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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
From the article: 'The Koizumi government is attempting to privatize Japan Post, one of the country's largest private banking and insurance institutions, by 2007.'
That phrase doesn’t make sense, how do you privatize a private institution? And are we sure that Japan Post is a banking and insurance institution?? My guess is that instead of a ',' there should be a 'and', but in that case what is the name of that 'largest private banking and insurance institutionE Could someone with the correct knowledge on the topic fizz this? Thank you.
Someone added a phrase indicating that the Japanese government was influenced by the British system, but I was always under the impression it was the Prussian/German model that the Japanese were most influenced by. Anyone know more? CES 02:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think this article has a large bias towards a Western view of Japan. In particular the claim that Perry "forced" the opening of Japan seems somewhat suspect. I just edited the religion section because the previous writer claimed that Japanese religion is dead or dying out. Let me know if you agree that this page needs major changes.
It is obvious that Japan is still an empire formally at least, since the emperor system exists still. -- 10.56, 22 Apr. 2005 (UTC)
Any opinions on the Liancourt Rocks issue?
I THINK THIS ARTICLE IS TOTAL BIASED. WHERE'S THE PART OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR?? THE PART WHICH JAPAN INVADED CHINA?? GONE??
I question the influence of "Greco-Buddhist" influence in Japan. It seems to me that by the time Buddhism reached Japan, it became much more Chinese in character then Indian, much less Greek. Also I think that anime and manga, as well as video games deserve more then just a mention as part of a list here. These are subtle points but ones I think need to be made.
In the interests of precision of language, I'd like to start a discussion about the following line on culture.
'The start of the Yayoi period around 300 BC, marked the influx of new technologies such as rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making, brought by migrants from Korea. These formed the basic elements of traditional Japanese culture, still seen today.'
I'm not sure it's entirely helpful or informative to say that shamanism, iron and bronze-making form the basic elements of traditional Japanese culture. There probably is some connection between Shintoism and shamanism, and probably iron and bronze-making do contribute to Japan's modern mighty manufacturing industry, but it seems a rather vague and undefined connection. I have to comment that probably a lot of early civilizations went through a shamanistic phase, and went through the iron and bronze making, and such things have an effect on the basis elements of that culture. But to go as far as to definitively say that the basic elements of a culture are from "rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making" seems not befitting. I suggest changing it to
'The start of the Yayoi period around 300 CE marked the influx of new technologies such as rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making, brought by migrants from the Korean peninsula. From archaeological evidence, these had an impact on early cultural developments on the islands of modern Japan.'
Another possibility is that the author intended to write that the "new technologies" formed the basic elements of traditional Japanese culture. I'm open to these possibilities. Wilgamesh 21:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
When we speak of civilizations during this period, we often call what is now China, "China", and what is now Japan, "Japan". But with Korea, there is a tendency among some people to reduce that civilization to the "Korean peninsula" as if it was a simple geographic area at the time rather than a true civilization. The fact of the matter is, civilization long existed in Korea (and even longer in China) before Japan was even making its first steps into it.
There is indeed a strong connection between shamanism and the Shinto religion. The use of sticky rice changed Japanese eating habits and helped with the invention of sushi. Iron-making is important in the samurai tradition. I cannot think of many other things that are symbolic of traditional Japanese culture. Do not reduce the significance of these important contributions to Japanese civilization.-- Sir Edgar 06:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
See how this article uses the terms "Japan" and "Korean Peninsula": http://www.bookrags.com/history/worldhistory/yayoi-period-ema-06/
This just goes to show the bias out there. I do not want that bias repeated here at Wikipedia.
The article does talk about how important the Yayoi period was in the formation of what is "Japan". This is really when a distinctly Japanese civilization emerges. Even though it was heavily influenced by Korean culture (and later Chinese culture), this early Japan is when we see the roots of today's Japan.-- Sir Edgar 06:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I think we ought as well add Japanese pronogrpahy's link at the bottom since japanese fetishes and sexual pervert video are so world famous and shokcing that we, at wikipedia, actually have an extensive article that proves that japanese culture is far more related with their porns than any other nation that existed on earth. so, why not add this link.
and since, we mentioned anime, why don't we mention Hentai?
I am going to add those two links and maybe someone with more scholarly commnents into japanese perversiity can edit the matin article introduce about their bdsm, bondage sex, a little bit; since those are inevtiably parts of the japanese culture, as proved in the japanese pornography article at wikipedia.
thehammerspake at thehammerspake-at-yahoo.com
RE: Ok, i see that you revised your reply and it is MUCH clear what you meant. thank you for making yourself comprehesible to others; it is a great helpt to the rest of us and the whole wikipedia community!
thehammerspake
A common fool, probably one of the many annonymous political nut cases that get off on tampering with articles, changed the emperor to 'Kennedy'. This was on the article for the past 6 months (at least). I have now returned it to it's original form.
Japan is an empire same as that Sweden is a kingdom, since Japanese Emperor system still exists. But Japan's Government has called Japan "Japan" as the formal name and will do so. Perhaps Japan's Government wants to avoid that Japan may become "notorious" as an empire. [17:00, 05 May 2005 (UTC)]
The Japanese Emperor system may still exist, but the emperor no longer holds any political power and is simply a national symbol. He is strictly banned to take part in any form of politics, and is only a figurehead who sometimes presides over certain government events. Therefore, I would not go as far as to say that Japan is still an empire. I am not sure what exactly you are trying to imply when you say "Perhaps Japan's Government wants to avoid that Japan may become "notorious" as an empire," but I doubt that is the case.
Someone added the following line: "People have speculated that the high stress academic life might be the reason for high suicide rates." I've heard this kind of comment before, but I thought I'd also heard that Japan having an unusually high youth suicide rate is not true (and media hype is to blame for this perception). Personally I have no idea which is true. Does anyone have concrete data so we know if this comment should be kept or not? CES 03:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The post read:
I changed it to:
WHY:
-- Have you never been to Okayama, Niigata, Shimane, Shizuoka, or even remote places in Kyoto Pref.? Did you fail to see the terraced rice paddies all over the hills, especially in places such as Sado Island? I would suggest a rewording of the section, leaving this part in. Any opposing opinions? (BTW- it helps discussions to sign your posts). -- Christophernicus 01:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll give you the argument that the current emperor is not called specifically the "Heisei Emperor" yet. However, I think this article is lacking in two areas: 1) There is absolutely no mention of the current era as "Heisei" or the calculation of dates by era names. 2) Although every official document I fill out (outside of the immigration office) uses these era names, there is no mention of either the Showa or Heisei periods, yet most Japanese today identify most with these eras. Any comments? -- Christophernicus 02:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the regions section of the article, the map illustration is clearly numbered, but the article reads "From north to south...". Can someone who knows which are which number these regions so as to eliminate confusion, and take advantage of an otherwise ugly feature of the illustration? siafu 22:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was interested in the presence of a class hierarchy in today's Japanese society and ran across this article: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Japanese%20class%20system
I was thinking this information deserves a place here, maybe as a subheading under culture or history. -- Lenehey 23:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I find the use of the word "unique" in the Japanese culture section baseless. The first paragraph and half of the second paragraph talks about all the outside influences Japanese culture received from China, Korea, and elsewhere and then suddenly the article claims that "Japan developed a unique original culture, in its arts, crafts, and traditions, as well as a unique cuisine." Is there any justification for the use of the word "unique" twice in a single paragraph?
