Talk:Japan/Archive 19

Locator map

The infobox map includes southern Kurils - which are under Russian control, and are considered Russian territory by Russia. They are marked in different colours in the map, but in the infobox that's not really visible at all. We should add a legend. -- Director (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hello. I believe this line should be edited to make the date more clear.
"This decline was made worse by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami which killed nearly 16,000 people with approximately another 3,000 still listed as missing."
would be better like this
"This decline was made worse by the March 11th 2011 earthquake and tsunami which killed nearly 16,000 people with approximately another 3,000 still listed as missing."
thanks 80.192.85.232 (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: - Please see WP:BADDATEFORMAT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, then change it to "March 2011", "2011-03-11" or "March 11, 2011" all acceptable by the Manual of Style for dates, At the moment it only makes sense if being read in 2011 and it's 2015 80.192.85.232 (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As a standalone sentence, your suggestion is reasonable. But the topic that is introduced two sentences earlier is the large decline in population that occurred in 2011. Given that context, it is clear what year is being referred to, so it is not necessary to repeat "2011". But if the reader is still unsure, they can click the link to the article on the earthquake. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions

The international popularity of certain Japanese cultural products, like anime, manga and J-horror, and their impact on the world could probably be briefly mentioned in the lead. J-horror is not named at all in the article, despite being an influence for succesful film series including the The Ring films (The Ring and The Ring Two) and The Grudge, as well as for video game series, such as Silent Hill, Fatal Frame and Siren. Maybe this is also a kind of soft power, like the Korean Wave is, that could also possibly be mentioned in the lead and main body. Ideas? Hula Hup (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hula Hup: I agree. I say go for it, and we'll see if we can improve it. Keiiri (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No—this is an article about a country with a millenium and a half of recorded history. The international J-pop fad is a recentism, and hardly describes the subject, which is Japan, not J-pop cutlural exports. Notice the lead doesn't mention jūdō, sushi, or ukiyo-e, either, each of which would easily take precedence over anime, manga, and J-horror. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe he saw South Korea's, China's, Germany's, or even the UK's lead, and suggested it. I think he can go for it if he can pull it off. As for the rest of your edit, you kinda messed up the grammar, but I guess that doesn't really matter. Keiiri (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything remotely like that in the leads to China, Gemrany, or the UK, and the single sentence in Korea is a recentism that doesn't belong in the lead. Also, when someone makes a typo, the correct thing is to correct it, not take it to the talk page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess you can call it a recentism. Like I said, I read it wrong at first. I guess it depends on what you mean by "remotely like that" and exactly what we're comparing it too. In any case, I'm done with this. Keiiri (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Head of state

An American asking: who is the Head of state: Emperor Akihito, or Prime Minister Shinzō Abe? Mr. Guye (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's Abe. Akihito is akin to Queen Elizabeth and has not substantive power. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: "Head of State" does not equal "substantive power". The second paragraph of Elizabeth II describes her as "Britain's longest-lived head of state".

@Mr. Guye:, your question is answered by clicking the first link you provided in your question and looking at the photo to the right of the first paragraph. (On an unrelated note, wouldn't it have been easier to change "enjoys" to "has" in this article, rather than adding the peacock term template?) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The emperor is head of state, and the prime minister is head of government. Prime ministers, by definition, can never be head of state like a president or a monarch. The head of state of Australia is Queen Elizabeth II, and the head of government is Tony Abbott. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Nippon vs. Nihon

Nihon is listed first on Wiktionary under 日本, but it's listed second here. Is there a reason for this order? --WikiWinters (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It is following the same order as found in the Japanese article. I don't think there's any other reason. This article and the Wiktionary article don't need to have things in the same order. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

