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 |
The samurai picture has to go. It's a really great photograph but you might as well slap some cowboys and Indians or the cast of Biggest Loser on the United States article. I'd suggest that if anyone here lives in Japan and owns a digital camera you might stick your head out the window and take a snapshot, or if anyone would like to spend some time here and put together something like what's at Japanese American, really, anything would be an improvement. Doctor Sunshine 06:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It's been four months since the January possibility of a new photo, and the temporary placeholder is still in the article. Any progress or further thoughts? Fg2 04:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Pesonaly the illustarted people (Prince Shotoku, etc) are not suitable for this article. And the long caption is redundant. Using illustration in historic article is ok. But weird to imagine Japanese people from the illustrations. Because those illustrations are not popular among western people. -- 221.190.253.162 ( talk) 08:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to discuss the section here; I would rather not be called a revisionist. Anyway, I have made a few changes to the section in the portion that suggested the use of "Japanese people" being an instrument rather than a symptom of the suppression of other ethnic groups. This was certainly not the case in the English language. I also removed the reference because the paragraph is completely different now.
I do believe that the previous section was somewhat imbalanced, which was why I added a citation tag for the line about a "strong awareness of Japan as a multiethnic nation" (or something along those lines). However, I think the intent there was to convey that people did make a distinction within ethnic groups; one of the linguistic issues was that there hadn't previously been a word in Japanese to distinguish a nation from the ethnic group it "consisted of". Another useful aspect of the section is to note that the 1900 definition of "Japanese people" does not mesh with our current understanding of the term. I think the section can be expanded within that context. However, I think the intent of the section is not to discuss Japanese imperialism in general, which has little to do with the article topic. Are we agreed on that?
In accordance with that concept, I've lost confidence that the section on stateless Koreans fits within the framework of the article. It's not out of a desire to whitewash. I just want the article to be about "Japanese people". Please let me know your thoughts. Dekimasu 12:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Endroit, in spite of whatever differences we may be discussing please follow WP:CIV in your posts. Throwing around ridiculous accusations and demanding good faith disagreements to be "strikken" etc., are just inflammatory.
The reference in question was here long before you or me made edits to this without any problems from any poster. And you're confusing the facts being cited. The reference is a research article that was published in an academic journal. This is as great a reference as any can be. It's certainly not POV, unsourced and it is certainly about the colonial period. And what "direct quote" are you talking about? You don't need direct quotes to add citations to WIKI articles. Please refer to WP:Cite if you think citations need direct quotes.
Check March 1st Movement if you want evidence of brutality.
On the issue of "compulsory" vs. "forced" accurately describes historic reality without undermining or overstating. "Compulsory" isn't even a word that's proper for describing citizenship and ethnic identity.
Lastly, I exercised good faith by not reverting your edits but I just added "forced" in place of "compulsory". Even if you disagree with my edits please reciprocate the courtesy and refrain from making unilateral edits. I don't want to engage in an WP:EW. Thanks. Melonbarmonster 05:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Sentence reworked for better accuracy and readability. Feedback welcome. Melonbarmonster 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a Japanese academic source. In any case, we're not using "cultural genocide" in the article so who cares?(although it's a legitimate academic position to say that what happened in Korea was indeed "cultural genocide"). But for purposes of our discussion, sources I've offered proves "force" regardless of what it's called. Unless you're going to refute these sources and claim that "force" didn't exist and that colonization was peaceful and beheadings, massacres, forced labor conscriptions, etc.. didn't happen, my last edits should be an appropriate compromise. Even the previous edits used the word "compulsory" which emcompassed "force" and you didn't object to that. I've taken out "repressed" to not get redundant and "forced" is a more accurate word than "compulsory" since the latter doesn't clearly imply "force". Melonbarmonster 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Again previous concerns about redundancy have been resolved and I've given multiple sources that prove assimilation of Koreans into Japanese Empire was forced. I find anyone claiming colonization wasn't forced to be devoid of good faith. Here's some more citations that prove force was used during colonization:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9050797/March-First-Movement http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/korea/history/march_1st_independence_struggle.htm http://www.gkn-la.net/history_resources/queen_min_tmsimbirtseva_1996.htm http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM http://www.han.org/a/fukuoka96a.html
I can go on and on listing evidence of "force" used to assimilate Koreans into the Japanese Empire.