Can someone please explain to me what is so unique anyhow? Do the Japanese paint with their feet and make clothing out of glass? Do they eat trees and greet each other with burping noises?
Or do they do calligraphy (like the Chinese and Koreans), make celadon pottery (like the Chinese and Koreans), drink green tea (like the Chinese and Koreans), eat soy products (like the Chinese and Koreans), and bow to each other when greeting (like the Chinese and Koreans)?
The Japanese are famous for telling foreigners about the "uniqueness" of their culture. They even claim their four seasons are unique. I think this kind of cultural propaganda should be removed.
Japanese culture is not unique. In fact, no culture on Earth can be truly unique unless it has been completely isolate and uncontanimated. Even then, universal human traits can be observed.
The third paragraph of this article then talks about European and American influences in modern-day Japan. So, how could a culture that has received so much outside influence be truly "unique"?
The view that Japanese culture is somehow "unique" is not only false, but antiquated and even... dangerous. I cannot understand how this type of racial ideology can be accepted in a discussion of Japan when certainly such a claim in an article about the Aryan race in one about Germany would cause an uproar.
That's why I'm editing this now.
I am also deleting the influence of Central and South Asia from the second paragraph and adding "rice farming, ceremonial burial, pottery, painting, writing, poetry, etiquette" as it is really these imports from China and Korea that had a bigger impact on Japanese culture.-- Sir Edgar 07:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I do not see what the problem is in the statement that "Japan developed a unique culture." You seemed to have drawn a parallel with the Aryan race, but that is clearly irrelevant. The article is NOT claiming that "Japan has a superior race" or that "Japanese culture stands out like a brillliant star"; it is simply saying that Japan has a culture that is different from those of other countries. Yes, I am aware that certain cultural practices in Japan are also performed in other countries such as China or South Korea (i.e. tea drinking, calligraphy, bowing, etc.), but that does not automatically make Japanese culture "non-unique". Just because Japanese, Chinese and South Korean cultures share some features, it does NOT make them identical (Surely if you lived in Japan, South Korea or China, you would know that their cultures have many differences). If you think about it, it should be obvious that every culture is unique in its own way. By saying "unique", the author is not implying that "everything about Japan is completely original and cannot be found anywhere else on earth." My guess is that the author of the article stated "Japan developed a unique culture" because he feared that many people would wrongly believe that Japan has an identical culture to South Korea or China (since he mentioned that Japan borrowed from various cultures). Also, to answer your question, "how could a culture that has received so much outside influence be truly "unique"?" --- First of all, the question should be "how could it NOT be unique?" With such an enormous diversity of ideas and cultural influences permeating into Japan, it would have been easy, even natrual, for something unique to develop. Bits and pieces of Chinese culture, Korean culture, etc., would all be picked out according to Japanese tastes, mixed in with indigenous culture, and mashed into something distinctly Japanese. Yes, no one will deny that there was cultural borrowing, but can you honestly name a country that has NEVER borrowed anything from anyone? the United States borrowed bits and pieces of culture from Brittain, Central America, Canada and even the Native Americans, so following your logic, would that make the United States "non-unique" too? If you have ever been to the United States and Brittain, you would know that they are very different, and that both are unique.
Following your logic, nothing in the world can be unique, so perhaps we should all stop using the word. While we do that, why not put a halt on the use of other adjectives such as "ideal," "beautiful," or "wonderful," since they are all subjective or "technically false". Maybe you should browse through every single wikipedia article and criticize each of them for using adjectives. Unlike you, most people know that each country is unique, so it does not have to be written on EVERY SINGLE country's culture section. Also, most people, including me, would not mind if someone wrote that "South Korea has a unique culture" or that "China has a unique culture" because both of those statements are true. Only you are cynical enough to interpret such a simple statement as "Japanese culture is unique" to be some sort of dangerous nationalistic propaganda. Obviously you have something against Japan.
