Talk:Japan/Archive 2

(untitled)

I count 16 petals on the chrysanthemum emblem; does the Imperial family's crest have eighteen? May 10 2004

Education

There's an interesting discussion here of how Japan likely overestimates its literacy rate:

http://www.kh.rim.or.jp/~nagamura/literacy.html

Short summary: it's certainly not 100% like the main entry currently says, and it's probably much lower than the 99% that many Japanese government web sites claim. It's one of those numbers that everyone repeats, but that no one has stepped forward and said how it's calculated or who calculated it. Even if it's "here's our methodology - we don't count dyslexics, we don't count kanji literacy, etc," I'd like to see something solid before we put a number in the main article. As far as I can tell, the Japanese Ministry of Education says nothing about the literacy rate. --Zippy 08:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About 15 years ago, I read an encyclopedia article stating that Japan did not measure its literacy rate, but rather assumed it was equal to the junior-high completion rate, which was in the high nineties (97%???). Don't know what's gone on since then. Fg2 10:08, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you couldn't find illiterate people, how can you measure it, but other than 100%? The government doesn't measure because it cannot find illiterate people. I would like to see how those who claim the rate is less than 100% know about this. -- Taku 20:22, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

On the street, I seem to find a lot of Japanese people who complain about falling language skill of their fellow countrymen. The line normally goes a little like this "Don't worry about missing a stroke in that kanji, these days even Japanese seem to be forgetting how to write." I realize this is anecdotal evidence. My guess is, like me, nearly all Japanese can read, or at least recognize the common kanji, but some percentage may not able to write the minimum 2,000 kanji. Can you be called literate but not able to write all the minimum characters from memory? I don't know if there are any studies to back up this impression. Revmachine21 02:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isn't writing a kanji incorrectly the same as misspelling in English? 2,000 kanji is an interesting idea. I am not sure when the Japanese government or any other reference works claim that the literacy rate is 100%, they are equivalently saying 100% of Japanese people can write and read 2,000 kanji correctly. My impression is that even those homeless people have good ability to read newspaper they find from a trash bin, and if you can read newspaper, it's good enough to deem that you are literate. Anyway, this is an interesting question. I just would like to see more concrete evidence. -- Taku 02:51, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

In Japanese, it's so much easier to write characters by computer than by hand, so there's a simultaneous phenomenon of people forgetting how to write harder characters by hand through disuse, and increasingly complex kanji being adopted because IMEs make them easy to write. This is what the Japanese moan about when they say they can't write kanji anymore... but somebody composing essays on a PC is hardly illiterate. Jpatokal 17:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When you're thinking about Kanji, think about all the Chinese people that have to learn that language in order to communicate with 1 billion people.themoliugecko 15:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These interviews on Japan Today kind of help shed light on "literacy" in Japan. - Sekicho 00:52, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Economy Rank

Isn't Japan ranked #4 and #3 for Total PPP and GDP? The CIA World Fact info has it this way Chinas GDP in 2003 is $6.5 Trillion, almost double that of Japan. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html and

http://www.photius.com/rankings/gdp_2003_0.html

It only depends on what list you look at and if you include EU as one entry or not. See Gross domestic product. This is a tricky question at best. -- Taku 00:11, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the linked websites count the world as a whole. So that's why Japan appears one rank below where it should be... Sekicho 01:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I think an interesting question people have in mind is: is the economy of China is larger than that of Japan? As you see, a term larger is vague. I am sure no one will agree China people are wealthier than Japanese people, but the size of economy is also affected by the population; China has about 10 times larger population than Japan has. Perhaps, we might have some article about this issue. This is a question which I can't find an easy answer for.-- Taku 17:29, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt that China's economy is larger than Japan's. The size of an economy is based on its population. That's why India has a much higher GDP than Luxembourg. Per capita, of course, is different.

The web sites cited above counted World as #1 and US as #2. So Japan showed up as #3 in one list and #4 in the other list. But if World is taken off the list, Japan is still #2 and #3. Sekicho 23:01, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

POTSDAM DECLARATION

Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender Issued, at Potsdam, July 26, 1945

1 We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.

2 .....