You on the other hand are outrageously claiming that Japan didn't use force in assimilating Korea during colonization!!! And yet you have provided NO SOURCES nor logical analysis for your ridiculously controversial position! On top of that you are blindly reverting my edits while ignoring my good faith responses and attempts at compromise.
If you're still going to argue that there was no force. Give evidence for it and build consensus before reverting my edits. Melonbarmonster 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to play the role of the tiebreaker again. Honestly, most of the debate here can be set aside. I don't really like that Melonbarmonster came in and edited the sentence again, knowing that it was hard to manage a truce the first time. You can accuse Endroit of reverting too much, but you could have discussed the edit on the talk page before introducing it, as well. At the end of the day, though, the sentence in the article reads better than it did before.
Melonbarmonster is right that colonized is more neutral than repressed. Forced and compulsory are basically the same in this context ("not by choice"). Force does not always mean brute force. We are not talking about adding any kind of beheadings discussion to the article — quite rightly so, because this is the article about Japanese people. The personal views of we editors may be clear from the talk page, but I do not see any NPOV violation in the colonial period section. The current sentence, "Such linguistic distinctions facilitated forced assimilation of colonized ethnic identities into a single Imperial Japanese identity", is fine. Dekimasu よ! 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The Japanese people section needs some serious editing. The numbers for Japanese Brazilians and Americans go up and down. I know that are more than 1 million but Jesus Christ which is it? 1.3, 1.4 or 1.5 million? As for Americans of the Japanese descent, there are supposedly 1.2 million, yet, again, some sources say it's 900, 000 or 1.1 million, my brain is hurting and Wikipedia looses its credibility as a reliable source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fukaspica91 ( talk • contribs)
The infobox lists Christianity as one of the national religions. If I'm not mistaken, Christianity is a minority religion in Japan. The two major religions are Shinto and Buddhism. -- Candy-Panda 08:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Today an IP user changed the Japanese-American population in the infobox from 1.2 million to 830 thousand based upon altering the cited link from the US census data for "Japanese alone or in any combination" to "Japanese alone". I think that this is faulty reasoning (and certainly not the reasoning used by Japan, in light of the dekasegi. While the links to Japanese culture are undoubtedly absent for some of these people, I think it is a mistake to change the infobox links to cite only "pure" Japanese. I'm going to change it back for now, but if anyone has a problem with this, please note it here. Dekimasu が... 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added a merge tag to Yamato people suggesting that any relevant information be added into Japanese people and redirected there. The introduction for Japanese people currently links the Yamato article without any semblance of an explanation as to how the two are different. While recognizing that they are different to the extent that we recognize "the Japanese people" to consist of multiple ethnic groups, and that we have separate articles for the Ainu and Ryukyu peoples, I think it would make more sense to explain "Yamato" within Japanese people. I'm not confident of my analysis here, though. If there's a good reason for them to stay separate, please provide input.... Dekimasu よ! 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone get ACCURATE figures of the number of Japanese living outside Japan. I'm more confused than ever trying to figure out how many Nikkei live abroad.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DaNerdz90 ( talk • contribs)
See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people. Badagnani 04:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
In the paragraph addressing ethnicity of the Yaoyi Japanese, it states some scholars have proposed the origins being "Han Chinese" or "Southeast Asian." This is very unlikely, since Han is an East Asian Mongoloid ethnicity, and South East Asian ethnicities belong to the Australoid category. Thus, it should be an "East Asian" ethnicity, and not South East Asian. Intranetusa 18:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot understand this sentence: "Most modern scholars say that the Yayoi emigrated from the southern The downstream of Yangtze River to northern Kyūshū, though it has also been proposed that they came from southeastern China." The source is in Japanese too, can someone have a look at this? Thanks. - SpuriousQ ( talk) 01:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an awkward space after the "This article is about the ethnic group. For the group of people holding Japanese citizenship, see Demography of Japan." header. I don't know why it is there, but what's more, I'm unable to figure out how to remove it! Timneu22 ( talk) 15:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Why does the word "Elevens" redirect here? I was looking for the card game... Chris Martin ( talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
What an incredible misrepresentation! 24.130.198.167 ( talk) 11:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides, its just suppose to show a Japanese family. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 19:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The current version of this article states that;
>however, this may not accurately reflect functional literacy rates due to the complex nature of the >Japanese writing system
I've lived in Japan all of my life and have not seen an adult who can't read and write sentences written in Japanese. We are strictly trained to write and read Kanji,Hiragana,Katakana before we enter elementary schools, So almost all of us , including high school dropouts, can read and write in Japanese. I don't understand what you mean by "functional literacy rates",but if you mean by it the ability to read complicated sentence and write in a sophisticated manner, literacy rate would be lower than 60% in most of the developed countries. So I think it's inappropriate to mention "functional literacy rates" when mentioning "literacy rates".
