Talk:Japan

"Japan" v. "Nippon"

Would be useful/interesting in the article to mention when the term Nippon as opposed to Japan would typically be used. Tempshill 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Japan is English name, Nihon/Nippon is Japanese name. More interesting perhaps would be when Nippon is used rather than Nihon. Samatarou 02:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

For that see Names of Japan. -- Taku 06:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pacific war

Is there any problem to describe the Kota Bharu landing in addition to the Pearl Harbor attack?[1] Since the main purpose is occupying Southeast Asia for the resources and the Pearl Harbor attach is just strategic purpose, it is appropriate to add the Kota Bharu landing. Jjok 03:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. This is not a history page - it is a general page on Japanese history. The page is already long, so I do not see why we need to add a point on this. There is a link to the Japanese history article. John Smith's 07:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Civilization vs Human Occupation

It got a revert back from human occupation back to civilization? Civilization doesn't just mean 'People lived there.' As defined, a pastoral or otherwise semi-agricultural hunter-gatherer society is not a civilization. Civilization is a specific way of life unknown to the people of japan in 10,000 BC. Also, the word was linked to the civilization article that defined it contrary to the meaning it was given.

"The first signs of civilization on the Japanese archipelago appeared around 10,000 BC with a culture, characterized by a Mesolithic to Neolithic semi-sedentary hunter-gatherer lifestyle of pit dwelling and a rudimentary form of agriculture." was linked to - "..Most often it is used to refer to "complex" societies: those that practice intensive agriculture; have a significant division of labour; and have population densities sufficient to form cities... Beginning a mere 10-12 thousand years ago in the Middle East..." etc.

If a word is going to be mis-used, or used in the vernacular, it probably shouldn't be linked to the real definition. Maybe put in quotes or something.

Matkuna 02:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems the date for occupation was farther back than 10,000 BC, however hunter-gatherers still did not live in "civilizations". They have a Band society or a tribe. Society would also be an accurate word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matkuna (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 July 2007

I agree completely. For anyone who thinks otherwise, I invite them to take a look at Civilization#Development_of_early_civilizations; Chinese civilization begins around 2200 BC - Japanese not until long after that. Yayoi period maybe, or Kofun period. Though I would personally argue that "Japanese" civilization, as in something with definitive connections to later medieval, early modern, and modern Japanese society, did not emerge until after the Kofun period, around the 6th century CE at the earliest. LordAmeth 05:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Japan as official language

I read, that Japan is not the official language of Japan, only the language speaken by most of the people. Does anyone have more information to this? Eggwadi 13:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese is the de facto official language, but it is indeed not lawfully accepted as the official language. The Japanese just never seemed to see any particular reason to accept a law that states the obvious - i.e. Japanese has always been so prevalent and unchalenged in its role as official language that there never really was a need to do this. Thus, there is no actual official language in Japan. This is just one of history's quirks, it doesn't have a deeper meaning or anything. TomorrowTime 16:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

BC or BCE?

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

I am not a Wikipedia master, and therefore couldn't find the appropriate avenue to register this comment. That being said, I have a simple question: I edited the article on Japan, in an extremely minor way (under an anonymous profile), in that I changed one usage of BC to BCE. Now, not only do I think BCE and CE are more scholarly terms than BC and AD, the crux of the issue is that BCE is used a handful of times right before the BC that I changed. Therefore, it screams of inconsistency. Again, I also feel that as many people reading about Japan (including myself) might not be Christians, it is undesirable to list the dates that way. So, when my change was reverted, I merely wanted to point this out to the administrator who barred my revision (John Smith's), but I was unable to find a link to contact this person. Now, I am usually only a reader on Wikipedia, but occasionally I see things like that, and I feel compelled to alter them. Regardless, I just don't feel the deletion of my change is justified, in terms of the consistency of the article without it. Thank you, Billshattner@yahoo.com