 ....... 

8 The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

9 .....

 ....... 

---

We've not determined any minor islands as parts of the domain of Japan. So, it's equal to determining that Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to only the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Shikoku.

---

The minor islands with which Japan has dealt as the domain are parts of the domain of the United States of America, if Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to only four main islands that are Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu and Shikoku.

Thank you!

---

The Nagata-cho Address:

Three thousand years ago our ancestry brought forth on these islands a new tribe, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all persons are created equal.   Now we are engaged in a smug imbecile war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.   We are met on a smug battlefield of that war.   We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.   It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.   But in the common sense of the world, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground.   The slapdash persons, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.   The world will little note and soon forget what we say here, moreover it can never remember what they did here.   It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished job which they who fought here have thus far so staggeringly advanced.   It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the smug task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under Goddess shall have a new birth of ignorant people, and that government of the people, by the people, for me shall not perish from the earth.

Problem w/Independence Date

I think posting 1952 as Japan's date of independence is very misleading. Can anyone tell me why this is preferable to the date that was here before? Jwrosenzweig 20:42, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree; Japan was occupied immediately following WW2, but this doesn't mark a new independence date when the occupation ended. If it did, France's date of independence would be 1944 (liberation from Germany), which it clearly isn't. --Delirium 20:44, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Japan did not cease to be a state at international law in the 1940s and 1950s simply because it was occupied. Change it back. -- Kaihsu 20:47, 2004 Feb 10 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig, Delirium, and Kaihsu are right. Further BC 660 is the (mythical or legendary, implying not historically factual) foundation year and not the independence year. As other older country (such as France) articles do not have this item, so Japan article need not too. I removed it. -- Takanoha 11:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why don't we cite a "foundation" date, as in the Germany article? We can then note that 660 BC is the mythical foundation date, and that the modern state was founded in 1946. I think this is more accurate to the Japanese idea of when Japan was founded. -- Sekicho 12:24, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

That wouldn't be accurate as the current constitution states that it was revised according to laws from the previous constitution and legally speaking, it isn't that greatly different from making a law. Dating 1946 as the foundation date isn't, in a sense, constitutional. If there should be a foundation date, it should be the day Tokugawa resigned the Shogun post and modern nation of Japan was established. -- Revth 16:08, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Takanoha's removal of independence dates. Independence sounds to me that once Japan was a part of other nation like Taiwan was a colony of Japan or the United States was a part of Great Britain. Japan is not like those cases. Of course, mentioning 660 BC in the article is not a problem at all. -- Taku 16:57, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Kuril Islands

The Kuril Islands are held by Russia and I've taken the liberty of NPOVing references by noting their disputed status. I've also substituted the normal English name of Kuril Islands instead of the katakanized Kuriru retto Jpatokal 14:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware - and is shown by my Times World Atlas - Japan only claims the three southernmost Kuril Islands (in my Atlas, named Shikotan, Kunashir, Iturup; marked "Russ. Fed. admin., claimed by Japan"), and not the more northerly ones stretching up to Kamchatka. I suspect the reference to "Oyakobayama, at the northern end of the Kuril Islands, is a beautifully formed snow-clad peak (2337m) rising directly out of the sea" should probably be removed (Oyakobayama, = Ozero Atlasova in my atlas, just off the southern tip of Kamchatka). - MPF 01:01, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

An anonymous user has added [1] Karafuto as an island of Japan. As far as I can see, Karafuto is Russian territory, though disputed [2]. Can someone with a clue comment, please? Thanks, MikeX 13:16, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Definitely POV. We aren't listing Diaoyu Islands as Chinese or Aksai Chin as Indian; and those are claims that haven't been retracted. Why should Karafuto be listed if the claim isn't even officially endorsed? Should we next list Silesia, Pomerania, East Prussia etc. as states of Germany? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 16:20, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Demography

I have moved the following part. It may be true but I don't think this much detail is relevant to this article.