I've deleted the passage cited above since there seemed to be no objection to my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.218.75.204 ( talk) 04:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify that I think some changes are in order for the origins sections we have in this article. At the same time, the wholesale, and undiscussed, recent removals of references to China were uncalled for. The genetic origins of the Jomon and Yayoi are one thing, but to say that China had no influence on Japanese culture during the Nara Period.... Dekimasu よ! 15:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC) ==
{{
editprotected}}
Request add the following Wikipedia reference link
Emishi to the ==See also== heading. The Emishi were a distinct group of people/tribes living in northeastern Japan (Tohoku) who fought against central Yamato government control back in the 7th and 8th centuries.
173.66.116.187 (
talk)
15:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Oops, forgot to log in. Anyway, request add the following Wikipedia reference link
Emishi to the ==See also== heading. The Emishi were a distinct group of people/tribes living in northeastern Japan (Tohoku) who fought against central Yamato government control back in the 7th and 8th centuries.
RickardA (
talk)
15:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Change made. Thank you. RickardA ( talk) 12:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It's the last paragraph in the first section under "Origins":
First sentence: Discussed by whom? What study? I've tried to figure it out from the preceding text, and cannot. And the last sentence renders the middle sentences rather meaningless. And it's been waiting for a citation for two years. If no one objects (I'll wait a few days for input), I'll just delete the paragraph. -- Everything Else Is Taken ( talk) 00:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Why are there no Nintendo employees on this list, because there should be some on there, especially Fusajiro Yamauchi (founder), Satoru Iwata (president) and Shigeru Miyamoto (creator of their mascot). 82.12.1.173 ( talk) 16:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
GENETIC DATA: In many cases, the Ainu are closer to populations in northeast Honshu, whereas Koreans are often closer to southwestern Japanese. ( P.69 Ruins of Identity Ethnogenesis in the Japanese Islands written by Mark J. Hudson.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreajapanhistory ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
In historical reality vast sources states that the Yayoi are predominately from Korea. You cannot underestimate " Geographical and cultural location". Korean Peninsula is located nearby ( Islands) that we know today as Japan. Japanese population consists percentage between Han Chinese or Korean percentage. Its very unclear. Exactly Japanese population trace blood kinship to Chinese or Koreans. If Japanese Emperor trace blood lineage to Baekje Kingdom. That probably sums the idea that majority of Yayoi or Japanese trace bloodkinship to Korea/ Koreans not China. I wouldn't be surprised if 6 million or so Japanese trace blood lineage to Korean Peninsula. Massive migration from Korea to Japan existed from 15th century to modern day 20th century. To make my point clear. It is wise to say Korean blood runs deep in Japanese gene pool. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Koreakansaiklan (
talk •
contribs)
11:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Vast sources states that the Yayoi are predominately from China. Including Japanese sources James collins123 ( talk) 18:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Recently Japanese studies show that the Japanese population consists of around %25.9 are Han Chinese, %24.8 are Korean etc... James collins123 ( talk) 18:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
to state it is predominately Korean is misleading and it is also wrong. James collins123 ( talk) 18:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The Origin of Japanese People: Genetic Evidence: DNA tests have confirmed the likelihood of this hypothesis. The Y-DNA (Paternal line) of the modern Japanese is composed
of 50% percent of haplogroup O, of Sino-Korean origin. More specifically, subgroup 03 is of Chinese origin, while 02b is Korean. The rarer subgroup 01 and 02 are of
southern Chinese or Southeast Asian origin. DNA analysis of the Japanese people ( Frequency in Japan) A: 03 Chinese origin-21% percent. B: 02b Korean origin-32% percent.