Wikipedia's Manual of Style deals with this subject at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras. Essentially, either is acceptable, and usage should be consistent within the article. However, one format should not be replaced with another unless there is a substantial reason for the change. I would further note that both the AD/BC and CE/BCE conventions are commonly used by scholars in academic/professional journals, law reviews, and books - one is not more "scholarly" than another. Thanks for voicing your concern - I hope I addressed it adequately. --Tim4christ17 ^[[User

talk:Tim4christ17|talk]] 04:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

From a non-Christian perspective, I prefer the BCE/CE as I do not like the "year of our lord" designation. While it does not bother me that much, it is slightly offensive. I'd rather not have to define time by someone else's god. Showers 06:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As the change was for consistency, I'd support it. We're inconsistent in several places and I've (arbitrarily) chosen to change them all to BCE. Dcoetzee 01:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy says not to change without a substantial reason. To the best of my knowledge, this edit has the first use of BC (by which I mean no prior use of BCE) and the article should continue to use that style, absent a substantial reason. So I've reinstated the AD/BC system and made the article consistent within that system. Of course, both systems have supporters and opponents; the policy though is separate from the article on Japan and the right place to discuss it is on the talk page of the policy.

Finally, to Billshattner, you're welcome to participate in editing, policymaking discussions, and other aspects of Wikipedia, either with a user name or anonymously. We arrive at policies by consensus of the community, and when you find a matter you want to establish as policy, or a policy you want to change, Wikipedia has talk pages where you can voice your opinions freely. For established policies, you can also peruse the discussions that led to them. These are often in archive pages, accessible from the talk pages. You'll find links to policies at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Whether you're a casual reader, an occasional editor, or a frequent participant, Wikipedia welcomes you. Fg2 11:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fg2 - keep BC. John Smith's 11:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Dcoetzee 21:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think BCE/CE is better and I don't find the "someone happened to use BC first so he wins" reason very compelling at all. If you are talking about changing an already consistent use of BC/AD to BCE/CE, which is what I think the policy really addresses, I might feel differently. Here, however, a mixture of both happened to crop up over time, and the inconsistency needed to be resolved. The BC/AD moniker is a very Western/Christian-oriented one, and its use in an article about a clearly non-Christian nation seems all the more odd to me. I don't feel that strongly about this, but thought I'd throw in my two cents.-Jefu 04:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jefu here. Likewise, I don't feel too strongly about this, but if we're gonna be consistent, BCE/CE would make more sense, in terms of neutrality. TomorrowTime 14:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you find it "compelling" or not. It is wikipedia guidelines to go by the spelling, etc first used after a stub, unless there is a specific reason to use something else (e.g. American English in American articles, British English in UK articles, etc). Consistency is required inside articles, not between them, for spelling, etc. "Neutrality" is also not a reason to change it, especially as BCE is not neutral to those what want BC or BCE. John Smith's 14:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As always, it is important to actually think about a rule, rather than simply applying it blindly. First, I doubt that the rule contemplated the need to go back through three years of editing history in a given article to determine which convention to use, which is just another way of saying what I said above -- that the intention was to prohibit the unilateral substitution of one consistent use with another. And the unilateral substitution of one consistent use for the other is not what happened at all when billshattner@yahoo.com first edited the article to make it consistent. It is, however, precisely what Fg2 did when he changed billshattner@yahoo.com's conflict-resolving consistent choice of BCE/CE to an equally consistent BC/AD). Second, I'll bet dimes to dollars that the intent behind the rule was really about avoiding edit wars. But is one going really going to flare up here? The article likely remained peacefully inconsistent for several years (I haven't checked the history in detail). Is there anyone out there who feels so strongly about using BC/AD (for some compelling reason other than the fact that someone three years ago happened to type "BC" into the article) that they are willing to begin an edit war over it? The point here is that Fg2's changes to what billshattner@yahoo.com did (which I think was a perfectly reasonable thing to do) were quite likely unnecessary and arguably as much in violation of a reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia's policy as what billshattner@yahoo.com did, if not more so.-Jefu 03:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not convinced about your point. John Smith's 09:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget MOS promotes coherence between topic and style (like British-English for a British Topic). In that case, it is only natural for a non-Christian topic to use a non-Christian datation method. Imposing an "overtly Christian BC/AD" (per MOS) on non-Christian topics fundamentally goes against MOS policy. PHG 02:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop misinterpreting MOS. We've been over this before. It does not say anywhere that BC/AD cannot be used for "non-Christian" articles. John Smith's 11:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, there is a discussion and vote going on at Talk:History of Japan page on the appropriateness of BC/AD or BCE/CE for Japan-related subjects. PHG 06:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