However, ethnically, it is a question. Traditionally, the Japanese tend to think that they are one of the most homogeneous nations in Asia. However, recent DNA tests have proven that they are actually one of the most mixed people in Asia. They have Chinese, Korean, Altaic, Malay, Ainu and other ethnic geneology in their race. The Japanese are considered to be "Homogenized Mixed Race". Language wise, it could be said that it is a result of a Chinese/Korean/Malay/Ainu Creole. However, much study is not emphasized because of the Japanese government's discouragement.

-- Taku 01:27, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I am removing this part because it is an insignificant comment:

Many people, especially those in younger generations, claim to feel that religion is something to stay clear from, pointing out historical reasons such as the role that the nationally enforced Shinto played in World War II, and more recently Aum Shinrikyo and its actions.

--69.212.98.38 19:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On 16:46, 25 Jun 2004, 198.81.26.41 replaced the sentence "Most Japanese people profess to not believe in any particular religion." with "Most Japanese people profess to believe in the religions of Shinto and Buddhism, both practiced together, which is normal for Asian religions." However, the latter sentence isn't true. Having looked at a large amount of recent survey data before from Japan that included a question on religious orientation, it is pretty clear that an overwhelming majority profess not to believe in any religion and I don't really see how the original sentence could come close to being controversial. I've made changes to closer reflect the fact. --69.212.98.38 20:13, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with User:69.212.98.38's view on this one. The statistics in this file show that Shinto and Buddhism are about equal and that individually they almost equal the total population which is explained by people adhering to more than one religion. I couldn't find the stats on `non-religious` in Japan but I'm pretty sure there must be something somewhere. So I reverted back to fit this. --Sekizaru 18:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think we should not try to determine what religion Japanese people believe. Unfortunately, any stats or surveys contradict to each other. While I believe Japanese are non-religion, they don't say so. As the text I added states, they tend to identify themselves as Buddhist and almost never as Shintoist or any other. I strongly believe that the paragraph should make clear connections between religious beliefs and customs and traditions in Japan, so I tried to emphasize that. I am not still so sure why the text I wrote is problematic. -- Taku 03:10, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

{{msg:APEC}}

I think this is too much. We already have {{msg:East Asia}} and having similar another table clutters the articles. Besides, I am not sure if APEC is such an important organization like EU. Japan is a member of APEC but it is also a member of many other organizations like OECD. Even you can have a table of developed nation in analogous manner to APEC. Let me you know your rationale. -- Taku 17:18, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

If you feel that these page footers are clutter and ruin the page then go to Wikipedia talk:Page footers and voice your objection. - Gaz 11:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I second the comment above. Better to arrive at an official Wikipedia policy on footers for entries on countries than to waste time and energy on revert wars. Who gets to decide how "important" an organization has to be to be included? - Abiola Lapite 10:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree too. Can you guys wait until we reach some consensus? I am just restoring the article to what it was before. -- Taku 16:11, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree too. Can you guys wait until we reach some consensus? I am just restoring the article to what it was before. --Cantus 03:09, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually there was no {{msg:APEC}} and {{msg:OECD}} before. Look at the page history. -- Taku 04:08, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Independence date...

An anonymous IP changed the independence date from 660BC to 1953; my understanding was that Japan never surrendered sovereignty and that there was a continuity of government, at least formally, so I don't see how a 1950's date is justified, but I'll defer to someone with more knowledge of the particulars to confirm one or the other... -- Seth Ilys 18:34, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence.

The Korean Dynasty of Baekje(百濟) helped build the Nara Period by introducing Chinese culture which included writing, agricultural technologies and new religions to Japan.

It would be needless to check the accuracy of the statement. It is too specific for the article "Japan". --Nanshu 02:39, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it needed to be removed. I think the writer had the rice farming and the fact that Kyoto had once been ruled by the descended of Baekje nobles in mind. However, the rice farming is already in Japan as early as 900BC long before Baekje existed and techniques probably came from Southern China where the climate is similar. Also Baekje nobles had been staying in Japan for about 100 years by then since Baekje's fall. They also had the name given from Tenno which I think mean that they had accepted the Japanese nationality.

