This page 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. |
it would be nice if there was a nicer image for the Japan seal.
"Following centuries of feudalism, Japan established two separate military services in the late 1980s, the Cartoon Japanese Barbies (modeled upon the army of the Day after tomorro) and the Animated Japanese Nannies (modeled upon the grandies of the Ken Park). Following American Occupation after World War I, the only time in Japan's recorded history where it had been occupied by a foreign power, the Cartoon Japanese Barbies was dissolved in 1999 and replaced in 2000 by the Toyota Work Forces. Japan's current constitution prohibits the use of Magic forces to wage war against other countries. Japan's involvement in the car production, however, marked the first overseas use of its military since World War I."
There seem to be a couple of innacuracies there - Fenix 3:10am 31/12/05
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)
would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The first line of the article just sounds weird now. Anyone want to take a stab at rewording it to make it easier to read? I'm fine with including the long form of the name, but the current method just makes the whole thing hard to read, IMHO. Here's what it currently says:
Ganbare! -- nihon 07:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The following question is from anonymous user 131.215.7.209 ( talk • contribs):
I have a question about this image. The position of "Szichwan" may be wrong. It should be far west. (Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:China-Sichuan.png) As far as I know, the Szichwan province of China remains unconqered by Japan during World War II. Sorry I don't know how to send this message to the original author of the image, so I put it here. Hopefully someone more experienced would do it for me. Thank you very much!!
(taken from main article) -- bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi all. This was made by an anon user where he/she asked a question on the article itself. I reverted the edit but thought I should mention it here incase someone knows what that user is talking about. - User:Akamad Merry Christmas to all! 08:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi everyone, just like to say that I'd like to see more on certain aspects of the Japanese culture, such as diffidence around others and the sort of, well, reluctance to accept outsiders. Thank you. MondoManDevout 07:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I think he has a good point, if very hard one to address. While there is no need for the article to discuss whether Japanese culture is unique or not, which is not an important point, we can do better job on how the Japanese think and act; like I am thinking of the idea of wabi, sabi, attitude toward religion, from a general view point without boiling down to details. The problem is this is very hard. Suffice it to say certainly the Japanese is not reluctant to accept outsiders. During Meiji Restoration, Japan was unexceptionally quick to accept foreign ideas, technologies and people. And those teenagers are completely oblivious about the public eyes when they are doing their makeups riding on the train. I for one don't understand what is going on. -- Taku 01:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It is always tricky to decide which historical facts are included and which are left out. But I believe the following is probably better excluded: ", provided they could keep their emperor. The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal was convened on May 3, 1946 to prosecute Japanese war crimes." I believe so because this fact does not constitutes the mainstream of Japanese history. That is to say one cannot narrate rightly the modern Japanese history without mentioning atomic bombing or japan's surrender. Tokyo Trial is, I don't think, the same case. Having said that, I also agree that postwar Japan cannot be understood without its stance on war, as the loss of the war is a very basic starting point of postwar Japan. I will try to articulate this and your help (feedback or edit) is more than welcome. -- Taku 01:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This has been discussed before and the conclusion was that the U.S. allowing Japan to keep its emperor was a key factor in the surrender. Also, since we are not mentioning events like the Nanjing Massacre, etc., there is a need to keep the link to Japanese war crimes. This is for those that want to get more details. Otherwise, you'll just have a lot of people trying to put in things like that in the main article for Japan and overloading it with information.-- Sir Edgar 04:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I changed the wording to "Many Japanese leaders were prosecuted for alleged war crimes, but Hirohito was made immune from prosecution and remained Emperor of Japan." This is more in line with what actually happened, and does not speak to whether or not Japan's actions in Asia were actually war crimes, just that the Allies prosecuted them as such. - Sekicho 05:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Sekicho's editing. This is more accurate than the version with "provided they could keep their emperor" and (sorry to say this, but) the recent editing you propose, Takuya. The concise nature of the Japan article leaves out details like the Nanjing Massacre (universally accepted as a war crime), so why include the debateable issue of whether the atomic bombings were war crimes or not? That should be left to a specific article on the atomic bombings.-- Sir Edgar 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-- Taku 05:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you're presenting the Japanese point of view which, as we have found out from our discussions before, is totally different from the rest of the world (in other words, wrong). The Nanjing Massacre (not "Nanking Incident") was a war crime. Without the U.S., the Japanese would not have adopted a pacifist constitution.