403 error

This link http://www.indiana.edu/~japan/iguides/disputes.htm, supposably about Japanese territorial disupes, is broken. 124.183.144.253 06:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC) he he —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.144.249 (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Japan second economy of the world?

People, Japan is the THIRD economy in the world, after the EU and the US. I've changed it, but somebody changed it back. This inormation is NOT correct, the list used as a reference is clear enough, I would say, so I am changing it back again. --Robster1983 14:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

JAPAN IS ON AN ISLAND GO PACKERS. And half of japan is dead because of an attack of rabbid babies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.27.241 (talk) 21:50, August 24, 2007 (UTC) I also added the sentence that Japan is the second country by nominal GDP, after the United States. The information in the article is now correct. --Robster1983 14:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

When articles talk about economies, it means countries. The European Union is not counted as a unified economy - it is more an "illustrative" example. John Smith's 14:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)\

First of all: I was already on this talkpage trying to discuss about this, before you were. So the warning is been given, in my opinion, too hasty. Second: in order to keep things straight, than change the name of economy into country. That is correct. Economy is not 'just' a country, furthermore, the EU is, in first place, 'an economical entity', so it sure as hell can be called the first economy of the world. However, I stand corrected if the article states that Japan is the second country by GDP nominal. Would you agree with that? --Robster1983 14:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, where does it say that an economy automatically means country? Not even the article on Wikipedia says that economy=country. :-s --Robster1983 14:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew the warning because you hadn't reverted three times.

I can see from your profile that you are "proud" to be European, so may I suggest that is somewhat colouring your attitude towards this? It's important to put aside personal preferences.

The European Union is a co-operative body that makes many decisions on various issues, including economic. However it is not a unified economy so should not be given that status through implication.

Whether or not the wording is modified, the European Union should not be mentioned. Also do not put the word country in inverted commas. John Smith's 14:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now you're not making any sense. "Second largest country by GDP". That sounds horrible. If you can't come up with something better than that I will revert it back. John Smith's 14:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just take a look at the list of countries by GDP nominal, it only refers to countries! And the EU is on that list, although not ranked (which I think is the correct thing, for, indeed, the EU is not a country). And why sounds country so horrible, if, according to you, it means the same thing? It is the truth, it is the second country by GDP nominal. But if talked about economy, the EU's economy is larger. Even Newsweek calls the EU an economy ( see [2]). And why are the people pro-EU always have 'colouring attitudes', but the (British) Eurosceptics have not? On continental Europe economy most of the times stands for the EU economy, for that IS our economy. However, for now I will leave this discussion, but I am going to get to the bottom of this, because at this moment I can't say that you're wrong, but I can't say that you're right either. But one other thing: I still do not appreciate the warning, you were way too hasty with that one. Before warning someone, and threat that person, and saying that that person should visit the talkpage, it would be a very wise decision to visit the talkpage yourself, and, if necessary, engage yourself into the discussion. I wanted to resolve this on the talkpage, but it was you who came with a warning. --Robster1983 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you calm down. It's regular to give a 3RR warning - I removed it once I saw you had only reverted twice. I'm not sure why you are unable to accept that point.