Revth 04:40, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In any case, this is too detailed to be included to this very general article. -- Taku 04:51, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia includes both dates. I think that's the most accurate way to do this, so I put both dates on the main page. Sekicho 23:56, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't exactly agree with you on this issue but the notation '(from U.S.)' is enough to let people know that this is about the occupation from WW2. Let's keep it that way. Revth 04:56, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Under the Economy section:

"...have helped Japan advance with extraordinary rapidity to the rank of second most technologically powerful economy in the world after the US..."

How can this be quantified? Is it based on number of patents, or R & D expenditure, or what? Germany (for example) might claim that it is the "second most technologically powerful economy in the world--who's to say?

--Sewing 13:16, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think that kind of statement is very valid. If you look at other encyclopedias or newspapers, then you will find such. Your new revision is actually misleading. EU is not a nation and China is still a developing country after all. -- Taku

Taku: You should have done a diff on my edit! You are mixing two sentences up, and I only edited one of them. The one about "second most technologically powerful economy..." is possibly true, but how can you measure it? It's not the same as "largest population" or "highest mountain." That's why I removed it. As for the second sentence, I didn't touch it. In fact, If I had noticed "EU," I would have removed it myself. As for China, we're talking about the world's largest economies: China may still be developing, but it has 8 times the population of Japan and its economy is growing quickly. --Sewing 00:01, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ack! The Britannica has exact sentence saying "Japan is now the world's second largest economic power, ranking only behind the United States." In some terms, Japan is ranked forth or fifth or anything but generally speaking, the claim Japan is the second largest economic power is true. -- Taku

For those who want to lower the rank of Japan, please notice Economy of Japan saying "Japan's industrialized, free-market economy is the second-largest in the world after the United States in terms of international purchasing power." -- Taku 08:17, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Taku: In terms of "gross domestic product," China is bigger than Japan. However, I believe that Japan still leads China in gross national product, since a large part of China's GDP comes from foreign investment. The EU, however, IS an economy bigger than Japan's, even though it isn't a state economy. (We call it a "union" because it unified all the state economies.)

So, I would propose something along the lines of: "Japan's industrialized, free-market economy became the second-largest in the world at its height in the late 1980's. Since the formation of the EU, it is the third-largest economy in the world." Nothing wrong on letting the EU take a higher spot: remember, Japan has a constitution and they still don't. :) Sekicho 07:15, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Umm, is this really about my vanity as a Japanese national? As I said above, Britannica says Japan is the second largest economy. Not surprisingly Japanese edition of Wikipedia simply says Japan is the second largest economic power in the world. A countless other references state the same. I think the Japanese government believe this. Wikipedia is a reference; we don't rank nations but cite what people say about the ranking. -- Taku 07:34, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not about vanity. I'm just saying that many people now recognize the EU as a single economy: as far as economics go, the member states have almost no independence (with the exception of the UK and Sweden). Following that view, Japan would be the number 3 economy, and the number 2 country in terms of economic might. I don't mean to degrade Japan's status, but the EU is clearly a larger economy, even though it isn't a country. Remember, we have to be NPOV: there are conflicting views on this subject and it's important to address both of them. Sekicho 07:46, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Right. You are not picking. We need to be sensitive. But it is true that we also need a consistency. I have posted a question regarding this matter at Japanese edition. Hopefully, they can give us a nice explanation. I doubt they would be going to adopt the theory of Japan as the third rank. -- Taku 08:07, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

I suppose it is not that awkward to tell both that there are accounts of Japan being world's #2 economy, and that it partly depends how you define/measure #2 economy.

So how about something along this line:

Japan's economy is the second largest national economy in many measures such as GNI and GDP. Outside the context of national economies, it is often considered the third after the U.S. and EU.

I have a general impression, based on my limited experience on researching on GDP per capita figures, the ranking varies quite a bit depending on the data sources. So more research would help. Here is my contribution:

• World Bank's quick ref. table.
  • http://www.worldbank.org/data/quickreference/quickref.html
    • Japan is the second in terms of GDP, GNI, and third on GDP on Purchasing Power Parity dollars. (When it is measured in terms of PPP, as opposed to official currency exchange rate, the GDP figure means "how much total value is added in all the domestic economic activities combined in terms of purchasing power in respective domestic economies - how much groceries, houses, etc. can be afforded by that amount of value.")