C: 01 Southern Chinese origin-1% percent. D: 02a Southeast Asian origin-0.1% percent. It concludes majority of Japanese have Korean DNA ( 02b Korean origin 32% percent). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
KoreanDNA (
talk •
contribs)
12:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The first and fourth sentences below seem contradictory:
What is meant by "separately"? Does it refer to there being a second source with a wildly different opinion as to the number of nikkeijin? This is unclear and nonsensical. Since there is no citation for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs number, I propose deleting that sentence. Anyone? -- Everything Else Is Taken ( talk) 00:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
A few, some, most or all Brazilians of Japanese (bloodline) descent may self-identify as being 'Japanese'. Those who do may be described as being ethnically Japanese, but just having bloodlines (having Japanese ancestry), simply, does not make one ethnically Japanese. How the stats given for so-called 'overseas Japanese' in the info box are misleadingly described in the article, therefore. Most if not nearly all Japanese of Brazilian descent in Brazil are ethnically Brazilian, not Japanese. They speak (just) in Brazilian Portuguese, and in other ways are culturally Brazilian. Some or most may possibly (also) be ethnically 'Japanese Brazilian' (or 'Brazilian Japanese'), in way that African-American can be described as its own ethnicity. Mayumashu ( talk) 05:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I just changed the template so that it reads 'diaspora' and not 'overseas' - this better emphasizes that though most are not ethnically Japanese all are of Japanese descent. Mayumashu ( talk) 05:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Article Japanese people should be written in the following tone:
“ | The term Japanese people may refer to any of the following:
|
” |
And this article should be moved to Nippon minzoku. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 10:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
They have no unified language, belief, or race. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Japanese people. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun ( talk) 23:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Japanese people. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I cannot verify that the percents in the Y-chromosome DNA section. They do not seem to match the actual article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 16:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
people of Japanese ancestry who live in other countries are referred to as Japanese diaspora.
it is Chinese diaspora. please collect. Yuriko Tanabe ( talk) 05:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Japanese couple dressed in traditional kimono
Chinese couple act as Japanese? please delete this photo. Yuriko Tanabe ( talk) 06:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
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 |
The samurai picture has to go. It's a really great photograph but you might as well slap some cowboys and Indians or the cast of Biggest Loser on the United States article. I'd suggest that if anyone here lives in Japan and owns a digital camera you might stick your head out the window and take a snapshot, or if anyone would like to spend some time here and put together something like what's at Japanese American, really, anything would be an improvement. Doctor Sunshine 06:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It's been four months since the January possibility of a new photo, and the temporary placeholder is still in the article. Any progress or further thoughts? Fg2 04:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Pesonaly the illustarted people (Prince Shotoku, etc) are not suitable for this article. And the long caption is redundant. Using illustration in historic article is ok. But weird to imagine Japanese people from the illustrations. Because those illustrations are not popular among western people. -- 221.190.253.162 ( talk) 08:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to discuss the section here; I would rather not be called a revisionist. Anyway, I have made a few changes to the section in the portion that suggested the use of "Japanese people" being an instrument rather than a symptom of the suppression of other ethnic groups. This was certainly not the case in the English language. I also removed the reference because the paragraph is completely different now.
I do believe that the previous section was somewhat imbalanced, which was why I added a citation tag for the line about a "strong awareness of Japan as a multiethnic nation" (or something along those lines). However, I think the intent there was to convey that people did make a distinction within ethnic groups; one of the linguistic issues was that there hadn't previously been a word in Japanese to distinguish a nation from the ethnic group it "consisted of". Another useful aspect of the section is to note that the 1900 definition of "Japanese people" does not mesh with our current understanding of the term. I think the section can be expanded within that context. However, I think the intent of the section is not to discuss Japanese imperialism in general, which has little to do with the article topic. Are we agreed on that?
In accordance with that concept, I've lost confidence that the section on stateless Koreans fits within the framework of the article. It's not out of a desire to whitewash. I just want the article to be about "Japanese people". Please let me know your thoughts. Dekimasu 12:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Endroit, in spite of whatever differences we may be discussing please follow WP:CIV in your posts. Throwing around ridiculous accusations and demanding good faith disagreements to be "strikken" etc., are just inflammatory.
