Talk:Japan/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

consensus poll

[1]

There is a debate whether or not to move the Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea article to a different title. If you would like to participate in the poll, please visit the talk page. Good friend100 02:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The requested move is: Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea → Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598).

Click Talk:Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea#Requested move for the precise location of this poll.--Endroit 20:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Very Interesting Discussion...

Wow. Coming to Wikipedia to attempt to start updating my knowledge about modern-day Japan has brought a flood of memories from my university days in Canada rushing back. Where I lived in residence with both Japanese and Korean students. Whose discussions mimicked in many ways the discussions above, alebit, with a little bit more openness (face-to-face you know) and therefor, opportunity for reconciliation. On the surface at least :-). Best of luck with your resolution attempts.

One suggestion I would have...put something in this article, and any others you think need it, that captures the raison d'etre of these discussions...it would be a very honest and very accurate element to consider for anyone looking to find out more about these subjects. Maybe a little boring to "outsiders" who aren't really interested in what historical cultural group is responsible for what parts of another cultural group's modern make-up, and how heated those discussions can get. But it's essentially human, and worth writing about.

Proposed Sub-section title? "10 Reasons Why Japanese and Koreans Don't Really Get Along". Hopefully to be followed by others with titles like "10 Reasons Why Japanese and Koreans Do Get Along". The timing couldn't be better...

Eramosat 01:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Official language

Japan#Language begins with: "Japan's official language is Japanese[...]". This is technically incorrect. Japanese is not legally defined as an official language of Japan. As unspecified, it is rather considered customary law. The single place that it is legally defined is in courts: Judicial Code Article 74 states: "裁判所では、日本語を用いる" [=Will use Japanese within courts].

Main references: ja:日本 Quote: 日本語が法律で公用語に定められているわけではなく、実質的な慣習に基づくものである（裁判所法74条では「裁判所では、日本語を用いる。」と定める）。

ja:公用語 Quote: 一つの言語の話者が圧倒的多数の国である場合、法律で定めるまでもなくそれが当然公用語となっている場合がある。日本における日本語がこれにあたる（ただし、裁判所法74条は「裁判所では、日本語を用いる。」と定める。）。

Just a note: Official_language Quote: A few states, such as Eritrea and the United States, have no official language, although in most such cases there is a single de facto main language, as well as a range of government regulations and practices on which languages are expected to be used in various circumstances. Frequent legislative efforts have been made in the US Congress, however, to have English adopted as the nation's "official language", so far without success. Bendono 08:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Bold text

Japan and The A Bombs

Are the japanese mad for what we had done? Our relationship with them seems strong, but are they still mad?

I think it depends on the individual - their age, their personal experiences, their personal view. But for the most part, the impression I get is that people either blame "the War" in a fairly detached, impersonal kind of way, or they view Japan (or humankind as a whole) as victims without assigning blame anywhere... it's an odd concept to grasp, I suppose, but I kind of like it. Rather than blaming the US, they take a more philosophical or metaphysical view, and see it sort of as the result of humankind going too far, leading itself to this. I have had several people explain this view to me, and it also seems to largely be the view taken by the Hiroshima Peace Museum. But, again, everyone thinks differently and has different opinions or ideas.... LordAmeth 23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Way too biased

This article is way too biased towards the so-called 'Wapanese' point of view. That is, the otaku, of non-Japanese descent, who gets his or her ideas about Japan from watching anime and playing video games. Let's clean this article of that influence, fellow Wikipedians.

65.97.14.167 21:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly see where many sections need expansion, but I'm afraid I do not see the bias you speak of. The geography, history, politics and economics sections are all accurate and academically written, and almost entirely devoid of references to modern popular culture. The cultural section discusses pop culture only very briefly, in just the manner and extent that I think is appropriate. There may be something of a systematic bias across Wikipedia as a whole to have a multitude of long, detailed articles on anime/manga and a dearth of them on proper history or the traditional arts; but within the "Japan" article, I do not see it. If there are specific issues you would like to see addressed, I'd be happy to hear about them, and to discuss what kinds of changes should be made. LordAmeth 21:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

What do we think of the changes made today from this to this? An anonymous user has added in more examples of Japanese war crimes & atrocities, discussed more directly the opinion that the atomic bombing saved many many lives, both Japanese and American, and overall changed the wording in such a way that I think is more pro-American and anti-Japanese.

I am asking for opinions here because (a) everything he wrote is true, (b) it's well-written, not outright vandalism, and (c) it's not so nationalistic or racist or biased as to be assuredly in violation of WP:NPOV policy. (Just for the record, I am an American, and a Japanese studies student - I personally do not think of myself as being particularly biased either way in discussions of these issues.) Thoughts, responses, please. LordAmeth 21:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm part Japanese. I don't believe that my ancestry plays a part in my interpretation of the recent edits. For reference, here is one paragraph in the revision that I just looked at:

The sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was only one part of Japan's expansionist policies. At about the same time of the attack on the United States, Japan invaded British Malaya, the New Territories of Hong Kong, the Philippines, Wake Island, and Thailand. The Japenese occupation was everywhere characterized by inhumane barbarism and vicious treatment of prisoners of war and civilians, alike. Notable in this regard is the Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking and the kidnapping of women to act as sex slaves, euphemistically called comfort women, just to name a few of countless such events.

