of Japan and the US pre-World War II, including published dissertations which were accepted by the academic community that indicated this as well, yet they were erased). Racism, though some do not want to hear about it because it may offend the pride of national fervor has been a part of many countries' histories including Japan and as you well know the US. It was so important a theme before World War II that it effected diplomatic relations between the two aforementioned countries. I am aware of Sir Edgar's reply of what I understood as well as other viewers I directed attention to of what we thought to be a traditional like cycle of the demonization of Japan during World War II. Sir Edgar stated, I dont think Japan was worried about Asian rights as a refutation to Japan-US diplomacy and how racial discriminatory policies in the US against Japanese effected them. Japan was awful in atrocities but the idea of good against bad is an awful lie taught to all of us during our youth. It takes significant effort to break from this cycle. In other words there were good things and bad things with Japan's war like efforts. Too many factual sources exist to support my assertion of race and diplomacy regardless if it is a revisionist perspective or not.

Dear "Collective Conscious" 66.32.117.147 (talk · contribs): This article does not go into details for good reason. It links to many sub-articles, such as Japanese language, Japonic languages, Demographics of Japan, Japanese people, Foreign relations of Japan, etc., and you are asked to click those links. Please look at EACH individual article and make the changes there. Don't put all your comments here in the main article. Also, if you wish to respond to me, please do so at User talk:Endroit. Thank you.--Endroit 16:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

References

If you can fill in any of the cite needed tags then please do so so we can get this to FA. Country articles need lots of references. Skinnyweed 16:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Format

I dont know if it is my computer or something but there is a format problem with prime minister and emperor in the infobox tableHektor 09:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)