The reference in question was here long before you or me made edits to this without any problems from any poster. And you're confusing the facts being cited. The reference is a research article that was published in an academic journal. This is as great a reference as any can be. It's certainly not POV, unsourced and it is certainly about the colonial period. And what "direct quote" are you talking about? You don't need direct quotes to add citations to WIKI articles. Please refer to WP:Cite if you think citations need direct quotes.
Check March 1st Movement if you want evidence of brutality.
On the issue of "compulsory" vs. "forced" accurately describes historic reality without undermining or overstating. "Compulsory" isn't even a word that's proper for describing citizenship and ethnic identity.
Lastly, I exercised good faith by not reverting your edits but I just added "forced" in place of "compulsory". Even if you disagree with my edits please reciprocate the courtesy and refrain from making unilateral edits. I don't want to engage in an WP:EW. Thanks. Melonbarmonster 05:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Sentence reworked for better accuracy and readability. Feedback welcome. Melonbarmonster 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a Japanese academic source. In any case, we're not using "cultural genocide" in the article so who cares?(although it's a legitimate academic position to say that what happened in Korea was indeed "cultural genocide"). But for purposes of our discussion, sources I've offered proves "force" regardless of what it's called. Unless you're going to refute these sources and claim that "force" didn't exist and that colonization was peaceful and beheadings, massacres, forced labor conscriptions, etc.. didn't happen, my last edits should be an appropriate compromise. Even the previous edits used the word "compulsory" which emcompassed "force" and you didn't object to that. I've taken out "repressed" to not get redundant and "forced" is a more accurate word than "compulsory" since the latter doesn't clearly imply "force". Melonbarmonster 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Again previous concerns about redundancy have been resolved and I've given multiple sources that prove assimilation of Koreans into Japanese Empire was forced. I find anyone claiming colonization wasn't forced to be devoid of good faith. Here's some more citations that prove force was used during colonization:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9050797/March-First-Movement http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/korea/history/march_1st_independence_struggle.htm http://www.gkn-la.net/history_resources/queen_min_tmsimbirtseva_1996.htm http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM http://www.han.org/a/fukuoka96a.html
I can go on and on listing evidence of "force" used to assimilate Koreans into the Japanese Empire.
You on the other hand are outrageously claiming that Japan didn't use force in assimilating Korea during colonization!!! And yet you have provided NO SOURCES nor logical analysis for your ridiculously controversial position! On top of that you are blindly reverting my edits while ignoring my good faith responses and attempts at compromise.
If you're still going to argue that there was no force. Give evidence for it and build consensus before reverting my edits. Melonbarmonster 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to play the role of the tiebreaker again. Honestly, most of the debate here can be set aside. I don't really like that Melonbarmonster came in and edited the sentence again, knowing that it was hard to manage a truce the first time. You can accuse Endroit of reverting too much, but you could have discussed the edit on the talk page before introducing it, as well. At the end of the day, though, the sentence in the article reads better than it did before.
Melonbarmonster is right that colonized is more neutral than repressed. Forced and compulsory are basically the same in this context ("not by choice"). Force does not always mean brute force. We are not talking about adding any kind of beheadings discussion to the article — quite rightly so, because this is the article about Japanese people. The personal views of we editors may be clear from the talk page, but I do not see any NPOV violation in the colonial period section. The current sentence, "Such linguistic distinctions facilitated forced assimilation of colonized ethnic identities into a single Imperial Japanese identity", is fine. Dekimasu よ! 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The Japanese people section needs some serious editing. The numbers for Japanese Brazilians and Americans go up and down. I know that are more than 1 million but Jesus Christ which is it? 1.3, 1.4 or 1.5 million? As for Americans of the Japanese descent, there are supposedly 1.2 million, yet, again, some sources say it's 900, 000 or 1.1 million, my brain is hurting and Wikipedia looses its credibility as a reliable source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fukaspica91 ( talk • contribs)