The facts in it are correct, but I believe that mentioning sneak attack in two successive paragraphs (it was also inserted into the preceding one) is unnecessary. The tone of the contributions could be moderated. How about my suggestion:

The attack on Pearl Harbor was only one part of Japan's expansionist policies. At about the same time of the attack on the United States, Japan also invaded British Malaya, the New Territories of Hong Kong, the Philippines, Wake Island, and Thailand. The Japanese occupation was often characterized by the inhumane treatment of both prisoners of war and civilians. Notable in this regard are (were?) the Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking, and the commonplace kidnapping of women to act as sex slaves, who were euphemistically called comfort women.

I don't believe that my rewritten paragraph diminishes the atrocities of the Japanese armed forces, but at the same time, I hope that it sounds a tad more neutral. Any comments? --Kyoko 21:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The truth cannot be covered up for sake of neutralitity. The term "inhumane barbarism and vicious treatment of prisoners of war and civilians..." is a term that is factual and the fact must be presented to the reader. It is neutral enough because first of all it is the fact. Good friend100 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

True as it may be, the details should rather belong in the History of Japan article and/or the Empire of Japan article. You may, however, summarize this material briefly in this article (see Wikipedia:Summary style on how to summarize it here).--Endroit 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, detailed information should be placed in your mentioned articles but a paragraph or two about Japanese war crimes or their imperialism period doesn't hurt to keep in the article. Good friend100 21:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A sentence or two will suffice. Any more will be too detailed. Again, read Wikipedia:Summary style on how that is done.--Endroit 22:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There must be several links to which include the information. Good friend100 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I really do not want this to blow up into a big deal. We either revert the edits or we don't. I like Kyoko's version - I think minor changes to the tone of what was written are all that is necessary here. LordAmeth 23:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That should be fine too. But I believe that, if you're talking strictly of POV issues, we need to remove any POV adjectives and/or subjective comments, such as the last sentence from Kyoko's version.

Then if we run into problems, if the thing gets too long, or if we have any revert wars, we will need to reconsider this strategy.--Endroit 06:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing or modifying the last sentence would be fine with me. I was trying to accommodate the anon's feelings on this matter without seeming to dwell on the issue either. As stated before, this is an article about Japan as a whole, not Japanese war crimes. How about:

The attack on Pearl Harbor was only one part of Japan's expansionist policies. At about the same time of the attack on the United States, Japan also invaded British Malaya, the New Territories of Hong Kong, the Philippines, Wake Island, and Thailand. The Japanese occupation was often characterized by the inhumane treatment of both prisoners of war and civilians, of which notable examples were the Bataan Death March and the Rape of Nanking.

That shortens the paragraph and may help with POV issues. I hope this can be worked out amicably, because I feel that hot-tempered nationalistic disputes discourage a lot of people from contributing to this article. I know that's the case with me. --Kyoko 08:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking strictly in terms of POV issues, I would delete "of which notable examples were the Bataan Death March and the Rape of Nanking". This part is subjective. Also, Nanking Massacre is already mentioned a few paragraphs later, and doesn't need to be mentioned twice.

However, I see that Woodelf and John Smith's deleted the whole thing from this article already, and that's fine too. Since we ran into problems already, I'd delete the whole thing too, due to relevancy/POV concerns.

Speaking in terms of relevancy, I believe this whole thing ought to go into History of Japan and/or Empire of Japan articles instead, per Wikipedia:Summary style.--Endroit 15:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting it all is fine by me. I don't have strong feelings about including it, though it seems that many people do. I really hope this doesn't turn into a whole edit war, as the history of Japan topic turned out to be (something which kept me from even looking at the article for months). --Kyoko 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As the anonymous poster who wrote the original, I have re-inserted this paragraph. I think it is important to understand the facts applicable to this part of Japan's history, but also important to understand the complications which these events still pose to this day, as with, for example, Japan's relations with the countries affected by its actions in WWII. I have pretty much used Tachikoma's proposal, but included the section on the comfort women.

I'm sorry, but quite apart from the "controversial" nature of the edit, we simply don't have the space. We're trying to make the article suitable for a featured article - no concerns were raised in the failed nomination about lack of discussion of the war. Generally people felt there was too much discussion on historial matters, so we cut a lot out. We just can't afford the space. If you want to contribute on the war, there are so many other articles out there that need help. John Smith's 20:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Japanese people

Why is there no section in the demographics area on Japanese people? I know the article needs work (I've nominated it at Wikipedia: Article Creation and Improvement Drive), but if there are discussions of minorities it seems strange that there is no discussion of the majority group. Dekimasu 06:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check the article Demographics of Japan. I moved an entire paragraph from here to Demographics of Japan in August, to cut down on this article's size. Please check there if you see anything that needs to be restored here in the Japan article. (The article Demographics of Japan needs work also, if anybody is interested.)--Endroit 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo

Where should I write if I want to add Nintendo and the game industry of Japan?　(Economy?　Culture?)--220.212.97.193 17:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

What do people think about asking for the Japan article to be semi-protected - i.e. anonymous IPs and recently registered users would be unable to edit. We get daily vandalism on this article from anonymous dynamic IPs and almost never get a positive contribution from them. I know a lot of people are afraid of touching this article (myself included) because it's so unstable. A semi-protection would give it this stability. I recently got the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki semi-protected and the vandalism has stopped. If this article is ever going to approach Featured status again, I think we need to do this. Bobo12345 00:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Though I'd actually more like to see that done over at History of Japan. But here's good too. Both pages (and a number of others) definitely need it. LordAmeth 08:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree on both pages - semi-protection would be a great idea. John Smith's 11:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I requested it but it was turned down due to lack of recent activity. I suggest that when vandalism flares up again, somebody put in another request. Bobo12345 12:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)