"Most public and private schools require students to take courses in both Japanese and English" This statement gives Japanese and English the same weight in the Japanese education system, which is just ridiculous. Japanese is the language of instruction and English is taught as a foreign language. All courses are taught in Japanese, not English. I think the sentence is misleading and hence needs to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:8909:8200:1576:6D32:A900:4976 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence says nothing about the language of teaching (which most people will figure out is Japanese, given that foreign languages are, at least at first, taught in the native tongue). The sentence, as it stands, is not misleading at all. Most public and private schools do require Japanese and English courses from their students. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's just as misleading as the IP says. There are countries in the world (the Philippines, for example) where the language of instruction in many courses (math, etc) is in English. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

How they teach in the Philippines or any other country is irrelevant here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The point couldn't have gone any farther over your head. Please re-read and take the time to comprehend what you're reading before you reply. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you need to write more clearly then. You made the point that other countries teach some subjects in English, which is irrelevant to this discussion. How other countries choose to teach subjects in school has absolutely no bearing on how they do things in Japan. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Flat-out ridiculous. Readers don't live in a vacuum—what they know about the rest of the world will inevitably affect how they read poorly-written Wikipedia articles. In the age of the internet it's incomprehensible that you could remain ignorant of this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Why the use of 'most'? Isn't 'English as a foreign language' compulsory in all schools? And no people will not necessarily figure out that all subjects are taught in Japanese or that the language of instruction is Japanese in Japan. Some countries, often former colonies, don't have their native language as the (main) language of instruction (especially in North African and Southeast Asian countries). The sentence gives undue weight to the role of English in the Japanese education system. 2A02:1811:8909:8200:1576:6D32:A900:4976 (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Japan isn't a former colony of any country, so that argument is irrelevant. The article states that Japanese is the official language, so if people are thinking they speak English (or any other language) to teach classes in general, they should just stay home because they are too stupid to interact with the world. English is the only other required language in Japanese schools, so there is no undue weight. Regardless, however, I have reworded it slightly. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What a comtemptably ridiculous reply. You should step out of your reality distortion field once in a while. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The text doesn't even remotely reflect what the source says, which is:

Japanese language instruction receives more attention in Japanese schools than English instruction in the United States because of the difficulty of learning written Japanese. Virtually every Japanese student takes English language courses from the seventh grade through the final year of high school. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So rewrite it yourself. If you aren't able to edit it (which you should be able to do), then I'll be happy to put it in for you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I did rewrite it—hours ago. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC on removal of native state names from article lead sentences

There was an RfC opened that might affect tens of articles, including this one. Your opinions would be welcome. “WarKosign” 05:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Japanese Invasions of Korea" dispute in the Feudal Era section

User:Redfoxjump, we've had similar discussions like this on the Japanese Invasions of Korea page before. You continue to assert on this page, as you did on the other page, that "the main force was the Chinese forces" during the conflict. However, as I explained to you before, you cannot objectively say that the Chinese forces were more important than the Korean forces. If you do, that would be your opinion, which is not supported by the encyclopedia. There are plenty of sources that cite the decisive importance of the Korean campaign (particularly that of the navy) in forcing the Japanese withdrawal. I've reproduced a couple below:

"His naval victories were to prove decisive in the Japanese defeat, although Yi was to die during his final battle in 1598." - Stephen Turnbull "Just as a complete Japanese victory appeared imminent, Admiral Yi entered the war and quickly turned the tide." - Louis Perez

Additionally, I want to keep the section as concise as possible, keeping the information within the context of the article, rather than focusing on specific events that transpired during the conflict. I think this is the best summary:

"Oda Nobunaga conquered many other daimyo using European technology and firearms; after he was assassinated in 1582, his successor Toyotomi Hideyoshi unified the nation in 1590. Upon his consolidation of power, Hideyoshi invaded Korea twice in 1592 and 1596 but died in 1598. With this factor considered, along with the limited progress made on land, and the continued disruption of supply lines by the Korean navy, the Japanese forces in Korea were ordered to withdraw back to Japan."