The infobox lists Christianity as one of the national religions. If I'm not mistaken, Christianity is a minority religion in Japan. The two major religions are Shinto and Buddhism. -- Candy-Panda 08:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Today an IP user changed the Japanese-American population in the infobox from 1.2 million to 830 thousand based upon altering the cited link from the US census data for "Japanese alone or in any combination" to "Japanese alone". I think that this is faulty reasoning (and certainly not the reasoning used by Japan, in light of the dekasegi. While the links to Japanese culture are undoubtedly absent for some of these people, I think it is a mistake to change the infobox links to cite only "pure" Japanese. I'm going to change it back for now, but if anyone has a problem with this, please note it here. Dekimasu が... 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added a merge tag to Yamato people suggesting that any relevant information be added into Japanese people and redirected there. The introduction for Japanese people currently links the Yamato article without any semblance of an explanation as to how the two are different. While recognizing that they are different to the extent that we recognize "the Japanese people" to consist of multiple ethnic groups, and that we have separate articles for the Ainu and Ryukyu peoples, I think it would make more sense to explain "Yamato" within Japanese people. I'm not confident of my analysis here, though. If there's a good reason for them to stay separate, please provide input.... Dekimasu よ! 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Can someone get ACCURATE figures of the number of Japanese living outside Japan. I'm more confused than ever trying to figure out how many Nikkei live abroad.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DaNerdz90 ( talk • contribs)
See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people. Badagnani 04:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
In the paragraph addressing ethnicity of the Yaoyi Japanese, it states some scholars have proposed the origins being "Han Chinese" or "Southeast Asian." This is very unlikely, since Han is an East Asian Mongoloid ethnicity, and South East Asian ethnicities belong to the Australoid category. Thus, it should be an "East Asian" ethnicity, and not South East Asian. Intranetusa 18:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot understand this sentence: "Most modern scholars say that the Yayoi emigrated from the southern The downstream of Yangtze River to northern Kyūshū, though it has also been proposed that they came from southeastern China." The source is in Japanese too, can someone have a look at this? Thanks. - SpuriousQ ( talk) 01:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an awkward space after the "This article is about the ethnic group. For the group of people holding Japanese citizenship, see Demography of Japan." header. I don't know why it is there, but what's more, I'm unable to figure out how to remove it! Timneu22 ( talk) 15:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Why does the word "Elevens" redirect here? I was looking for the card game... Chris Martin ( talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
What an incredible misrepresentation! 24.130.198.167 ( talk) 11:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides, its just suppose to show a Japanese family. Yojimbo501 ( talk) 19:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The current version of this article states that;
>however, this may not accurately reflect functional literacy rates due to the complex nature of the >Japanese writing system
I've lived in Japan all of my life and have not seen an adult who can't read and write sentences written in Japanese. We are strictly trained to write and read Kanji,Hiragana,Katakana before we enter elementary schools, So almost all of us , including high school dropouts, can read and write in Japanese. I don't understand what you mean by "functional literacy rates",but if you mean by it the ability to read complicated sentence and write in a sophisticated manner, literacy rate would be lower than 60% in most of the developed countries. So I think it's inappropriate to mention "functional literacy rates" when mentioning "literacy rates".
I've deleted the passage cited above since there seemed to be no objection to my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.218.75.204 ( talk) 04:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify that I think some changes are in order for the origins sections we have in this article. At the same time, the wholesale, and undiscussed, recent removals of references to China were uncalled for. The genetic origins of the Jomon and Yayoi are one thing, but to say that China had no influence on Japanese culture during the Nara Period.... Dekimasu よ! 15:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC) ==
{{
editprotected}}
Request add the following Wikipedia reference link
Emishi to the ==See also== heading. The Emishi were a distinct group of people/tribes living in northeastern Japan (Tohoku) who fought against central Yamato government control back in the 7th and 8th centuries.
173.66.116.187 (
talk)
15:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Oops, forgot to log in. Anyway, request add the following Wikipedia reference link
Emishi to the ==See also== heading. The Emishi were a distinct group of people/tribes living in northeastern Japan (Tohoku) who fought against central Yamato government control back in the 7th and 8th centuries.