The use of the word "unique" is indeed necessary for people like you, who seem so convinced that Japanese culture is identical to China and Korea simply because the Japanese borrowed several features of their cultures. What are you trying to prove by making such comments as "Or do they do calligraphy (like the Chinese and Koreans), make celadon pottery (like the Chinese and Koreans), drink green tea (like the Chinese and Koreans), eat soy products (like the Chinese and Koreans), and bow to each other when greeting (like the Chinese and Koreans)? " Are you trying to imply that Japanese culture is unoriginal and has nothing distinct? The author obviously believed the word "unique" was necessary so that people like you would know that Japan has a different culture than China or Korea. Clearly, if there are ignorant people asking such ridiculous questions as "how could a culture that has received so much outside influence be truly unique?", there needs to be someone to tell them that Japan is indeed different (and no, I am NOT saying "Japan is special") - and that Japan is not just a bland, unoriginal, copycat culture. I apologize if I wrongfully accused you of Japan-bashing, but I can hardly consider your comments to be "positive contributions to Japan-related articles" when you say such things as "The Japanese are famous for telling foreigners about the "uniqueness" of their culture" or when you draw parallels with the Aryan race. I guess you did not find those comments inconsiderate. I am sick and tired of hearing people making accusations about how the "Japanese are self absorbed and extremely nationalistic." Many Japanese youths are hesitant to show any pride for their nationality , fearing that someone will pounce on them, figuratively and literally (Did you see what happened at the Finals of the Asia Cup in Beijing?). I will disclose to you that I am a Japanese girl in an American Middle School who has been yelled at by fellow Asian classmates with assertions similar to yours. I worked as a camp counselor this summer and I had a Korean 2nd grader tug on my shirt and say "the Japanese are selfish people!" Again, I apologize if I wrongly accused you of Japan-bashing, but I am honestly fed up with people who so passionately insist that the Japanese spread "cultural propaganda" and "racial ideaologies". --06:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)nyannko
Since when did the statement "Japan is unique" suddenly imply that other cultures are not. You seem to have disregarded everything I had said in my previous comments. I am well aware that every culture is unique, including those of Japan's neighbors (which, by the way, I had said many a times). In case you have forgotten, YOU were the one who was so fervently arguing that Japan and other cultures are NOT unique. Also, how can you say with such confidence that the author of the article had a "desire to somehow differentiate, be apart from, the neighboring cultures"?. You simply twisted a simple statement, written without malice by the author, and you interpreted it to mean that "Japan is special and is better than every other culture in the world." You said Japan "is no more unique than any other culture on the planet," but if you read the article carefully, the author NEVER said that "Japan is more unique than any other culture on the planet." The only thing the article said was that "Japan is unique." However, being the cynic that you are, you pounce on the statement, jump to conclusions and antagonize Japan. Yes, I will not deny that during the War, the Japanese people were taught to believe they were special, and that this belief led to the massacre of countless Asian peoples. I will also not deny that some people in Japan, especially the ignorant older generations in rural areas, look down on foreigners (perhaps you, having traveled to Japan, experienced this time of discrimination and is holding a grudge against all Japanese). However, if you were truly informed of modern Japanese culture, you would know that this type of Japanese view is rapidly deteriorating. With an increasing amount of influence from Western popular culture, the Japanese - especially the younger generation - are looking at foreign cultures with admiration, even reverence. Just as we speak, there is a "Korea boom" in Japan, in which women are swooning over Korean actors and dramas, while thousands are traveling to Korea. Furthermore, Japan is in a craze over soccer players David Beckham from England and Ilhan Mansiz from Turkey. Foreign Fighters are also gaining a huge amount of Japanese fans as The K-1, an all-out fighting tournament in Japan, is increasing in popularity. Next time you travel to Japan, perhaps you should keep your eyes open and take note of such things, because your fear that the "Japanese people will justify massacres with nationalism" is clearly outdated. And how paranoid must you be to truly think that the author was trying to use this wikipedia article as a platform to spark Japanese nationalism? Is the author of the article even Japanese? Clearly the innocent author did not expect someone to call him an "Aryan equivalent" just for saying that a country is unique. Dear Mark, I do not mind if the word "distinct" is used as well. However, Sir Edward might criticize us for implying that "Japan is more distinct than any other culture" or that "Japan stands out more than other cultures." He might force you to write the word "distinct" in the culture section of each country's article. -- 04:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)nyannko
For the record...
1. The statement in the Geography of Japan (see below) was not made by me. I do not necessarily disagree though.
2. I did not refer to anyone as a Nazi nor did I ever use that term.
3. The above statement by Anonymous User who has resorted to name-calling is offensive to me. Ad hominem attacks show signs of weakness in an argument. It is for those who have nothing to rely on except personal attacks because their argument stands no ground. I would like to ask the Anonymous User to refrain from them. Regardless, the statements by Anonymous User appear nothing more than rants to me. I do not see how they contribute to the discussion of the article.
4. We need to be careful in wording for country articles. I would find it difficult to swallow any text in an article about Germany using the word "superior" in its culture section. That's why I find "distinct" more appropriate, and more accurate, than the use of the term "unique" for Japan's culture section. I am the one who edited it to "distinct", by the way. It seems everyone is in agreement, including Anonymous User, that the use of "distinct" is acceptable. So what's the issue? Let's move on.-- Sir Edgar 07:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you John Epstein, I greatly appreciate your support. I only wish that more people like you will begin to dissipate the negative light which has focused so intensely on the Japanese people. -- 17:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)nyannko
This section does not conform to widely accepted and proven theories on Japan's origins. That's why I'm going to edit it.-- Sir Edgar 00:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Pre-history is an illogical term because it assumes that there is a period that happened before history, but history began at the beginning of time. Trav.company 15:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
WRONG. There is another, older definition of "history". According to it, history begins with the invention of writing. With the invention of writing, written history starts, and thus history. Thus, "prehistoric" means "before people left written history". -- Mkill 19:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Like the issue of 'Unique' in Japan I feel that there is a something incorrect about this paragraph of the geography section:
I think this (like unique culture or the unique four seasons) is another myth: that japan is subject to uniquely severe forces of nature. There are other countries in the world with similar geological and climatic conditions yet with many hill/mountain top towns and extensive agricultural development. Italy, California (San Franscisco), Chile and Peru jump to mind.
What evidence is there that 73% of Japanese land is really unsuitable for development?
The reasons for Japan's lack of development in the hills and mountains I believe are as anthropological as they are geographical and I feel this is not being represented. There are of course many steep and volcanic mountains in Japan which are not suitable for development however there are also many small hills which are but remain untouched. I changed this before to mention the cultural idea (from the Shinto religion) that the mountains were where the gods lived, this was deleted. Perhaps it was too simplistic... I think something a bit less cliched needs to be said about this.
What does everyone else think? -- Gorgonz
I removed "International rankings", which I think is uninteresting. The infobox already lists GDP rankings, and the text already contains a lot of mentions of ranking like density, area, etc. In addition, it is practically impossible to list every ranking. For example, the rank in Reporters Without Borders is important but irrelevant to the article. -- Taku 12:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Are there 6,800 islands or 3,000 islands? The introduction says 6,800 islands, but the Geography section says 3,000 islands.-- Sir Edgar 01:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I have browsed other countries articles on wikipedia, especially other developed countries' cultures such as Germany and France, and I found that whatever that is under the headline culture inevitably is either about great mathematicians of the heyday, musicians, philosophers, scientists, artists, world famous novelists, or else otherwise worthwhile intellectual creations such as the Simpsons
This is too much. The entire article on section culture has to be redone! IT's all wrong! I will do my best to improve this but all the rest of you out there has to help! to help make a good article!
The section on language states: Modern Japanese is written in a mixture of hiragana, katakana, and kanji. Modern Japanese texts may also include rōmaji (the way of writing Japanese with the Latin alphabet), eimoji (non-Japanese words written in their own script), and various special symbols.