Whatever your thoughts about Eurosceptics, that is not relevant to the discussion given that no one here has identified themselves as one. If someone had a tag or something on their userpage showing their hostility to the European Union, I would have made a similar comment.

As to the article, I have changed the wording to something much more crisp, yet is still correct. Trust me, your last edit was awkward, even if it sounded fine to you. John Smith's 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw the change, which I think is indeed everything you say: much more crisp, yet still correct. So thnx for that one. I still, however, must try to find out in what perspective the EU-economy can be placed, but that is not relevant to this discussion :-) What I didn't like about the 3RR Warning, is that I left a message on this talkpage, to start the discussion, but no one responded to that, yet I got that warning. So I felt attacked by that, for I wanted to do this by the rules of Wikipedia. Whether or not I reverted three times, assume good faith, talk about it on the talkpage, let me know what is upsetting you, what you think about it, and try to resolve it before warning me like that, for I always try to play by the rules of Wikipedia. I can understand your point of view, but at first, you didn't let me know, so I couldn't understand either. :-( --Robster1983 16:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Europe is NOT considered as a single economy for the purpose of economic computations or rankings. Europe is more or less a united market with a single currency now, but with its multiple governments and policies apparently falls short of the "single economy" definition. As far as I know, official comparisons do rank Japan as No2 (at least nominally) and list European countries individually, although some un-official comparisons (newspapers etc...) do mention Europe as a block. PHG 06:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

change of references

can we please only use english references? I mean, this link http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%AB%E3%81%BB%E3%82%93%E3%82%8C%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A8%E3%81%86&dtype=0&stype=1&dname=0ss is useless to me 124.183.101.89 11:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-sufficiency in rice production

I remember reading that Japan is self-sufficient in rice. This makes cultural sense; might this not also make sense for inclusion in the article? Perhaps after one of us finds a citation. --Ancheta Wis 10:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

While I lived in Japan, I read several times in the Yomiuri Shimbun that Japan imported a very large percentage of its rice, with the largest amount coming from the United States. Rice grown in Japan tends to be more expensive, though some people also think it "tastes better". ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Could anybody please explain why this article is semi-protected? I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but I am used to seeing a reason given for the semi-protection given on the talk page. This makes it easier to determine whether an article still needs protection. I feel this would be useful, as it is wiki policy that the default condition of an article not be protected (i.e. You should unprotect an article if you can.)

-- trlkly 13:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Because IPs keep vandalising the article. John Smith's 14:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I requested it. The reason is the continuous vandalisms by anons. The semi-protection started on July 29[3], and was previously from June 24 to July 8[4]. --Nightshadow28 16:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this article still semi-protected? It should be unprotected. There is no reason why this article should be semi-protected, as other countries are not. Azntokki 04:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Azntokki

Women in Japan should be linked, but can't because of the semi-protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.14.86 (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Jōmon period

I think it fairly takes air that the first Jomon ware extends back over 16500 years. See this book, Habu Jinko, "Ancient Jomon of Japan", Cambridge Press, 2004, as well as these pages [5] and [6]. So it should be rewrited as I wrote, shouldn't it? Zone101 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with removing the other citations as if they were proven false just because of another viewpoint. Neier 00:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The other citations were not proven false, but they ware proven that their digs were not oldest. Zone101 08:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What does "it fairly takes air" mean? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This research is fairly published, so I think we can rewrite the section by now. Zone101 08:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

what is it like to live in Japan? daily life, moods, aspirations, social life...

In particular, what's it like for women; what's their economic, educational and social situation? Thanks, Rich Peterson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.14.87 (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Women in Japan seems a fair summary of the major gender issues facing Japanese society today. LordAmeth 07:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

oh thanks.Is it already linked from this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.14.83 (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

longitude and latitude missing?