The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal took place right after the war and were related to the war. It should be mentioned in the same paragraph. The post-WWII section should focus on Japan's recovery and rise as an economic power. I think it should also mention Japan's active participation in international aid and the United Nations.-- Sir Edgar 23:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I will try to incorporate some of your edits into the article, but do not think for a moment that we will use terms like "Nanking Incident" or call the Tokyo Trials "controversial". This is not the generally accepted view of these events. If the viewpoint of Japan is wrong, then no, I don't think it should be reflected here. Please leave the article as is for now and let me see what I can do.-- Sir Edgar 09:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I am also glad that we can have a civil discussion based on the facts, despite our clearly different perspectives on these issues. You should know that I am also interested in compromise, but not at the sake of the truth. I refuse to allow the term "controversial" to describe the Tokyo Trials in this article. There are several reasons for this:
1. There is no mention of the word "controversial" in the main Tokyo Trials article. See International Military Tribunal for the Far East.
2. The world view is that the Tokyo Trials were not "controversial".
3. I would certainly appreciate reading about the Japanese perspective on the Tokyo Trials in a section of the article International Military Tribunal for the Far East, but to call them "controversial" in the main Japan article (and the introduction for the Tokyo Trials article, for that matter) would be wrong.
The reason why I removed references to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and Japan's military alliance with the U.S. is to keep the article concise. The former can be kept in the World War II article and the latter can be put in the Military section for Japan.
I disagree with you on your point about the truth.
Please feel free to create an article called Japanese Perspectives on World War II/International Affairs though.-- Sir Edgar 23:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm changing "Muromachi shogunate" to "Ashikaga shogunate". Woogums 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I just placed a request for semi-protection because of the persistent attempts of vandalism by anonymous IP users. Hermeneus ( user/ talk) 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!-- Sir Edgar 07:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The old version (upto 06:14, January 29, 2006 JST) of the language section writes as follows:
Japanese language is a language. It is a tool of communication that is used in speech as well as in writing. Yet the old version talks almost exclusively about the writing system, spending the majority of the space on how Chinese language helped the Japanese, who previously did not have a writing system of their own, to develop one. Although it is true that Chinese language greatly influenced Japanese writing system, its description should not take up such a large space in a limited summary section of Japanese language. Japanese language itself belongs in a different language family than Chinese language and is not a derivative of Chinese language. Hermeneus ( user/ talk) 14:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Please read this...
Japanese archaeologist who fooled so many for so long leaves dark legacy of flawed theories: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/08/19/international1219EDT0439.DTL
Excerpts-
Since Fujimura was caught red-handed and confessed last year that he planted many of his finds, textbooks have been revised, artifacts quietly removed from the National Museum, and theories on Japan's earliest humans reconsidered.
The Fujimura affair, among the worst cases of academic fraud ever in Japan, exposed fundamental problems with the way archaeology is conducted here. And in a country where finds are frequently front-page news, the damage to its reputation may be irreparable.
Japanese nationalism also may have had a role.
Amakasu acknowledged that archaeology in Japan, where people were taught they were a unique race until the end of World War II, is largely expected to reinforce a sense of national identity rather than uncover the history of humankind.
Fujimura fed into that by telling people what they wanted to hear about the depth and importance of Japanese history and widely publicizing his findings, Keally said.
"We seem to be back to zero on this question of humans in Japan before 35,000 years ago," concluded Keally, who has worked in Japan for 30 years.
-- Sir Edgar 01:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Does Japan have a national motto? If not, I need to know so I can put "none" in that field.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
If you are interested, please come and vote on using macrons in Japanese article titles on Wikipedia. It's an important style question that needs to be answered, and your opinion matters!