I may well be wrong on stats part, and would appreciate some experts participation, but my main suggestion may still hold in that case. Tomos 20:57, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid that choosing a particular ranking figure might be POV. Some Chinese people (not everyone yo) claim that Japan is behind in terms of GDP and some other claim Japan is ahead. That is, there are several different GDPs, GNPs and many such. It is possible that the ranking is manipulated so that it is not consistent with other articles. Not surprisingly, European Union article compares it with the US and claims it is larger than the US in terms of GDP and we in Japan article claims Japan is the second after the US? By choosing a right figure, we can lower or upper the rank of Japan--this act is POV for sure.

Also, I want to emphasize again that contents must be consistent across different language editions. We cannot change the facts based on who is writing.

-- Taku 06:21, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The article should avoid to give an impression that Japanese or EU or Chinese economy is the second largest, but instead indicate that ranking varies depending on the source and the measurement (GNI, GDP, etc.) as well as what people often say about the economy (among the largest economies). I did not mean to suggest that we use World Bank's data. I meant that others could find other sources so that we can compare multiple sources and hopefully give a good illustration somewhere in the article.

Regarding the inter-lingual consistency, I think it is a bit tricky stuff. In different language-spheres, there are sometimes different ideas of which sources are more credible and which sources are less known. So it could be the case that in German-speaking societies, EU is often said to be the world #2 economy, and in Chinese speaking societies, China is said to be the #2, etc. etc. Given that, interlingual consistency would mean to write something like "in this part of the world, it is considered that ...., where as in that part of the world, it is considered that ....," as opposed to deciding which sources to rely on for all the articles dealing with this matter in all languages. Tomos 20:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Recent News

Because of Towns-unification policy of the government Japan, many towns and villages are administratively lost and many new cities are settled. Most of data of villages and towns like Izuhara should be rewritten specially on their administrative position. Today there is no town named Izuhara, Nagasaki prefecture but Tsushima City. Your contribution will be appreciated. KIZU 22:04, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do not think every articles are reflected recent unifications, but I believe Idzuhara, Nagasaki (link from Nagasaki Prefecture) and Tsushima, Nagasaki has been fixed as of a month ago. Maybe I have some overlooks. Would you tell me about particular articles desiring fixes? -- Takanoha 15:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Official name

Is 日本国 supposed to be pronounced Nihonkoku or Nipponkoku? I've seen evidence pointing both ways, although the latter seems more "official" to me somehow. -- Sekicho 14:26, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Both are acceptable, but Japan tends to use NiPPon for official things, sporting events, etc. Exploding Boy 02:11, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

My impression is the same: Nippon is more popular than Nihon. Interesting is almost always people say Nippon-koku kempo, Nihon-jin, Nihon-shiki, Nihon-go and so forth. Nippon-go, for instance, sounds awful. Rules? I have no idea. Or maybe it varies across dialects? Sure, this kind of discussion should be made somewhere in Wikipedia. -- Taku 02:18, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Nippon seems a bit old fashioned to me. Ok for cheering, but the modern reading is "nihon". FWIW google has 96 hits for nipponkoku, but 909 for nihonkoku. Zeimusu 12:25, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)

I just noticed that the article reads that "Nihon" comes from the Chinese - but if that's the case, why is it the kunyomi of 日本? Are we certain that "nihon" comes from the Chinese? -- Tlotoxl 15:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually both parts use the on’yomi (from Chinese). Nihon is an abbreviation of Nippon which uses the standard on’yomi of 'nichi' for 日 rather than the kun’yomi of 'hi'. But when the article says that it comes from the Chinese it means more that the Kanji comes from China. The pronunciation is probably a lot different when the name was first used around 700AD than the current pronunciation, both in Japanese and Chinese. --Sekizaru 19:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've always thought Nippon/Nihon was a "keisu-bai-keisu" loosely established usage, so that there's no right or wrong way, just whatever way is prevalent in the mind of the person using the expression. Even official usage can change. Currency uses Nippon Ginko but the news often refers to Nihon Ginko and anyway everyone abbreviates to NichiGin :) Vincent 08:48, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I has started an article Nippon and Nihon. The confusion and discussion here seem good enough to justify having an article dedicated to this topic. I hope it will help us and readers clear confusion. -- Taku 15:06, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I noticed someone deleted the Names of Japan section. I didn't put it back because I have noticed that Wikipedia is complaining about the article being too long. I created a seperate Names of Japan page, but this might conflict with the Nippon and Nihon page. Please let me know if you have an opinion on what should be done.