It explains Hideyoshi's pivotal role in Japanese history, by detailing his unification of Japan and his attempts to invade Korea. Finally, it explains why the Japanese terminated the campaign. BlackRanger88 (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The siege of Pyongyang was the most important. The Japanese army largely withdrew for the first time. The Korean army was in the minority at the siege of Pyongyang

"Siege of Pyongyang".

The main force was the chinese forces.

Chinese 30000 Korean 10000"

Other main battles

Siege of Ulsan

China 44,000

Korea: 11,500

Battle of Sacheon

34,000 Chinese, 2,200 Koreans

Siege of Suncheon

21,900 Ming Army, 5,928 Korean Army, 19,400 Ming Navy, 7,328 Korean Navy,

The main force was the chinese forces.

Seource """Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p.134, "(Korean) war minister Yi Hang-bok pointed out that assistance from China was the only way Korea could survive.""""

Your sentence is partial to Korea.

Redfoxjump (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You cannot objectively say that the Siege of Pyongyang was the "most important battle", just as you can't say that the Chinese were more important than the Koreans in the conflict. As I explained to you before on the Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) page and in my edit summaries, the Koreans contributed approximately 194,000 troops (172,000 formal military and 22,600 Righteous army members) while the Chinese contributed about 118,000 troops. You need to look at the conflict as a whole.

There were plenty of other decisive battles that took place during the war, not just the Siege of Pyongyang. To name a few, the Battle of Haengju stopped the attempted Japanese counterattack into the northern regions of Korea, which could have easily resulted in the Japanese forces entering Chinese territory and escalating the war. The Battles of Hansando and Myeongnyang made it impossible for the Japanese to continue north due to the supply efforts that the Korean navy stopped.

Your quote highlights the importance of the Chinese reinforcements, yes. However, in doing so, it does not discredit the pivotal role played by the Korean forces during the conflict. BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are some stats if you're interested:

Siege of Haengju - Korean troops: approximately 3,000 / Chinese troops: 0

Battle of Hansan Island: Korean ships: 56 / Chinese ships: 0 (had not entered the conflict)

Battle of Myeongnyang: Korean ships: 12-13 / Chinese ships: 0

Battle of Noryang (Final naval battle of the war): Korean ships: 83 / Chinese ships: 63

Note also that these were some of the most important Korean/Chinese VICTORIES. In contrast, most of the battles you cited were Japanese victories. Your assertion that the Chinese forces were more important is really undermined by the fact that in most cases where they were were numerically superior to the Koreans, they lost. BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Korean 194,000 troops". However, The Korean army was in the minority at the main battles.(Pyongyang, Ulsan, Sacheon, Suncheon ).

The Chinese lost (Ulsan, Sacheon, Suncheon). However, they forced a military stalemate.

""but the Chinese and Korean forces forced the Japanese armies to withdraw""

""Chinese and Korean victory.""

It is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redfoxjump (talk • contribs) 08:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote, the battles that you listed were not the only "major battles". You simply cherry picked the ones where the Chinese forces were numerically superior.

You said, "The Chinese ... forced a military stalemate." Yes, but so did the Koreans.

The bottom line is this: The Koreans contributed more troops overall 194,000 - 118,000. Both the Korean and the Chinese contributions were important in the outcome of the war. The war was fought on Korean soil and thus the Koreans were the most impacted by the conflict (many civilians died, infrastructure was damaged, agricultural capabilities were impaired). Ultimately, the Koreans were the most invested in the conflict, which is why I think it is more than reasonable that they are mentioned first when describing the combined Korean and Chinese campaign.