? Deiordein 09:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cuisine

Although the word "cuisine" is mentioned in the section about culture, perhaps we should make a new section in this article to describe the Japanese cuisine and its significance. —msikma (user, talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese cuisine is influential and significant. Alas, an article about a very broad topic such as a nation cannot spend much time on the details. So Wikipedia has concentrated its coverage of the subject in the article Japanese cuisine and several more articles that are accessible from there. Enough articles, in fact, to make a category: see Category:Japanese cuisine. Wikipedia recommends keeping individual articles short enough that people will read the whole article, and Japan is already longer than guidelines. So it seems prudent to provide the briefest mention, and a link that readers can click for more details. That's the reason we don't have a section on it here. Fg2 01:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Great power, revisited

This recent edit spat causes me to reiterate my earlier call to have the "great power" phrase removed permanently (here is the earlier archived discussion). The phrase is subjective and adds no new information above and beyond the objective data in the article on Japan's economy, military, culture, etc. To me at least the discussion about whether a country is a "great power" is as pointless and uninformative as debating whether a person is a "great actor" or a "great baseball player" ... I just haven't seen a convincing argument that having this phrase adds anything to the article, so why keep it given the controversy? CES 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Japanese people up for deletion

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people. Badagnani 04:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

eastern sea

세계인들은 말합니다. 세계의 97%의 지도가 '일본해'라고 표기하니 포기하라고. 그러나 한국인들은 말합니다. 세계의 3% 지도가 '동해'라고 표기하니까 이제 시작이라고.이런 거 돌리는 거 20초도 안 걸립니다. 아주 잠깐만 시간을 투자하세요. 일본에게 한국 네티즌의 힘을 보여 줍시다The Japanese people say, 97% of the world map marks' Sea of Japan ' so give up. But Korean people say, 3% of the world map marks ' East Sea'so we will start fighting.It doesn't take even 20 seconds to turn this. Just sacrifice a little time. Let's show the power of the Korean netizen to Japan日本の人?は話す。世界の97% の地?はそれに印を付けて?念すると同時に' 日本海' 。しかし韓?の人?は話す。示す世界の開始' 東海' の3% の地?はこれをよく好むこと! それは回り、湧き出る! 20 初めてそれはつかまえられない。時ただ時間は日本にショ?を韓?のnetizen の力かなり投資する —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.151.7.78 (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this merits a response or should just be deleted ... but you might want to check out this page as a potential forum for your netizen power. This is not the place. CES 15:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't include Ainu picture

That is a very small ethnic group. Yamato people is the most dominant native ethnic group. If anything should be included it is Ryukyuns or Yamato. Not all Japanese consider Ainu is totally 100% Japanese. They are very small number of the population. It is not representative of Japanese nation, its culture and its people. Have a little common sense. Please also include newer picture and include "Yamato people" in demographics. There is no Yamato mention and that is ridiculous Onetwo1 14:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that mentioning the Yamato people as the primary ethnic group is essential. However, the Ainu just as much as the Ryukyuans are the primary indigenous minority, and it is important to recognize that their numbers are obscured by government policies which only count them (in censuses, etc) as Ainu if they live in Hokkaido. LordAmeth 22:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. John Smith's 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude their numbers are not obscured. No one is disputing that Ainu doesn't exist nor residents of Hokkaido. That is just not true. My issue is including Yamato people is more representative of Japanese people and its culture. If you ask almost any Japanese, they will say they are Yamato people. It is just not representative and including Ainu picture as these are Japanese people is just little ridiculous and false. They are very tiny population to be included in the main Japan article. I have no problem including the picture in demographics of Japan. I also don't think including very old 1880 picture that not many people know as Japanese be included in the "Japan" article. Ainu is not Japan, basically. Please. 75.166.52.75 01:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

