Talk:Japan/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Japan. 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

→

Different Image for Japanese Seal

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

Japanese Religion

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 still missing the point. Both region section and religions of Japan are not about Shinto and Buddhism. Thus, those articles should not discuss the conflict between the two for one. And I have no disagreement to that Buddhism and Shinto teaches moral philosophies. This is just not about Buddhism and Shinto. If you think both section and article state that a Japanese person in genera believes in Buddhism and not in Shinto. That is completely not what I intend to say.

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)

Give me specific evidence for the following statement "Today, Japanese people's attitude towards religion tend to be indifference and their concerns are usually related to traditions, everyday customs and mythology rather than the source of morality or the guidance for one's life." Otherwise I will delete it, and other statements like it as I don't believe that this is true.

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)

My point is that it certainly does not have to be true that syncretism=indifference, and I believe this is the case with religions in Japan.--Scipantheist 15:39, 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)

I have having a difficult time parsing that last sentence, with the double negatives. Can you please rephrase Taku? Personally, I think Japanese have a very similar attitude toward religion to "other people" (Americans, Europeans, other Asians). However, such a discussion starts into a land of such incredible generalisations that any approach in this area should be a warning sign toward NPOV. Davejenk1ns 21:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, saying that their view on religion is different is one thing, but saying they don't have believe in their religion as strongly is something else entirely. I view Christianity and Islam as exclusivist in the sense that they insist that there is only one path to salvation (theirs). Buddhism and Shintoism are not like that, but I think they are followed just a strongly, if not more strongly then religions in the west. See the changes I suggest. Also I will look for proof, but I think that Theravada Buddhism is pretty much nonexistant in Japan. --Scipantheist 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did some research. The results are added to Wikipedia:Notes for Japan-related articles. For one, I never found that Japanese believe in Japanese religion, as again there is no such thing as Japanese religion. I am not sure inclusivist is a good term to express the Japanese people's attitude to religions. No thing I found so far supports this. I think that the bottom line, as Davejenk1ns suggests wisely, we should avoid comparing if Japanese are more or less religious or spiritual than the westerners. Especially saying Japanese believe in Shinto and Buddhism as strongly as people in the west do is quite misleading and is wrong to my knowledge. If you find more references, please consider adding them to Wikipedia:Notes for Japan-related articles. -- Taku 03:41, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for accepting some of my changes here. I think that when you say that they believe in Shinto and Buddhism less strongly then people in the west believe in their religions, this is also wrong. Eastern religion is a difficult thing to grasp for a westerner, which seems to include most of the sources you are citing. Nirvana is exemplified by the blowing out of a candle analogy. Where does the flame go? Buddhism exists to STOP the endless cycle of rebirth into a world of suffering. Therefore Buddhists essentially desire to return to nothingness. Again, please give me a specific source that says,"The teachings of any religion are usually not well known among people." Otherwise this should not be included. Also, in defense of the Japanese Religion category, you allow a Japanese Buddhism page. The difference between Religions of Japan and Japanese Religion(s) is only in semantics.--Scipantheist 15:27, 25 Apr 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)

publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

We're interested in learning more about it. After reading the article you linked to, I'm not sure just what the process and results are. But if it provides some protection from the frequent vandalism that this page receives, and still reflects the consensus of the community, it has promise. Fg2 00:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Long form name

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:

Japan (Japanese long form: 日本国, pronounced Nihon-koku or Nippon-koku; short form: 日本, pronounced Nihon or Nippon) is an East Asian country surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, the Sea of Japan, the Philippine Sea, the East China Sea, and the Sea of Okhotsk. To the west is Korea (North and South), to the north Russia, and to the southwest China and Taiwan.

Ganbare! --nihon 07:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

We have a whole article on Names of Japan. We do not need a discussion of the name in the first line of this article. The name is also in the information box. The text should get to the point. The intro was fine before recent edits. (IMHO) Fg2 09:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to clean it up a bit, although I'm sure there's a better way. It still seems to ramble a bit for an opening sentence. At any rate, if we stick to the notion that 日本国 is the official name, then common-use forms such as 日本 or even ジャパン don't need to be in the first line. Neier 21:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's very confusing to say that something is the official form if you don't give the unofficial forms; the official/unofficial aspect is best explained elsewhere. Mark ¹ 21:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the addition of the explicit link to Names of Japan, even though I'm the one who made it implicit (that is, something else appears on the screen) --- I was never fully happy with my edit. Personally, I suggest "Japan (see Names of Japan for other forms) is an East Asian country surrounded by ... ." The reason for the suggestion is that the kanji and the two pronunciations are both in the Infobox. I don't think they need repetition. I won't edit the article to make that change, though, since there's plenty of room for other opinions. (I will edit the article to remove my old link, now redundant, to Names of Japan.)