What are eimoji? 英文字?? I don't recall ever hearing it in the context described here, and it would be a total misnomer anyway, as there are no such things as "English" characters. Neither the Japanese wiki nor my 広辞苑 know such a term. Ianb 15:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Until recently, both Nippon and Nihon redirected to Japan. Now only Nihon does and Nippon has been made into a stub article. I believe this should be reverted as it would become more consistent with other countries such as Hellas and Bharat --Grmagne 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Could someone please add a "Name origin" section and explain Nippon and Nihon? -- Reinyday, 03:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
In light of the growing amount of linkspam being added to this and other articles, I have trimmed down the external links section to essential sources only, all links to private fourms and guides have been removed. Please feel free to let me know if you think this is a bit drastic. - Loren 07:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
We have been having for recent days an issue of how to include the specific number of death. Let me clarify my position. This article is a general article about Japan, and as such, it is impractical to include every single historic fact. I don't think anyone has a problem with this. Consequently, issues lie how we gauge the significance of each fact, and make editorial decision on what to include and what not to include. This is a hard question to answer. Obviously, people have a different view on what is important and what is not. But I think the most important criterion is "balance" and "flow". Including the numbers of death is not in line with the two, because as you can see the paragraph about world war II is concise and it doesn't include many fine details for the sake of brevity. The mention of the number of death hence looks rather out of place. Secondly, it also disrupts the flow. As you can see, the paragraphs go on event after event and putting some concrete data is distracting. Hope at least you can understand that I am not trying to "ignore" facts. -- Taku 23:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm kind of torn about this issue of mentioning numbers. We do not know the figures precisely and I do agree with Taku's opinion on the flow of the History section. It must be concise.
Having said that, the Germany article does indeed mention numbers:
"In order to create a master race the Nazis also undertook programs targeting 'unfit' members of the German population, said to have hereditary defects, which could be anything from mental illness to alcoholism. About half a million individuals fell victim to this.
Between 1939 and 1945, about twelve million people were murdered in a system of ghettos and concentration camps. The genocide of the Jewish people is known as The Holocaust."
The above figures are not precise, but they are widely accepted numbers.
On a related note, I do not think the Japanese adopted a pacifist constitution because of the losses during World War II. As I recall, it was the Americans who encouraged such an adoption. In addition, I do belive that the only reason why Japan accepted an unconditional surrender was that it could keep its emperor. That is a significant fact and worth mentioning.-- Sir Edgar 23:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
No offense, but your post shows me in many different ways why there is something severely wrong with history education in Japan.-- Sir Edgar 23:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Taku,
I am convinced that you don't really understand what Buddhism and Shintoism is all about. There has historically been almost no conflict between the two, for one. The second thing is that Buddhism and Shintoism are indeed moral philosophies, in the sense that they offer a means of guidance for a pure life. I think you are too hung up on the idea that someone must believe in only one religion. I want to make several changes in the next few days that reflect this both on this page and the Religions in Japan page.
-Thomas
I think you are confusing that both section and article are about "religions that originated in Japan". It is just not the case. -- Taku 05:33, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Please make sure you sign your statements with four tildas, it's getting a little hard to tell who's saying what. I tend to agree with the sentiment that the phrase Japanese people's attitude towards religion tend to be indifference is at the very least vague and unsupported ... it seems to be contradicted by the later phrase parents and children cerebrate Shinto rituals, students pray before exams, couples holds a wedding at a Christian church and one goes to a funeral at Buddhist temple. I guess a point of discussion is whether syncretism = indifference. CES 14:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please don't hesitate to reword the phrases if needed. Maybe indifferent is not a right word. As was in the article, my intent is to say that Japanese are not religious in the sense Christians or Muslims are. I think we all agree that that Japanese people have the same kind of attitude towards religions as other people in the world is just not true. -- Taku 16:40, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
So to say, the visit to the "Yasukuni" Shinto-shrine is as like the presence to a religious ceremony of a "church of Hakenkreuz". [04:00, 04 May 2005 (UTC)]
Who the hell changed the emperor of Japan to 'Kennedy'? Sad little f*cker.
Where did the figures "When asked to identify their religion, most would profess to believe in either Shintoism (54%) or Buddhism (40%)" come from? A source is necessary since they contradict what is usually said elsewhere (more than 80% believe in *both*), e.g.: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_of_Japan
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japon#Religion also says that many people, especially younger ones, are opposed to all religions for historical reasons and due to the influence of science -- Espoo 10:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Several weeks ago someone deleted my additions to the introduction with the remark "no need for all the seas and oceans surrouding Japan". I while I can understand the desire for elegance/simplicity, I have to disagree here. The precise location of a country is an essential element of its definition. Consider the introductions for other countries here on wiki:
United States" has land borders with Canada and Mexico, and territorial water boundaries with Canada, Russia, and the Bahamas. It is otherwise bounded by the Pacific Ocean, the Bering Sea, the Arctic Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. "
United Kingdom is "a country (or more specifically a constitutional monarchy or unitary state) off the north-western coast of continental Europe, surrounded by the North Sea, the English Channel, the Celtic Sea, the Irish Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean."
Russia "shares land borders with the following countries (counter-clockwise from NW to SE): Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland (only through Kaliningrad Oblast), Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia and North Korea. It is also close to the United States and Japan across stretches of water: the Diomede Islands (one controlled by Russia, the other by the United States) are just 3 km apart, and Kunashir Island (controlled by Russia but claimed by Japan) is about 20 kilometers from Hokkaido."
People's Republic of China "borders 14 nations (counted clockwise): Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, India, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Mongolia and North Korea."
India " has a coastline which stretches over seven thousand kilometres, and shares its borders with Pakistan to the west, the People's Republic of China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the northeast, and Bangladesh and Myanmar on the east. On the Indian Ocean, it is adjacent to the island nations of the Maldives on the southwest, Sri Lanka on the south, and Indonesia on the southeast. India also claims a border with Afghanistan to the northwest"
You get the picture. There is an overwhelming standard on wikipedia to precisely locate a country through its geographically bounded regions, and that is missing here. Overall it would serve this site well to ensure consistency across parallel categories, such as nation-states.
I'm afraid the same person has reverted the edits again, this time with no attempt at any explanation at all. If he could simply click on the discussion page perhaps he'd see this discussion. I think I've explained myself fully, honestly, and with no malice. Disagreement can be expected, but arbitrary changes with no discussion, interaction, or explanation leaves me confused and not knowing what to do.
18.251.6.66
22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Japan does not have an official national anthem. "Kimigayo" (His Majesty's Reign) is only considered to be the anthem. Similarly, the "Hinomaru" (sun disk) has gained worldwide recognition as the 'national flag' of Japan, although it has never been officially designated as such. Perhaps these facts should be added to the article.
Proving once again, that in certain cases, the Wikipedia can actually be more trustworthy that other sources! -- Carl 10:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, snap. That's my bad, then. *Slaps self* Sorry.