The vote is open through Saturday night (February 11th, Mountain Time), MoS will be updated (or not) based on the consensus reached. Thanks! (^_^)
The template contains several dates: Formation 710; Shogunate 1185; Meiji Restoration 1866; Taisho democracy 1919; Democracy May 3, 1947. I'm not sure what was formed in 710; why 1185 is given as the date of Shogunate (and why not dates of other shogunates, which were revolutions against previous shogunates); why 1866 for Meiji Restoration; why Taisho democracy deserves to be in table or how a date was arrived at; or why the extreme emphasis on modern events (three dates in eight decades but no dates for nearly eight centuries). What is the purpose of the dates, and the rationale behind the choices? Fg2 09:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering how common the name "Nisshoki" is for the flag. I used the spelling similar to this, but I found nothing. Using the term I pasted, I found a very things. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've just remove the newly added section "Notes", which said:
This is not sourced, and is not mentioned in the more detaild Names of Japan. (And in case anyone is wondering: in Wade-Giles jih corresponds to ri in Pinyin, and pen corresponds to ben, i.e. there is no j sound in jih-pen. See e.g. http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/eastasian/ctable2.htm )
Why is it inapproriate to post a link to http://www.japan-golf-tours.com/ under the other links section? This website offers valuable information about golf courses in japan and an overall review of golf in japan. Check out these pages: http://www.japan-golf-tours.com/japan-golf-tour-information.html and http://www.japan-golf-tours.com/japan-golf-tour-courses.html
I argue that this is perfectly fine to post and offers valuable information and services to people interested in Japan!
I think the information is a little sparse on why some Japanese do not like the Anthem created in 1999. It's the same song used during the Imperial Era 1900-1945 and is often associated with fascist/expansionist Japan.
This article seems to be very comprehensive, and I think with a little bit of work referencing, this could easily meet the criteria...we should nominate this article. What do you think? Mkaycomputer 22:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I would certainly like to see this becoming a featured article. However, as it is constantly under attack by vandals (Japan-haters and Japanese nationalists alike), I think it would be difficult. It's constantly in an edit war. If it is protected, I think it could be qualified. Also, regular users should refrain from editing the document unless it really needs an update somewhere.-- Sir Edgar 00:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Should we nominate it for the Article Improvement Drive to try to get more people aboard? Mkaycomputer 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
This page was vandalized by 66.4.207.83! It has been fixed.
However, now there's a slight problem. It may just be me, but picture of the Jomon vessel (Under History) is now spilling over the text, and I have no idea how to fix it. Any help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gewehr ( talk • contribs) .
This page 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. |
it would be nice if there was a nicer image for the Japan seal.
"Following centuries of feudalism, Japan established two separate military services in the late 1980s, the Cartoon Japanese Barbies (modeled upon the army of the Day after tomorro) and the Animated Japanese Nannies (modeled upon the grandies of the Ken Park). Following American Occupation after World War I, the only time in Japan's recorded history where it had been occupied by a foreign power, the Cartoon Japanese Barbies was dissolved in 1999 and replaced in 2000 by the Toyota Work Forces. Japan's current constitution prohibits the use of Magic forces to wage war against other countries. Japan's involvement in the car production, however, marked the first overseas use of its military since World War I."
There seem to be a couple of innacuracies there - Fenix 3:10am 31/12/05
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)
would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The first line of the article just sounds weird now. Anyone want to take a stab at rewording it to make it easier to read? I'm fine with including the long form of the name, but the current method just makes the whole thing hard to read, IMHO. Here's what it currently says:
Ganbare! -- nihon 07:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The following question is from anonymous user 131.215.7.209 ( talk • contribs):
I have a question about this image. The position of "Szichwan" may be wrong. It should be far west. (Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:China-Sichuan.png) As far as I know, the Szichwan province of China remains unconqered by Japan during World War II. Sorry I don't know how to send this message to the original author of the image, so I put it here. Hopefully someone more experienced would do it for me. Thank you very much!!