Question regarding image

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)

Fixed, thanks. Mark ¹ 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

Hi all. This edit 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)

As above, fixed. Mark ¹ 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

More on Culture

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)

Hi MondoManDevout, Wikipedia has so much information about Japan that it's impractical to put it all in this one article. So, you'll find more in the articles it links to, including some in the Miscellaneous Topics section. And like anyplace else on the Web, those articles link to more articles, and on and on. Meanwhile, try Gaikokujin and see if that contains the information you seek. Happy hunting! Fg2 08:03, 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)

Tokyo Trial

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)

The emperor was a key, I agree. But I still think there must be a better wording at least. It gives an impression that the surrender was not unconditional for one thing. In any rate, I don't push this for now. I look at other references, and I believe the current wording is not in line with the mainstream or maybe I am wrong. Secondly, it is a very contested point whether the Nanjing incident was a war crime or not. The majority in Japan believe that happens but many disagree that was a war crime. It was a war crime why not say the atomic bombing was a war crime. But I also agree that the article includes a link to Japanese war crimes, but as I said, it has to be done in more neutral way. -- Taku 23:15, 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)

Is it possible you work together instead of against? I am unable to see your position if you simply keep reverting. In any case, it is simply inappropriate to detail about war crimes and emperor in this article. -- Taku 06:01, 4 January 2006 (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)

I think the problem is miscommunication between us. I proposed that language because I thought that is what you want. As I said above, my position is that it is very problematic; there is no unconditional surrender with a condition. And I can't find any mention in the article whether the atomic bombing is a war crime or not. All I am asking is tell me why you revert my edit which include other minor edits and put wording you want; then we can work together. -- Taku 04:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Just clarification. Nanking incident (this is the name used in Japan) is not universally accepted as a war crime in Japan. Hence I believe we are obliged to adopt wording like "in what they perceive as war crimes". -- Taku 04:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

More clarification about my edit:

No need to include the exact date, besides the year, of Tokyo Trial, just like the way other events are mentioned. Such detail crowds the article.
Tokyo Trial happened after the war, so it belongs to the paragraph of a postwar Japan.
I thought we've solved the problem whether the Constitution was forced to adopt or not by stating it was adopted during occupation era.

Finally, I tried to keep a postwar paragraph as short as possible. (Saying Hirohito was not prosecuted is enough.) But I think it can have more context information that can help, as I said above, clarify the context of Japanese war crimes in Japanese history. That is to say there is no need to detail this matter (Japanese war crimes) but we should be able to find a way to present how it is perceived today. Am I making sense at all?

-- 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)

Umm, are you suggesting that wikipedia should reflect the point of view of the world and not that of Japan? That would be POV. You should know that the Japanese uses the term Nanking incident whther or not. We just can't push any particular point of view, no matter if you like facts or point of views. I also believe war crime should be mentioned in the context of foreign relations as it is a foreign issue anyway. (Again, no matter if you like the fact or not.) -- Taku 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In any case, as I said above, I cannot possibly see how my edit is, you think, problematic without you editing the article and stop reverting. I said the communication is a problem because you keep reverting other minor edits besides Tokyo Trial issue. All I am asking is you make some edits so we can work together, as it is obvious to both of us that we have editorial disagreement on this issue but not on others. -- Taku 23:07, 6 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)

This is nice. We both know that reverting each other leads us nowhere. To be clear, I am not suggesting to use the term "Nanking incident" (review my edit), and again if you like it or not, Tokyo Trial is very controversial in Japan. We are not allowed to suppress the uncontested facts. Do you have anything to support your claim that Tokyo Trial has never been controversial? To show the opposite, I can cite Japanese books or websites. Until we get something convincing enough, Tokyo Trial has to be mentioned as being controverail.

Secondary, I still want to ask you to tell why you insist on eliminating the Soviet's invasion or Japan's military alliance's the US. I just can't see why you do from you comment yet.