But we need to be fair in representing minorities in Japan. It is bias if we exclude the Ainu. Good friend100 01:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Onetwo1 seems to have an agenda to push. "Ainu is not Japan, basically. Please." I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, but give me a break ... the Ainu lived in Japan before the so-called "Yamato". I would rather see a picture of the Ainu as a representative minority in the "demographics" section than a picture of Shibuya. CES 01:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, be fair. That's the general idea of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Avoid giving undue weight to topics. In my opinion, including a photo of Ainu people, a tiny minority, without including a photo of the majority people, gives undue weight to the Ainu people and is unfair to the majority. Fg2 01:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

To develop the thought a bit further... I'm not opposed to showing a photo of the Ainu; I'm opposed to giving the Ainu (or any group) undue weight. I also agree with CES that we don't need a photo of Shibuya in this section. I disagree that "Ainu is not Japan." At least we should include a photograph of the majority Japanese people first, and then consider adding minorities. Fg2 02:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You people have an agenda push and you are inclined to push POV image to this Japan article. Leave that **** in the demographics section. It won't be accepted in the Japan article. It should include picture of Yamato people not some indigenious very few numbered ethnic group that any person would think is not Japanese. They are not representative of Japan. You have some white-washing POV agenda, white credit taking argument. You have the biggest agenda to push by including that 1880 picture. Leave that image out of this article. This is Japan and not Ainu. Why don't you include the pictures of Ryukyuns then? Why Ainu? Do you think because they are more white looking and therefore Japan is build by white people? Is that your subtle argument and purpose here? Please leave that **** out of this article, please~ Japan is Yamato, Ainu are residents of Hokkaido they didn't inhabit all of Japanese islands. Japan is Mongolic people, Yamato is Mongolic people. Yamato-minzoku. Japanese people don't have any genetic and shouldn't thank any white people for their success. They are 1000% Asians. Please leave that argument somewhere else and just discuss all of that in the demographics of Japan and don't try to push with a subtle argument of Japan is white, it is not. Imperial Japan and modern Japan are founded by Asian people without an ounce of any white blood, if you want to go that way. Just try to find a single white looking Japanese people in the world. If Japanese people were poor sword yielding samurai, you people won't try to push this agenda you are pushing.75.166.49.71 03:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, anyways ... I don't believe it was the angle you were aiming for, but I do like the idea of pictures of the different ethnicities in Japan ("Yamato", Ainu, Ryukyu, etc.). I'll leave the rest untouched because it's not really worth it. CES 03:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude I didn't mean to be mean and disgruntled. My only argument was why would you include Ainu not Ryukyuns or the Yamamato nationality that most Japanese identify themselves. Ainu is still included in the article and I thought the picture was just little overkill 2) it is very dark and hard to see pic 3) it is very old pic 1880 4) Ainu are very small minority 5) this is modern times now, we should include more colorful pics like the Shibuya crowd. I have no disrespect for Ainu people or you, it just seemed extreme overkill for this small section. Writing about them in demographics and history is totally fine with me. Peace. 75.166.49.71 06:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fg2 makes an excellent point that the Ainu (or any other group) should not be given undue weight. If this were the USA article, and the only picture of "American" people was of Native Americans, I'd likely call that biased and unbalanced. But, if the Native Americans weren't mentioned at all, that too would be biased. By all means, the majority of the weight of this article should be on the Yamato people, or on Japanese society in general (i.e. most of the article need not make ethnic distinctions). But the notion that Ainu and Ryukyuans are not Japanese is flat-out wrong. They were included into the "Nihonjinmin" (the Japanese people) when the concept was created in the Meiji period, and were assimilated to a significant extent into society over the course of the ensuing decades. This development deserves more than a passing mention, but of course as Fg2 eloquently and diplomatically points out, care should be taken to not represent the topic in a disproportionate manner. LordAmeth 12:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ainu lands (Northern Honshu, Hokkaido Island, South Sakhalin (briefly Japanese as Karufuto) and the Kurile Islands were only conquered by the Yamato people in 19th century. The Ainu had controlled those lands for thousands of years before Yamato annexation. This represents a large portion of Japan's territory and thus part of its history (this includes Ainu resettlements by the Yamato). Just because the Ainu people were in a harsher environment with a low population whoes numbers had been cosiderably reduced by the 19th cent. does not mean they should take such a minor role in the article. I believe that both the Uchi-nan and Ainu at least deserve more mention, if not a sentence in the history. -Kain Nihil 04:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning about them is fine, but don't overkill this small section. Don't include minority group small nonsense pictures. You can write novel about them in the demographics and that's fine, don't overkill this section and don't try to push agenda like the above person. Yamato is dominant and 99% native Japanese people identify themselves as Yamato. Yamato people didn't come out from nothing. I didn't create it. 67.41.192.17 07:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