(taken from main article) -- bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi all. This was made by an anon user where he/she asked a question on the article itself. I reverted the edit but thought I should mention it here incase someone knows what that user is talking about. - User:Akamad Merry Christmas to all! 08:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi everyone, just like to say that I'd like to see more on certain aspects of the Japanese culture, such as diffidence around others and the sort of, well, reluctance to accept outsiders. Thank you. MondoManDevout 07:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I think he has a good point, if very hard one to address. While there is no need for the article to discuss whether Japanese culture is unique or not, which is not an important point, we can do better job on how the Japanese think and act; like I am thinking of the idea of wabi, sabi, attitude toward religion, from a general view point without boiling down to details. The problem is this is very hard. Suffice it to say certainly the Japanese is not reluctant to accept outsiders. During Meiji Restoration, Japan was unexceptionally quick to accept foreign ideas, technologies and people. And those teenagers are completely oblivious about the public eyes when they are doing their makeups riding on the train. I for one don't understand what is going on. -- Taku 01:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It is always tricky to decide which historical facts are included and which are left out. But I believe the following is probably better excluded: ", provided they could keep their emperor. The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal was convened on May 3, 1946 to prosecute Japanese war crimes." I believe so because this fact does not constitutes the mainstream of Japanese history. That is to say one cannot narrate rightly the modern Japanese history without mentioning atomic bombing or japan's surrender. Tokyo Trial is, I don't think, the same case. Having said that, I also agree that postwar Japan cannot be understood without its stance on war, as the loss of the war is a very basic starting point of postwar Japan. I will try to articulate this and your help (feedback or edit) is more than welcome. -- Taku 01:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This has been discussed before and the conclusion was that the U.S. allowing Japan to keep its emperor was a key factor in the surrender. Also, since we are not mentioning events like the Nanjing Massacre, etc., there is a need to keep the link to Japanese war crimes. This is for those that want to get more details. Otherwise, you'll just have a lot of people trying to put in things like that in the main article for Japan and overloading it with information.-- Sir Edgar 04:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I changed the wording to "Many Japanese leaders were prosecuted for alleged war crimes, but Hirohito was made immune from prosecution and remained Emperor of Japan." This is more in line with what actually happened, and does not speak to whether or not Japan's actions in Asia were actually war crimes, just that the Allies prosecuted them as such. - Sekicho 05:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Sekicho's editing. This is more accurate than the version with "provided they could keep their emperor" and (sorry to say this, but) the recent editing you propose, Takuya. The concise nature of the Japan article leaves out details like the Nanjing Massacre (universally accepted as a war crime), so why include the debateable issue of whether the atomic bombings were war crimes or not? That should be left to a specific article on the atomic bombings.-- Sir Edgar 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-- Taku 05:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you're presenting the Japanese point of view which, as we have found out from our discussions before, is totally different from the rest of the world (in other words, wrong). The Nanjing Massacre (not "Nanking Incident") was a war crime. Without the U.S., the Japanese would not have adopted a pacifist constitution.
The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal took place right after the war and were related to the war. It should be mentioned in the same paragraph. The post-WWII section should focus on Japan's recovery and rise as an economic power. I think it should also mention Japan's active participation in international aid and the United Nations.-- Sir Edgar 23:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I will try to incorporate some of your edits into the article, but do not think for a moment that we will use terms like "Nanking Incident" or call the Tokyo Trials "controversial". This is not the generally accepted view of these events. If the viewpoint of Japan is wrong, then no, I don't think it should be reflected here. Please leave the article as is for now and let me see what I can do.-- Sir Edgar 09:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I am also glad that we can have a civil discussion based on the facts, despite our clearly different perspectives on these issues. You should know that I am also interested in compromise, but not at the sake of the truth. I refuse to allow the term "controversial" to describe the Tokyo Trials in this article. There are several reasons for this:
1. There is no mention of the word "controversial" in the main Tokyo Trials article. See International Military Tribunal for the Far East.
2. The world view is that the Tokyo Trials were not "controversial".
3. I would certainly appreciate reading about the Japanese perspective on the Tokyo Trials in a section of the article International Military Tribunal for the Far East, but to call them "controversial" in the main Japan article (and the introduction for the Tokyo Trials article, for that matter) would be wrong.
The reason why I removed references to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and Japan's military alliance with the U.S. is to keep the article concise. The former can be kept in the World War II article and the latter can be put in the Military section for Japan.
I disagree with you on your point about the truth.
Please feel free to create an article called Japanese Perspectives on World War II/International Affairs though.-- Sir Edgar 23:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm changing "Muromachi shogunate" to "Ashikaga shogunate". Woogums 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I just placed a request for semi-protection because of the persistent attempts of vandalism by anonymous IP users. Hermeneus ( user/ talk) 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!-- Sir Edgar 07:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The old version (upto 06:14, January 29, 2006 JST) of the language section writes as follows:
Japanese language is a language. It is a tool of communication that is used in speech as well as in writing. Yet the old version talks almost exclusively about the writing system, spending the majority of the space on how Chinese language helped the Japanese, who previously did not have a writing system of their own, to develop one. Although it is true that Chinese language greatly influenced Japanese writing system, its description should not take up such a large space in a limited summary section of Japanese language. Japanese language itself belongs in a different language family than Chinese language and is not a derivative of Chinese language. Hermeneus ( user/ talk) 14:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Please read this...