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
From the article: 'The Koizumi government is attempting to privatize Japan Post, one of the country's largest private banking and insurance institutions, by 2007.'
That phrase doesn’t make sense, how do you privatize a private institution? And are we sure that Japan Post is a banking and insurance institution?? My guess is that instead of a ',' there should be a 'and', but in that case what is the name of that 'largest private banking and insurance institutionE Could someone with the correct knowledge on the topic fizz this? Thank you.
Someone added a phrase indicating that the Japanese government was influenced by the British system, but I was always under the impression it was the Prussian/German model that the Japanese were most influenced by. Anyone know more? CES 02:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think this article has a large bias towards a Western view of Japan. In particular the claim that Perry "forced" the opening of Japan seems somewhat suspect. I just edited the religion section because the previous writer claimed that Japanese religion is dead or dying out. Let me know if you agree that this page needs major changes.
It is obvious that Japan is still an empire formally at least, since the emperor system exists still. -- 10.56, 22 Apr. 2005 (UTC)
Any opinions on the Liancourt Rocks issue?
I THINK THIS ARTICLE IS TOTAL BIASED. WHERE'S THE PART OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR?? THE PART WHICH JAPAN INVADED CHINA?? GONE??
I question the influence of "Greco-Buddhist" influence in Japan. It seems to me that by the time Buddhism reached Japan, it became much more Chinese in character then Indian, much less Greek. Also I think that anime and manga, as well as video games deserve more then just a mention as part of a list here. These are subtle points but ones I think need to be made.
In the interests of precision of language, I'd like to start a discussion about the following line on culture.
'The start of the Yayoi period around 300 BC, marked the influx of new technologies such as rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making, brought by migrants from Korea. These formed the basic elements of traditional Japanese culture, still seen today.'
I'm not sure it's entirely helpful or informative to say that shamanism, iron and bronze-making form the basic elements of traditional Japanese culture. There probably is some connection between Shintoism and shamanism, and probably iron and bronze-making do contribute to Japan's modern mighty manufacturing industry, but it seems a rather vague and undefined connection. I have to comment that probably a lot of early civilizations went through a shamanistic phase, and went through the iron and bronze making, and such things have an effect on the basis elements of that culture. But to go as far as to definitively say that the basic elements of a culture are from "rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making" seems not befitting. I suggest changing it to
'The start of the Yayoi period around 300 CE marked the influx of new technologies such as rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making, brought by migrants from the Korean peninsula. From archaeological evidence, these had an impact on early cultural developments on the islands of modern Japan.'
Another possibility is that the author intended to write that the "new technologies" formed the basic elements of traditional Japanese culture. I'm open to these possibilities. Wilgamesh 21:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
When we speak of civilizations during this period, we often call what is now China, "China", and what is now Japan, "Japan". But with Korea, there is a tendency among some people to reduce that civilization to the "Korean peninsula" as if it was a simple geographic area at the time rather than a true civilization. The fact of the matter is, civilization long existed in Korea (and even longer in China) before Japan was even making its first steps into it.
There is indeed a strong connection between shamanism and the Shinto religion. The use of sticky rice changed Japanese eating habits and helped with the invention of sushi. Iron-making is important in the samurai tradition. I cannot think of many other things that are symbolic of traditional Japanese culture. Do not reduce the significance of these important contributions to Japanese civilization.-- Sir Edgar 06:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
See how this article uses the terms "Japan" and "Korean Peninsula": http://www.bookrags.com/history/worldhistory/yayoi-period-ema-06/
This just goes to show the bias out there. I do not want that bias repeated here at Wikipedia.
The article does talk about how important the Yayoi period was in the formation of what is "Japan". This is really when a distinctly Japanese civilization emerges. Even though it was heavily influenced by Korean culture (and later Chinese culture), this early Japan is when we see the roots of today's Japan.-- Sir Edgar 06:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I think we ought as well add Japanese pronogrpahy's link at the bottom since japanese fetishes and sexual pervert video are so world famous and shokcing that we, at wikipedia, actually have an extensive article that proves that japanese culture is far more related with their porns than any other nation that existed on earth. so, why not add this link.
and since, we mentioned anime, why don't we mention Hentai?
I am going to add those two links and maybe someone with more scholarly commnents into japanese perversiity can edit the matin article introduce about their bdsm, bondage sex, a little bit; since those are inevtiably parts of the japanese culture, as proved in the japanese pornography article at wikipedia.
thehammerspake at thehammerspake-at-yahoo.com
RE: Ok, i see that you revised your reply and it is MUCH clear what you meant. thank you for making yourself comprehesible to others; it is a great helpt to the rest of us and the whole wikipedia community!
thehammerspake
A common fool, probably one of the many annonymous political nut cases that get off on tampering with articles, changed the emperor to 'Kennedy'. This was on the article for the past 6 months (at least). I have now returned it to it's original form.
Japan is an empire same as that Sweden is a kingdom, since Japanese Emperor system still exists. But Japan's Government has called Japan "Japan" as the formal name and will do so. Perhaps Japan's Government wants to avoid that Japan may become "notorious" as an empire. [17:00, 05 May 2005 (UTC)]
The Japanese Emperor system may still exist, but the emperor no longer holds any political power and is simply a national symbol. He is strictly banned to take part in any form of politics, and is only a figurehead who sometimes presides over certain government events. Therefore, I would not go as far as to say that Japan is still an empire. I am not sure what exactly you are trying to imply when you say "Perhaps Japan's Government wants to avoid that Japan may become "notorious" as an empire," but I doubt that is the case.
Someone added the following line: "People have speculated that the high stress academic life might be the reason for high suicide rates." I've heard this kind of comment before, but I thought I'd also heard that Japan having an unusually high youth suicide rate is not true (and media hype is to blame for this perception). Personally I have no idea which is true. Does anyone have concrete data so we know if this comment should be kept or not? CES 03:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The post read:
I changed it to:
WHY:
-- Have you never been to Okayama, Niigata, Shimane, Shizuoka, or even remote places in Kyoto Pref.? Did you fail to see the terraced rice paddies all over the hills, especially in places such as Sado Island? I would suggest a rewording of the section, leaving this part in. Any opposing opinions? (BTW- it helps discussions to sign your posts). -- Christophernicus 01:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll give you the argument that the current emperor is not called specifically the "Heisei Emperor" yet. However, I think this article is lacking in two areas: 1) There is absolutely no mention of the current era as "Heisei" or the calculation of dates by era names. 2) Although every official document I fill out (outside of the immigration office) uses these era names, there is no mention of either the Showa or Heisei periods, yet most Japanese today identify most with these eras. Any comments? -- Christophernicus 02:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the regions section of the article, the map illustration is clearly numbered, but the article reads "From north to south...". Can someone who knows which are which number these regions so as to eliminate confusion, and take advantage of an otherwise ugly feature of the illustration? siafu 22:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was interested in the presence of a class hierarchy in today's Japanese society and ran across this article: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Japanese%20class%20system
I was thinking this information deserves a place here, maybe as a subheading under culture or history. -- Lenehey 23:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I find the use of the word "unique" in the Japanese culture section baseless. The first paragraph and half of the second paragraph talks about all the outside influences Japanese culture received from China, Korea, and elsewhere and then suddenly the article claims that "Japan developed a unique original culture, in its arts, crafts, and traditions, as well as a unique cuisine." Is there any justification for the use of the word "unique" twice in a single paragraph?