This same logic is applied to both the Vietnam War and Korean War pages. North and South Vietnam and North and South Korea are listed before their foreign allies because of how invested they were in the conflict. It only makes sense that the same logic applies here. BlackRanger88 (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

""The Japanese armies initially succeeded in occupying large portions of Korea, but the Chinese and Korean forces forced the Japanese armies to withdraw to the southern coastal areas of Korea. The pursuing Chinese and Korean forces, however, were unable to dislodge the Japanese from their remaining fortresses and entrenched positions, where both sides became locked in a ten-month long military stalemate. However, with Hideyoshi's death in 1598, limited progress on land, and continued disruption of supply lines by the Korean navy, the Japanese forces in Korea were ordered to withdraw back to Japan by the Council of Five Elders, resulting in a strategic Chinese and Korean victory.""

This sentence is fair enough.

Redfoxjump (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You claim that your edit is "fair enough". Yet, I listed plenty of reasons as to why your edit is not appropriate.

Please read them this time around and if you disagree, go ahead and explain why you disagree. I'll reproduce my statements above for your convenience:

"The bottom line is this: The Koreans contributed more troops overall 194,000 - 118,000. Both the Korean and the Chinese contributions were important in the outcome of the war. The war was fought on Korean soil and thus the Koreans were the most impacted by the conflict (many civilians died, infrastructure was damaged, agricultural capabilities were impaired). Ultimately, the Koreans were the most invested in the conflict, which is why I think it is more than reasonable that they are mentioned first when describing the combined Korean and Chinese campaign.

This same logic is applied to both the Vietnam War and Korean War pages. North and South Vietnam and North and South Korea are listed before their foreign allies because of how invested they were in the conflict. It only makes sense that the same logic applies here."

In your edit you also wrote, "The pursuing Chinese and Korean forces, however, were unable to dislodge the Japanese from their remaining fortresses and entrenched positions, where both sides became locked in a ten-month long military stalemate."

That is one event that transpired during the war, and really has no place in the article since the objective of this passage is to explain the importance of the "Japanese Invasions of Korea" in the greater context of Japanese history.

I could easily add other events as you did, such as the failed Japanese counterattack into the north, the Korean naval campaign, and other important events. However, these individual events do not add any additional scope to understanding Japan, which is what the article is about.

I've explained my logic behind my edits clearly and soundly. I think that it's only fair that you do the same before you revert. BlackRanger88 (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Your sentence.

"Hideyoshi invaded Korea twice in 1592 and 1596, during which heavy losses were inflicted on both sides.[40] Ultimately, with Hideyoshi's death in 1598, limited progress made on land, and continued disruption of Japanese supply lines by the Korean navy,[41][42][43] the Japanese forces in Korea were ordered to withdraw back to Japan."

The Korean loss was greater than the japanese.

Your sentence does not mention the Chinese.

My sentence is fair enough.

"Hideyoshi invaded Korea twice in 1592 and 1596 during the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98). The Japanese armies initially succeeded in occupying large portions of Korea, but the Chinese and Korean forces forced the Japanese forces to withdraw to the southern coastal areas of Korea,[40] where both sides became locked in a ten-month long military stalemate. With Hideyoshi's death [41] in 1598, the Japanese forces in Korea were ordered to withdraw back to Japan by the Council of Five Elders. "

Redfoxjump (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Your sentence is clearly not "fair enough" since it leaves out crucial details behind the withdrawal, such as the lack of progress on land and the disruption of Japanese supply lines.

You said, "The Korean loss was greater than the japanese." That's definitely debatable, since Japan lost the war. But, as a compromise I'll add a sentence that highlights the loss of life suffered on the Korean side. I'll also mention the Chinese reinforcements.

"Hideyoshi invaded Korea twice in 1592 and 1596, during which heavy losses were inflicted on both sides, including thousands of Korean civilians.[40] The war increased in scale when Chinese reinforcements entered into the conflict, in an alliance with the Koreans. Ultimately, with Hideyoshi's death in 1598, limited progress made on land, and continued disruption of Japanese supply lines by the Korean navy,[41][42][43] the Japanese forces in Korea were ordered to withdraw back to Japan.[44][45]"

This edit satisfies all the concerns you mentioned. BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"That's definitely debatable"

No. The Korean (and Chinese) loss was greater than the japanese.