why do most of the japanese youth population live in the countryside?

I m looking to fid out why most youth live out of big cities and in the countryside? can anyone update this to help widen the range of understanding of Japan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.47.108 (talk)

I didn't think that they did overwhelmingly leave in rural areas. What are you basing that assumption on? John Smith's (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've heard in Japanese history/society classes says that people in general, and the younger generation in particular, is moving out of the countryside, leaving entire villages literally empty, uninhabited and abandoned. I'm curious as to where our anonymous friend is getting his information. LordAmeth (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's and LordAmeth are right. It's 過疎化/kasoka in Japanese. See [7] and [8]. Oda Mari (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bakumatsu to Ishin

Bakumatsu

"On March 31, 1854, Commodore Matthew Perry and the "Black Ships" of the United States Navy forced the opening of Japan to the outside world with the Convention of Kanagawa. The resignation of the shogunate led to the Boshin War and the establishment of the emperor-centered government (Meiji Restoration)."

This part is not smooth. I propose to add a sentence as follows:

"On March 31, 1854, Commodore Matthew Perry and the "Black Ships" of the United States Navy forced the opening of Japan to the outside world with the Convention of Kanagawa. Subsequent similar treaties with the Western countries in the late Tokugawa shogunate brought Japan into economic and political crises. The abundance of the prerogative and the resignation of the shogunate led to the Boshin War and the establishment of a centralized state unified under the name of the Emperor."

I also propose to add explanation in Tokugawa section as:

"The Tokugawa shogunate enacted a variety of measures such as Buke shohatto to control the autonomous daimyo.

"emperor-centered government" is not a government with simple replacement of shogun by emperor, but that directly controls the united nations (Nihonjin) to deal with the West (Abolition of the han system). This important aspect is necessary to be appropriately enhanced in the text.--Jjok (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Meiji Ishin

"Adopting Western political, judicial and military institutions, a parliamentary system modeled after the British parliament was introduced, with Itō Hirobumi who led the drafting of the Meiji Constitution as the first Prime Minister in 1882. Meiji era reforms transformed the Empire of Japan into an industrialized world power that embarked on a number of military conflicts to increase access to natural resources. After victories in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905), Japan gained control of Taiwan, Korea, and the southern half of Sakhalin."

The time line is

• Reorganization of the Cabinet of Japan (1885) and the Privy Council (Japan) (1888)
• Promulgation of Meiji Constitution (1889)
• Imperial Diet of Japan (1890)

According to Meiji Constitution, it is not solely modeled after the British parliament.

"The new constitution was promulgated by Emperor Meiji on 11 February, 1889 but came into effect on 29 November, 1890. The first Imperial Diet, a new representative assembly, convened on the day the Meiji Constitution came into force. The structure of the Diet showed both Prussian and British influences, most notably in the inclusion of the House of Peers (which resembled the Prussian Herrenhaus and the British House of Lords), and of the Speech from the Throne."

Thus, this part may be rewritten with replacement of Itō Hirobumi with the Cabinet, as

"Adopting Western political, judicial and military institutions, the Cabinet organized the Privy Council, introduced the Meiji Constitution, and assembled the Imperial Diet. Those Meiji Restoration transformed the Empire of Japan into an industrialized world power that embarked on a number of military conflicts to increase the influential sphere. After victories in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905), Japan gained control of Taiwan, Korea, and the southern half of Sakhalin."