Japanese archaeologist who fooled so many for so long leaves dark legacy of flawed theories: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/08/19/international1219EDT0439.DTL
Excerpts-
Since Fujimura was caught red-handed and confessed last year that he planted many of his finds, textbooks have been revised, artifacts quietly removed from the National Museum, and theories on Japan's earliest humans reconsidered.
The Fujimura affair, among the worst cases of academic fraud ever in Japan, exposed fundamental problems with the way archaeology is conducted here. And in a country where finds are frequently front-page news, the damage to its reputation may be irreparable.
Japanese nationalism also may have had a role.
Amakasu acknowledged that archaeology in Japan, where people were taught they were a unique race until the end of World War II, is largely expected to reinforce a sense of national identity rather than uncover the history of humankind.
Fujimura fed into that by telling people what they wanted to hear about the depth and importance of Japanese history and widely publicizing his findings, Keally said.
"We seem to be back to zero on this question of humans in Japan before 35,000 years ago," concluded Keally, who has worked in Japan for 30 years.
-- Sir Edgar 01:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Does Japan have a national motto? If not, I need to know so I can put "none" in that field.-- naryathegreat | (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
If you are interested, please come and vote on using macrons in Japanese article titles on Wikipedia. It's an important style question that needs to be answered, and your opinion matters!
The vote is open through Saturday night (February 11th, Mountain Time), MoS will be updated (or not) based on the consensus reached. Thanks! (^_^)
The template contains several dates: Formation 710; Shogunate 1185; Meiji Restoration 1866; Taisho democracy 1919; Democracy May 3, 1947. I'm not sure what was formed in 710; why 1185 is given as the date of Shogunate (and why not dates of other shogunates, which were revolutions against previous shogunates); why 1866 for Meiji Restoration; why Taisho democracy deserves to be in table or how a date was arrived at; or why the extreme emphasis on modern events (three dates in eight decades but no dates for nearly eight centuries). What is the purpose of the dates, and the rationale behind the choices? Fg2 09:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I was wondering how common the name "Nisshoki" is for the flag. I used the spelling similar to this, but I found nothing. Using the term I pasted, I found a very things. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've just remove the newly added section "Notes", which said:
This is not sourced, and is not mentioned in the more detaild Names of Japan. (And in case anyone is wondering: in Wade-Giles jih corresponds to ri in Pinyin, and pen corresponds to ben, i.e. there is no j sound in jih-pen. See e.g. http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/eastasian/ctable2.htm )
Why is it inapproriate to post a link to http://www.japan-golf-tours.com/ under the other links section? This website offers valuable information about golf courses in japan and an overall review of golf in japan. Check out these pages: http://www.japan-golf-tours.com/japan-golf-tour-information.html and http://www.japan-golf-tours.com/japan-golf-tour-courses.html
I argue that this is perfectly fine to post and offers valuable information and services to people interested in Japan!
I think the information is a little sparse on why some Japanese do not like the Anthem created in 1999. It's the same song used during the Imperial Era 1900-1945 and is often associated with fascist/expansionist Japan.
This article seems to be very comprehensive, and I think with a little bit of work referencing, this could easily meet the criteria...we should nominate this article. What do you think? Mkaycomputer 22:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I would certainly like to see this becoming a featured article. However, as it is constantly under attack by vandals (Japan-haters and Japanese nationalists alike), I think it would be difficult. It's constantly in an edit war. If it is protected, I think it could be qualified. Also, regular users should refrain from editing the document unless it really needs an update somewhere.-- Sir Edgar 00:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Should we nominate it for the Article Improvement Drive to try to get more people aboard? Mkaycomputer 16:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
This page was vandalized by 66.4.207.83! It has been fixed.
However, now there's a slight problem. It may just be me, but picture of the Jomon vessel (Under History) is now spilling over the text, and I have no idea how to fix it. Any help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gewehr ( talk • contribs) .