--Scipantheist 21:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heisei Emperor

Emperor Akihito seems to be a common term in the west, but I notice that most Japanese prefer "Emperor Heisei". Both should be mentioned, but I'm not sure where. Thoughts? Zeimusu 12:25, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)(again)

Actually, his name isn't Emperor Heisei. In Japanese you would call him kinjo tenno or "the present Emperor." AFAIK it wouldn't be correct to call him the Heisei Emperor until he passes away and the name is conferred upon him... and it's apparently disrespectful to refer to the living Emperor by name. -- Sekicho 02:26, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Kokkai / Diet / Parliament

The article is a bit unclear on what's what in this section. It's my understanding that the legislative branch is the Kokkai or Diet, and not a part of it, and that the bit about the "executive branch" thus should be moved further down in the paragraph, and that the term "legislative branch" should be replaced with "diet". I won't be checking this page regularly, so please send any comments to david@start.no .

5-paragraph intro?

I've noticed most country articles have at most a 200-word paragraph or so before the table of contents/data box/first subject heading; Japan has five paragraphs, of varying length.

This has the unfortunate effect of pushing the data box, with the attractive flag/seal/map motif, down below the first screen of most users. Anyone want to redistribute the intro? There seems to be a lot of etymology and history that could be trimmed out, but I wouldn't know where to put it.... Radagast 00:58, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

I personally think all the specifics about Nihon/Nippon vs Japan should be moved "below the fold". While it definitely belongs in the article, it doesn't deserve 2/3 of the intro either. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I moved the paragraphs directly concerned with the name to "below the fold" as suggested. However maybe the first paragraph needs to be re-written to take this into account. Any suggestions on where the Origin of Name section should go or an alternative title for it? --Sekizaru 19:58, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

History

I'm a little confused about this paragraph:

Japan's ruling LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) has been in power since 1955 almost continuously (except for 1993). Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has introduced radical reform, such as the dissolving of the Upper House in 2003 and sending SDF (Self Defence Forces) to Iraq. The oppositional DPJ (Democratic Party of Japan) seems to be gaining more momentum, and that will be shown in the 2004 Upper House Elections in July.

If the Upper House was dissolved in 2003, why are there elections for it in July 2004? Also, would this be better placed in the Politics section? -AndrewHows

It's Cleared up and merged into the Politics section. The lower or the House of Parliament was dissolved and upper or the House of Councillors is up for the election today. I guess the writer simply got confused. Revth 07:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