Can someone please explain to me what is so unique anyhow? Do the Japanese paint with their feet and make clothing out of glass? Do they eat trees and greet each other with burping noises?
Or do they do calligraphy (like the Chinese and Koreans), make celadon pottery (like the Chinese and Koreans), drink green tea (like the Chinese and Koreans), eat soy products (like the Chinese and Koreans), and bow to each other when greeting (like the Chinese and Koreans)?
The Japanese are famous for telling foreigners about the "uniqueness" of their culture. They even claim their four seasons are unique. I think this kind of cultural propaganda should be removed.
Japanese culture is not unique. In fact, no culture on Earth can be truly unique unless it has been completely isolate and uncontanimated. Even then, universal human traits can be observed.
The third paragraph of this article then talks about European and American influences in modern-day Japan. So, how could a culture that has received so much outside influence be truly "unique"?
The view that Japanese culture is somehow "unique" is not only false, but antiquated and even... dangerous. I cannot understand how this type of racial ideology can be accepted in a discussion of Japan when certainly such a claim in an article about the Aryan race in one about Germany would cause an uproar.
That's why I'm editing this now.
I am also deleting the influence of Central and South Asia from the second paragraph and adding "rice farming, ceremonial burial, pottery, painting, writing, poetry, etiquette" as it is really these imports from China and Korea that had a bigger impact on Japanese culture.-- Sir Edgar 07:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I do not see what the problem is in the statement that "Japan developed a unique culture." You seemed to have drawn a parallel with the Aryan race, but that is clearly irrelevant. The article is NOT claiming that "Japan has a superior race" or that "Japanese culture stands out like a brillliant star"; it is simply saying that Japan has a culture that is different from those of other countries. Yes, I am aware that certain cultural practices in Japan are also performed in other countries such as China or South Korea (i.e. tea drinking, calligraphy, bowing, etc.), but that does not automatically make Japanese culture "non-unique". Just because Japanese, Chinese and South Korean cultures share some features, it does NOT make them identical (Surely if you lived in Japan, South Korea or China, you would know that their cultures have many differences). If you think about it, it should be obvious that every culture is unique in its own way. By saying "unique", the author is not implying that "everything about Japan is completely original and cannot be found anywhere else on earth." My guess is that the author of the article stated "Japan developed a unique culture" because he feared that many people would wrongly believe that Japan has an identical culture to South Korea or China (since he mentioned that Japan borrowed from various cultures). Also, to answer your question, "how could a culture that has received so much outside influence be truly "unique"?" --- First of all, the question should be "how could it NOT be unique?" With such an enormous diversity of ideas and cultural influences permeating into Japan, it would have been easy, even natrual, for something unique to develop. Bits and pieces of Chinese culture, Korean culture, etc., would all be picked out according to Japanese tastes, mixed in with indigenous culture, and mashed into something distinctly Japanese. Yes, no one will deny that there was cultural borrowing, but can you honestly name a country that has NEVER borrowed anything from anyone? the United States borrowed bits and pieces of culture from Brittain, Central America, Canada and even the Native Americans, so following your logic, would that make the United States "non-unique" too? If you have ever been to the United States and Brittain, you would know that they are very different, and that both are unique.
Following your logic, nothing in the world can be unique, so perhaps we should all stop using the word. While we do that, why not put a halt on the use of other adjectives such as "ideal," "beautiful," or "wonderful," since they are all subjective or "technically false". Maybe you should browse through every single wikipedia article and criticize each of them for using adjectives. Unlike you, most people know that each country is unique, so it does not have to be written on EVERY SINGLE country's culture section. Also, most people, including me, would not mind if someone wrote that "South Korea has a unique culture" or that "China has a unique culture" because both of those statements are true. Only you are cynical enough to interpret such a simple statement as "Japanese culture is unique" to be some sort of dangerous nationalistic propaganda. Obviously you have something against Japan.