Finally, you must know this is nothing personal. I am somehow knowledgeable at what the Japanese media says or what the people say here in Japan. I have no doubt quite a bit of Japanese people are ill-informed or biased, but again and again wikipedia is not a place to preach people about the truth. I am only trying to address problems of discrepancy between what the article says and what is generally believed in Japan and the rest of the world. In other words, if it does not matter if Japan's viewpoint is wrong or not. Consider an analogy: I am an atheist as I can readily prove that how it is impossible for something like God can exist. But we certainly don't want to see wikipedia reflecting this atheists view no matter if it is right or wrong can be proven or disproved. Wikipedia has to reflect the reality and perceived truth not the ultimate truth. -- Taku 23:02, 11 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)

Japanese history

I'm changing "Muromachi shogunate" to "Ashikaga shogunate". Woogums 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection Feb 2 2006

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)

Language

The old version (upto 06:14, January 29, 2006 JST) of the language section writes as follows:

Before the 5th century, the Japanese had no writing system of their own. They began to adopt the Chinese writing script along with many other aspects of Chinese culture after their introduction by Korean monks and scholars during the 5th and 6th centuries AD.

At first, the Japanese wrote in Classical Chinese, or in a mixture of Chinese, used both ideographically, phonetically, and otherwise to create Japanese meanings. An example of this mixed style is the Kojiki, which was written in 712 AD. They then started to use Chinese characters to write Japanese in a style known as man'yōgana, a ten thousand syllabic script which used characters depicting their own values.

Over time, a writing system was constructed. Chinese characters (kanji) were used to write either words borrowed from Chinese, or Japanese words with the same or similar meanings. Chinese characters were also used to write grammatical elements, were simplified, and eventually became two syllabic scripts: hiragana and katakana.

Japanese literature reached a high point during the 11th century with the Genji Monogatari ("Tale of Genji") by Lady Murasaki Shikibu. Many other Japanese literary works were also written by women.

Modern Japanese is written in a mixture of hiragana, katakana, and kanji. Japanese texts may also include rōmaji (letters from the Latin alphabet) as well as various special symbols.

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)

Perhaps the section needs a bit more on the spoken word and a little less on the written, but to delete almost the entire section is unwarranted.--Sir Edgar 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a detailed history of the development of Japanese writing system in the summary section of Japanese language. Nor do we need an equally detailed description of the history of spoken Japanese either because it will make the language section too long for a summary. It suffices to say that the Japanese language system was greatly influenced by Chinese language and direct readers to Japanese writing system if they are interested in the subject. Hermeneus (user/talk) 01:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've moved it to the Japanese Language article.--Sir Edgar 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ancient History: 600,000 years and Japanese nationalism

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)

The year is changed back to 30,000. Hermeneus (user/talk) 01:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Motto

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)

There isn't one. We are not that damb. :) FWBOarticle 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of macrons in Japanese titles vote

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! (^_^)

Dates in template

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)

Flag of Japan

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)

Correction, I had an extra T in the name for some reason User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed section "Notes"

I've just remove the newly added section "Notes", which said:

The name Japan is derived from the Mandarin Chinese name, Riben in Pinyin, Jih-pen in the old Wade-Giles transliteration system. In Chinese, as in Japanese, it is written 日本.

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 )

I don't know Chinese, so I can't comment on the content, but as you hinted by referring to it in the edit summary, information about the derivation of the name makes most sense in the article Names of Japan. Fg2 07:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the American Heritage Dictionary entry for Japan.... Japan is derived from "Middle Chinese" nzyet-pwun (日本) or nzyet-pwun-kwuk (日本國), which then evolves into "early Mandarin". The early Mandarin word was borrowed into Malay as Japang, which was encountered by Portuguese traders in Moluccas in the 16th century. These traders may have been the ones to bring the word to Europe; it is first recorded in English in 1577, spelled Giapan. So technically, Japan isn't derived from modern Mandarin, but from early Mandarin.--Endroit 08:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was unaware of the Names of Japan article, which is far more detailed than what I had been taught. Should there be a link to that article somewhere in this one? Fan 14:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

National Anthem

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.

Featured Article Status

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)

A noble goal. It's a bit long, but with leadership from someone who's good at responding to all the objections that invariably come up, it could make it. Of course, it should go through Peer Review first to get suggestions from a wider community. Go for it! Fg2 00:27, 2 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)

I'm ecstatic to see Japan become a "good article"! Congrats to everyone who's contributed to getting the article to where it's at today!--Sir Edgar 07:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalized, fixed, need help

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) .