By the way, what does "natural resources" mean? Sugar in Taiwan? Uranium in North Korea? I think "to increase the influential sphere" is more suitable. "To increase access to natural resources" for the industrialization is more suitable after those conflicts.--Jjok (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions appear to reflect some serious knowledge and understanding of the history. Please do go ahead and implement these changes. I would suggest, however, that "Those Meiji Restoration" in this last discussed section be changed to "The Meiji Restoration" (probably just a typo to begin with), and that as "the influential sphere" doesn't sound particularly smooth or straightforward, something should be done with it. Perhaps "to expand the nation's sphere of influence". ... Generally speaking, I feel that "sphere of influence" as a set phrase is far more recognizable and easy on the ears than the shifted-around "influential spheres". Thanks much for your ideas and contributions. LordAmeth (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your comments.--Jjok (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Done again.--Jjok (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits

Although articles must constantly be revised, before making any large changes to the layout, or for any large rewrite, please discuss the changes here. This is, after all, an FA-class article. Thank you, Wood elf 11:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - we don't want to lose that status from wide-ranged editing that is not discussed here first. John Smith's (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted recent changes as uncited material was used and existing content was overwritten - please discuss proposals here first and gain consensus. John Smith's (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about the Bakumatsu-Ishin section has been going in the right above section. Please join the discussion. I have sourced most of the changes using wiki links to maintain the consistency between the articles and I do not think it is necessary to add every references in this article if the linked articles are appropriately described.--Jjok (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it was asked, I'm proposing:

• Add Image:Nagasakibomb.jpg; it's very symbolic image of the war and add value to the article.
• Remove Image:Yasuo Fukuda at fundraising October 2004.jpg.jpg; the image of Yasuda is already given a couple paragraphs below; no need for a new image.
• Convert the table of top 10 cities of Japan into a list. since list uses less space.
• Remove "According to The Times Higher Education Supplement"; it makes more sense to use some Japanese source on the ranking than the US one.

I don't know why others are allowed to add images not me or make a significant edit without giving any edit summary (unlike me). But anyway I'm not in hurry. -- Taku (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, am I alone in feeling the quality of the article has been deteriorated since it was promoted to the FA status? My intention behind edits here is to maintain the quality in genera. -- Taku (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the Nagasaki image, as well the Fukuda image. I propose we replace the one in the Govt+pol. section with a picture of the Diet. --Wood elf 10:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I gave a ample amount of time for here. To be honest, I am in loss. Are those changes major rewrite? Why, for example, I can't put "(left)" in the caption of the image? etc. Since I have been given no explanation whatsoever I am once again introduced those changes. I am quite, perfectly, willing to engage in any discussion concerning the edits, but since I'm not given any response, I don't know why I can engage in discussion. -- Taku 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

section on environmentalism

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

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

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

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

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

Please fix the Hokkaido photo caption

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

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

Economy/keiretsu paragraph

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

Economy section

this section was created by copying from [9] discussing about this revert

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

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

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

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

Whaling

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

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

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

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

Major overhual

This article was in really bad shape considering how it was a few months ago [10] so I took the liberty of restoring many of the older pictures and moving things around a bit to make it look more like the featured article it is. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Also I would like to point out that Tyangarin is not a responsible nor logical editor at all, for example his reason for removing the picture of the Atomic bombing of Nagasaki was "But it is a negative image and tragic affair to Japan. I don't like bad matter". Also he left me a baseless vandalism warning and said "Please do not reedit Japan any further" along with this warning [11] and he was even warned by another user about this inappropriate comment [12]. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'll make it even easier for you, here is my version [13]. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Warring

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

Merger proposal: Tourism in Japan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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