State vs. Nation vs. Country

The passage <The official Japanese title is Nihonkoku (日本国), literally "State of Japan.> seems to be the subject of an accidental edit war. People keep changing State to Nation or Country, Nation to State or Country, and Country to State or Nation, in a never-ending cycle of pointless synonym-replacement. Can we settle on a term so this silliness can end? — Gwalla | Talk 00:40, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I compared the [English version] of The Constitution with the Japanese version as the constitution seems to be one of the main uses of the word "Nihonkoku" in literature. There were only two uses of the word (Article 1 and 98) and they were translated as "the State" and "Japan" respectively. I'm not sure what this proves but as it is an official title it should be capitalized so maybe that excludes country. In the context of Japan, nation and state have the same meaning so it depends on the context. Nation-state would be the ideal word but it sounds awkward so personally I would recommend leaving it in its current from of "State of Japan" but either of the two would be fine as long as an agreement can be reached. --Sekizaru 20:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would add that the State of Israel (Isuraeru-koku) and the State of the City of Vatican (Bachikan-shi-koku) follow the same convention in Japanese. Sekicho 02:36, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Could it be that "State" is the preferred word used by Americans and "Nation" is the preferred word used by British? "State of Japan" sounds really weird, it looks more like meaning "condition". Also, "State" sounds more like "Federation", something forming part of a country such as USA or now the EU. I personally think "Country of Japan" is best, it's the most neutral word to use in this scenario. What do the rest of you think? -- 81.86.110.57 19:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look up the terms on Wikipedia! A state is a sovereign political entity. A nation is a group of people not necessarily defined politically (e.g. Native American nations). The two can certainly overlap (and they overlap almost perfectly in Japan's case, hence the term nation-state) but they're still different. "Country" is fine to describe Japan, but it's not an official term and no country that I know of uses it that way (besides, it's equally vague: "country of Japan" could easily refer to rural Japan). As I said before, Israel and the Vatican both call themselves "State of ~" in English, and I see no reason why Japan should be any different when there's a 1:1 correspondence between English "state" and Japanese "kuni" (in the sense being described here, of course). - Sekicho 19:57, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Kyushu not Kyushu?

On the Japanese Wikipedia for [[3]] it says that Okinawa and Yamaguchi are sometimes listed under Kyushu, which would make the prefecture total nine. This would match the name of Kyushu being formed by 9 states. Yet, Yamaguchi is on Honshu Island and Kyushu only has 7 prefectures on the island. I just noticed that now. I don't know Japan's history but has this been mentioned anywhere?

Yeah, I believe it is covered in the Kyushu article -- Kyushu had 9 prefectures prior to the Meiji Restoration:

The name Kyushu literally means nine (九) provinces (州) and gets its meaning from the nine ancient provinces that once made up the island. These were Chikuzen, Chikugo, Hizen, Higo, Buzen, Bungo, Hyuga, Satsuma, and Osumi. The central government, behind the Meiji Emperor, in 1871 abolished this and the feudal system of government and established prefectures (Haihan Chiken) in their place.

-- Tlotoxl 05:14, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History subsection

While I certainly welcome content to the Wikipedia, I am noticing that the history subsection is getting rather long-- delving into specifics of Manchurian occupation and other subjects that--IMHO-- may be better served on the History of Japan page. Certainly the Manchurian invasion was a large event, but is it a fundamental portion of Japan's 3000 year history? I would say no. Thoughts? Davejenk1ns 23:50, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Manchurian invasion is of major significance in the history of Japan, and should stand alongside other events, but I agree that the details and specifics included would be better placed in the History of Japan series, which the Japan article refers to as "Main." That's the best place for details. Fg2 00:19, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

There should be more mention about the Japanese war crimes. At least maybe a paragraph?

Racist Comments?

The Japanese military killed millions of people in Korea, Manchuria, China, Singapore, Philippines, and Malaysia and was closely affiliated with Nazi Germany in the past 100 years. In today's term, Japan was a terrorist country. Japan recognized this history and deleted this section from their history.

The atom bombs were dropped by their new GOD or Shinto (=America), because of their WAR CRIMES. Millions of people were killed. 10,000 times more people than 9.11 Trade Tower attacks.

What racist wrote this? Is it some sort of hack? I deleted it and posted it here so someone could notify the webmaster.

Hiroshi66 (not logged on)

Thanks for removing it, but there's no hack, and there's no reason to notify the webmaster. If you can delete it, they can add it, so it's no hack. Why would we notify the "webmaster"? --Golbez 04:42, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

About the same text in Military history of Japan (I reverted it). The user put the text in both articles was at 211.178.27.160

It didn't seem very scholarly to me, much less that it was directed to the actual topic. We don't have to report it, but at least see that it wasn’t really done for education purposes, rather than some hate Japan freak.

Hiroshi

Notice board

I settled Wikipedia:Japanese Wikipedians' notice board. Would you like to give a look? It needs much improvement. All who are interested in Japan are invited. :) Thanks. --Aphaea 16:02, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)