The use of the word "unique" is indeed necessary for people like you, who seem so convinced that Japanese culture is identical to China and Korea simply because the Japanese borrowed several features of their cultures. What are you trying to prove by making such comments as "Or do they do calligraphy (like the Chinese and Koreans), make celadon pottery (like the Chinese and Koreans), drink green tea (like the Chinese and Koreans), eat soy products (like the Chinese and Koreans), and bow to each other when greeting (like the Chinese and Koreans)? " Are you trying to imply that Japanese culture is unoriginal and has nothing distinct? The author obviously believed the word "unique" was necessary so that people like you would know that Japan has a different culture than China or Korea. Clearly, if there are ignorant people asking such ridiculous questions as "how could a culture that has received so much outside influence be truly unique?", there needs to be someone to tell them that Japan is indeed different (and no, I am NOT saying "Japan is special") - and that Japan is not just a bland, unoriginal, copycat culture. I apologize if I wrongfully accused you of Japan-bashing, but I can hardly consider your comments to be "positive contributions to Japan-related articles" when you say such things as "The Japanese are famous for telling foreigners about the "uniqueness" of their culture" or when you draw parallels with the Aryan race. I guess you did not find those comments inconsiderate. I am sick and tired of hearing people making accusations about how the "Japanese are self absorbed and extremely nationalistic." Many Japanese youths are hesitant to show any pride for their nationality , fearing that someone will pounce on them, figuratively and literally (Did you see what happened at the Finals of the Asia Cup in Beijing?). I will disclose to you that I am a Japanese girl in an American Middle School who has been yelled at by fellow Asian classmates with assertions similar to yours. I worked as a camp counselor this summer and I had a Korean 2nd grader tug on my shirt and say "the Japanese are selfish people!" Again, I apologize if I wrongly accused you of Japan-bashing, but I am honestly fed up with people who so passionately insist that the Japanese spread "cultural propaganda" and "racial ideaologies". --06:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)nyannko
Since when did the statement "Japan is unique" suddenly imply that other cultures are not. You seem to have disregarded everything I had said in my previous comments. I am well aware that every culture is unique, including those of Japan's neighbors (which, by the way, I had said many a times). In case you have forgotten, YOU were the one who was so fervently arguing that Japan and other cultures are NOT unique. Also, how can you say with such confidence that the author of the article had a "desire to somehow differentiate, be apart from, the neighboring cultures"?. You simply twisted a simple statement, written without malice by the author, and you interpreted it to mean that "Japan is special and is better than every other culture in the world." You said Japan "is no more unique than any other culture on the planet," but if you read the article carefully, the author NEVER said that "Japan is more unique than any other culture on the planet." The only thing the article said was that "Japan is unique." However, being the cynic that you are, you pounce on the statement, jump to conclusions and antagonize Japan. Yes, I will not deny that during the War, the Japanese people were taught to believe they were special, and that this belief led to the massacre of countless Asian peoples. I will also not deny that some people in Japan, especially the ignorant older generations in rural areas, look down on foreigners (perhaps you, having traveled to Japan, experienced this time of discrimination and is holding a grudge against all Japanese). However, if you were truly informed of modern Japanese culture, you would know that this type of Japanese view is rapidly deteriorating. With an increasing amount of influence from Western popular culture, the Japanese - especially the younger generation - are looking at foreign cultures with admiration, even reverence. Just as we speak, there is a "Korea boom" in Japan, in which women are swooning over Korean actors and dramas, while thousands are traveling to Korea. Furthermore, Japan is in a craze over soccer players David Beckham from England and Ilhan Mansiz from Turkey. Foreign Fighters are also gaining a huge amount of Japanese fans as The K-1, an all-out fighting tournament in Japan, is increasing in popularity. Next time you travel to Japan, perhaps you should keep your eyes open and take note of such things, because your fear that the "Japanese people will justify massacres with nationalism" is clearly outdated. And how paranoid must you be to truly think that the author was trying to use this wikipedia article as a platform to spark Japanese nationalism? Is the author of the article even Japanese? Clearly the innocent author did not expect someone to call him an "Aryan equivalent" just for saying that a country is unique. Dear Mark, I do not mind if the word "distinct" is used as well. However, Sir Edward might criticize us for implying that "Japan is more distinct than any other culture" or that "Japan stands out more than other cultures." He might force you to write the word "distinct" in the culture section of each country's article. -- 04:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)nyannko
For the record...
1. The statement in the Geography of Japan (see below) was not made by me. I do not necessarily disagree though.
2. I did not refer to anyone as a Nazi nor did I ever use that term.
3. The above statement by Anonymous User who has resorted to name-calling is offensive to me. Ad hominem attacks show signs of weakness in an argument. It is for those who have nothing to rely on except personal attacks because their argument stands no ground. I would like to ask the Anonymous User to refrain from them. Regardless, the statements by Anonymous User appear nothing more than rants to me. I do not see how they contribute to the discussion of the article.
4. We need to be careful in wording for country articles. I would find it difficult to swallow any text in an article about Germany using the word "superior" in its culture section. That's why I find "distinct" more appropriate, and more accurate, than the use of the term "unique" for Japan's culture section. I am the one who edited it to "distinct", by the way. It seems everyone is in agreement, including Anonymous User, that the use of "distinct" is acceptable. So what's the issue? Let's move on.-- Sir Edgar 07:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you John Epstein, I greatly appreciate your support. I only wish that more people like you will begin to dissipate the negative light which has focused so intensely on the Japanese people. -- 17:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)nyannko
This section does not conform to widely accepted and proven theories on Japan's origins. That's why I'm going to edit it.-- Sir Edgar 00:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Pre-history is an illogical term because it assumes that there is a period that happened before history, but history began at the beginning of time. Trav.company 15:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
WRONG. There is another, older definition of "history". According to it, history begins with the invention of writing. With the invention of writing, written history starts, and thus history. Thus, "prehistoric" means "before people left written history". -- Mkill 19:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Like the issue of 'Unique' in Japan I feel that there is a something incorrect about this paragraph of the geography section:
I think this (like unique culture or the unique four seasons) is another myth: that japan is subject to uniquely severe forces of nature. There are other countries in the world with similar geological and climatic conditions yet with many hill/mountain top towns and extensive agricultural development. Italy, California (San Franscisco), Chile and Peru jump to mind.
What evidence is there that 73% of Japanese land is really unsuitable for development?
The reasons for Japan's lack of development in the hills and mountains I believe are as anthropological as they are geographical and I feel this is not being represented. There are of course many steep and volcanic mountains in Japan which are not suitable for development however there are also many small hills which are but remain untouched. I changed this before to mention the cultural idea (from the Shinto religion) that the mountains were where the gods lived, this was deleted. Perhaps it was too simplistic... I think something a bit less cliched needs to be said about this.
What does everyone else think? -- Gorgonz
I removed "International rankings", which I think is uninteresting. The infobox already lists GDP rankings, and the text already contains a lot of mentions of ranking like density, area, etc. In addition, it is practically impossible to list every ranking. For example, the rank in Reporters Without Borders is important but irrelevant to the article. -- Taku 12:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Are there 6,800 islands or 3,000 islands? The introduction says 6,800 islands, but the Geography section says 3,000 islands.-- Sir Edgar 01:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I have browsed other countries articles on wikipedia, especially other developed countries' cultures such as Germany and France, and I found that whatever that is under the headline culture inevitably is either about great mathematicians of the heyday, musicians, philosophers, scientists, artists, world famous novelists, or else otherwise worthwhile intellectual creations such as the Simpsons
This is too much. The entire article on section culture has to be redone! IT's all wrong! I will do my best to improve this but all the rest of you out there has to help! to help make a good article!
The section on language states: Modern Japanese is written in a mixture of hiragana, katakana, and kanji. Modern Japanese texts may also include rōmaji (the way of writing Japanese with the Latin alphabet), eimoji (non-Japanese words written in their own script), and various special symbols.