RickardA (
talk)
15:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Change made. Thank you. RickardA ( talk) 12:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It's the last paragraph in the first section under "Origins":
First sentence: Discussed by whom? What study? I've tried to figure it out from the preceding text, and cannot. And the last sentence renders the middle sentences rather meaningless. And it's been waiting for a citation for two years. If no one objects (I'll wait a few days for input), I'll just delete the paragraph. -- Everything Else Is Taken ( talk) 00:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Why are there no Nintendo employees on this list, because there should be some on there, especially Fusajiro Yamauchi (founder), Satoru Iwata (president) and Shigeru Miyamoto (creator of their mascot). 82.12.1.173 ( talk) 16:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
GENETIC DATA: In many cases, the Ainu are closer to populations in northeast Honshu, whereas Koreans are often closer to southwestern Japanese. ( P.69 Ruins of Identity Ethnogenesis in the Japanese Islands written by Mark J. Hudson.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreajapanhistory ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
In historical reality vast sources states that the Yayoi are predominately from Korea. You cannot underestimate " Geographical and cultural location". Korean Peninsula is located nearby ( Islands) that we know today as Japan. Japanese population consists percentage between Han Chinese or Korean percentage. Its very unclear. Exactly Japanese population trace blood kinship to Chinese or Koreans. If Japanese Emperor trace blood lineage to Baekje Kingdom. That probably sums the idea that majority of Yayoi or Japanese trace bloodkinship to Korea/ Koreans not China. I wouldn't be surprised if 6 million or so Japanese trace blood lineage to Korean Peninsula. Massive migration from Korea to Japan existed from 15th century to modern day 20th century. To make my point clear. It is wise to say Korean blood runs deep in Japanese gene pool. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Koreakansaiklan (
talk •
contribs)
11:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Vast sources states that the Yayoi are predominately from China. Including Japanese sources James collins123 ( talk) 18:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Recently Japanese studies show that the Japanese population consists of around %25.9 are Han Chinese, %24.8 are Korean etc... James collins123 ( talk) 18:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
to state it is predominately Korean is misleading and it is also wrong. James collins123 ( talk) 18:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The Origin of Japanese People: Genetic Evidence: DNA tests have confirmed the likelihood of this hypothesis. The Y-DNA (Paternal line) of the modern Japanese is composed
of 50% percent of haplogroup O, of Sino-Korean origin. More specifically, subgroup 03 is of Chinese origin, while 02b is Korean. The rarer subgroup 01 and 02 are of
southern Chinese or Southeast Asian origin. DNA analysis of the Japanese people ( Frequency in Japan) A: 03 Chinese origin-21% percent. B: 02b Korean origin-32% percent.
C: 01 Southern Chinese origin-1% percent. D: 02a Southeast Asian origin-0.1% percent. It concludes majority of Japanese have Korean DNA ( 02b Korean origin 32% percent). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
KoreanDNA (
talk •
contribs)
12:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The first and fourth sentences below seem contradictory:
What is meant by "separately"? Does it refer to there being a second source with a wildly different opinion as to the number of nikkeijin? This is unclear and nonsensical. Since there is no citation for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs number, I propose deleting that sentence. Anyone? -- Everything Else Is Taken ( talk) 00:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
A few, some, most or all Brazilians of Japanese (bloodline) descent may self-identify as being 'Japanese'. Those who do may be described as being ethnically Japanese, but just having bloodlines (having Japanese ancestry), simply, does not make one ethnically Japanese. How the stats given for so-called 'overseas Japanese' in the info box are misleadingly described in the article, therefore. Most if not nearly all Japanese of Brazilian descent in Brazil are ethnically Brazilian, not Japanese. They speak (just) in Brazilian Portuguese, and in other ways are culturally Brazilian. Some or most may possibly (also) be ethnically 'Japanese Brazilian' (or 'Brazilian Japanese'), in way that African-American can be described as its own ethnicity. Mayumashu ( talk) 05:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I just changed the template so that it reads 'diaspora' and not 'overseas' - this better emphasizes that though most are not ethnically Japanese all are of Japanese descent. Mayumashu ( talk) 05:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Article Japanese people should be written in the following tone:
“ | The term Japanese people may refer to any of the following:
|
” |
And this article should be moved to Nippon minzoku. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 10:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
They have no unified language, belief, or race. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 11:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Japanese people. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun ( talk) 23:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Japanese people. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I cannot verify that the percents in the Y-chromosome DNA section. They do not seem to match the actual article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 16:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
people of Japanese ancestry who live in other countries are referred to as Japanese diaspora.
it is Chinese diaspora. please collect. Yuriko Tanabe ( talk) 05:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Japanese couple dressed in traditional kimono
Chinese couple act as Japanese? please delete this photo. Yuriko Tanabe ( talk) 06:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)