What are eimoji? 英文字?? I don't recall ever hearing it in the context described here, and it would be a total misnomer anyway, as there are no such things as "English" characters. Neither the Japanese wiki nor my 広辞苑 know such a term. Ianb 15:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Until recently, both Nippon and Nihon redirected to Japan. Now only Nihon does and Nippon has been made into a stub article. I believe this should be reverted as it would become more consistent with other countries such as Hellas and Bharat --Grmagne 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Could someone please add a "Name origin" section and explain Nippon and Nihon? -- Reinyday, 03:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
In light of the growing amount of linkspam being added to this and other articles, I have trimmed down the external links section to essential sources only, all links to private fourms and guides have been removed. Please feel free to let me know if you think this is a bit drastic. - Loren 07:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
We have been having for recent days an issue of how to include the specific number of death. Let me clarify my position. This article is a general article about Japan, and as such, it is impractical to include every single historic fact. I don't think anyone has a problem with this. Consequently, issues lie how we gauge the significance of each fact, and make editorial decision on what to include and what not to include. This is a hard question to answer. Obviously, people have a different view on what is important and what is not. But I think the most important criterion is "balance" and "flow". Including the numbers of death is not in line with the two, because as you can see the paragraph about world war II is concise and it doesn't include many fine details for the sake of brevity. The mention of the number of death hence looks rather out of place. Secondly, it also disrupts the flow. As you can see, the paragraphs go on event after event and putting some concrete data is distracting. Hope at least you can understand that I am not trying to "ignore" facts. -- Taku 23:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm kind of torn about this issue of mentioning numbers. We do not know the figures precisely and I do agree with Taku's opinion on the flow of the History section. It must be concise.
Having said that, the Germany article does indeed mention numbers:
"In order to create a master race the Nazis also undertook programs targeting 'unfit' members of the German population, said to have hereditary defects, which could be anything from mental illness to alcoholism. About half a million individuals fell victim to this.
Between 1939 and 1945, about twelve million people were murdered in a system of ghettos and concentration camps. The genocide of the Jewish people is known as The Holocaust."
The above figures are not precise, but they are widely accepted numbers.
On a related note, I do not think the Japanese adopted a pacifist constitution because of the losses during World War II. As I recall, it was the Americans who encouraged such an adoption. In addition, I do belive that the only reason why Japan accepted an unconditional surrender was that it could keep its emperor. That is a significant fact and worth mentioning.-- Sir Edgar 23:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
No offense, but your post shows me in many different ways why there is something severely wrong with history education in Japan.-- Sir Edgar 23:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Taku,
I am convinced that you don't really understand what Buddhism and Shintoism is all about. There has historically been almost no conflict between the two, for one. The second thing is that Buddhism and Shintoism are indeed moral philosophies, in the sense that they offer a means of guidance for a pure life. I think you are too hung up on the idea that someone must believe in only one religion. I want to make several changes in the next few days that reflect this both on this page and the Religions in Japan page.
-Thomas
I think you are confusing that both section and article are about "religions that originated in Japan". It is just not the case. -- Taku 05:33, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Please make sure you sign your statements with four tildas, it's getting a little hard to tell who's saying what. I tend to agree with the sentiment that the phrase Japanese people's attitude towards religion tend to be indifference is at the very least vague and unsupported ... it seems to be contradicted by the later phrase parents and children cerebrate Shinto rituals, students pray before exams, couples holds a wedding at a Christian church and one goes to a funeral at Buddhist temple. I guess a point of discussion is whether syncretism = indifference. CES 14:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please don't hesitate to reword the phrases if needed. Maybe indifferent is not a right word. As was in the article, my intent is to say that Japanese are not religious in the sense Christians or Muslims are. I think we all agree that that Japanese people have the same kind of attitude towards religions as other people in the world is just not true. -- Taku 16:40, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
So to say, the visit to the "Yasukuni" Shinto-shrine is as like the presence to a religious ceremony of a "church of Hakenkreuz". [04:00, 04 May 2005 (UTC)]
Who the hell changed the emperor of Japan to 'Kennedy'? Sad little f*cker.
Where did the figures "When asked to identify their religion, most would profess to believe in either Shintoism (54%) or Buddhism (40%)" come from? A source is necessary since they contradict what is usually said elsewhere (more than 80% believe in *both*), e.g.: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_of_Japan
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japon#Religion also says that many people, especially younger ones, are opposed to all religions for historical reasons and due to the influence of science -- Espoo 10:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Several weeks ago someone deleted my additions to the introduction with the remark "no need for all the seas and oceans surrouding Japan". I while I can understand the desire for elegance/simplicity, I have to disagree here. The precise location of a country is an essential element of its definition. Consider the introductions for other countries here on wiki:
United States" has land borders with Canada and Mexico, and territorial water boundaries with Canada, Russia, and the Bahamas. It is otherwise bounded by the Pacific Ocean, the Bering Sea, the Arctic Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. "
United Kingdom is "a country (or more specifically a constitutional monarchy or unitary state) off the north-western coast of continental Europe, surrounded by the North Sea, the English Channel, the Celtic Sea, the Irish Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean."
Russia "shares land borders with the following countries (counter-clockwise from NW to SE): Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland (only through Kaliningrad Oblast), Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia and North Korea. It is also close to the United States and Japan across stretches of water: the Diomede Islands (one controlled by Russia, the other by the United States) are just 3 km apart, and Kunashir Island (controlled by Russia but claimed by Japan) is about 20 kilometers from Hokkaido."
People's Republic of China "borders 14 nations (counted clockwise): Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, India, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Mongolia and North Korea."
India " has a coastline which stretches over seven thousand kilometres, and shares its borders with Pakistan to the west, the People's Republic of China, Nepal, and Bhutan to the northeast, and Bangladesh and Myanmar on the east. On the Indian Ocean, it is adjacent to the island nations of the Maldives on the southwest, Sri Lanka on the south, and Indonesia on the southeast. India also claims a border with Afghanistan to the northwest"
You get the picture. There is an overwhelming standard on wikipedia to precisely locate a country through its geographically bounded regions, and that is missing here. Overall it would serve this site well to ensure consistency across parallel categories, such as nation-states.
I'm afraid the same person has reverted the edits again, this time with no attempt at any explanation at all. If he could simply click on the discussion page perhaps he'd see this discussion. I think I've explained myself fully, honestly, and with no malice. Disagreement can be expected, but arbitrary changes with no discussion, interaction, or explanation leaves me confused and not knowing what to do.
18.251.6.66
22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Japan does not have an official national anthem. "Kimigayo" (His Majesty's Reign) is only considered to be the anthem. Similarly, the "Hinomaru" (sun disk) has gained worldwide recognition as the 'national flag' of Japan, although it has never been officially designated as such. Perhaps these facts should be added to the article.
Proving once again, that in certain cases, the Wikipedia can actually be more trustworthy that other sources! -- Carl 10:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, snap. That's my bad, then. *Slaps self* Sorry.