I added "limited progress on land, and continued disruption of Japanese supply lines by the Korean navy, "

My sentence

"Hideyoshi invaded Korea twice in 1592 and 1596 during the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98). The Japanese armies initially succeeded in occupying large portions of Korea, but the Chinese and Korean forces forced the Japanese forces to withdraw to the southern coastal areas of Korea, where both sides became locked in a long military stalemate.  With Hideyoshi's death in 1598, limited progress on land, and continued disruption of Japanese supply lines by the Korean navy, the Japanese forces in Korea were ordered to withdraw back to Japan by the Council of Five Elders."

Redfoxjump (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

First off, can you explain what issues you had with my previous edit? I addressed all the issues you put forth. I'm refraining from reverting your edit because I don't want to continue escalating this into an edit war.

I already explained to you why I believed that the order should be "Korean and Chinese" rather than "Chinese and Korean", but you failed to address that concern. Since it doesn't seem as though we'll ever agree on that matter, I think it's best to avoid using both terms one after the other.

Additionally, mentioning the "military stalemate" makes it seem as though neither side won during the conflict. If you want to keep that, it only makes sense to add "resulting in a strategic Korean/Chinese victory" at the end". However, I personally don't want to make the section longer than it needs to be. BlackRanger88 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Redfoxjump: You also have to consider WP:BALASPS, which states that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

In this case, the subject of the article is Japan as a whole, including its history, culture, economy, politics, demographics and other major aspects. This section on the Japanese Invasions of Korea is but one part of Japan's feudal era history, and its prominence in the article should reflect that. Because of this, I think that only the participants and the ultimate results of the engagement should be mentioned. Details like the Joseon/Ming pursuit on land are details that are not important when considering the scope of the article, which again, covers all of Japan. I could just as easily add other details, such as the Japanese counterattack, the naval campaigns on both sides and other factors that are important when considering the conflict exclusively, but not important enough to be included in an article that covers all of Japan.

Additionally, you reverted my attempt at compromise without any reason as to why it was unacceptable in your view. I think that is completely inconsiderate, considering that I made an effort at that directly addressed the concerns you listed, which I've re-listed here:

"The Korean loss was greater than the japanese."

"Your sentence does not mention the Chinese."

- My edit addresses both: "Hideyoshi invaded Korea twice in 1592 and 1596, during which heavy losses were inflicted on both sides, including thousands of Korean civilians.[40] The war increased in scale when Chinese reinforcements entered into the conflict, in an alliance with the Koreans. Ultimately, with Hideyoshi's death in 1598, limited progress made on land, and continued disruption of Japanese supply lines by the Korean navy,[41][42][43] the Japanese forces in Korea were ordered to withdraw back to Japan.[44][45]"

I made sure to address both of these concerns you had, while keeping the passage as neutral and concise as possible, yet you reverted it. Since you didn't give any arguments against that edit, I'll go ahead and add it back. If you have any major concerns, I urge you to address them clearly rather than reverting without reason. BlackRanger88 (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"limited progress made on land, and continued disruption of Japanese supply lines by the Korean navy"

It is detail.

Your sentence is not neutral.

Your sentence hides success of the Japanese.

Your sentence hides a military stalemate.

"heavy losses were inflicted on both sides, "

It is wrong. The Korean (and Chinese) loss was greater than the japanese.

My sentence is similar to Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) page. It is better.

My sentence is fair and neutral.

Redfoxjump (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If you two don't stop this infernal edit warring across multiple articles both of you are going to get blocked. You are both discussing on talk pages and edit warring at the same time and causing disruption to the article on what is ultimately a very insignificant portion of the page. If this continues you will both end up being blocked as you are violating the spirit of the edit warring and disruption rules. Canterbury Tail talk 11:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

How Concise Should the Section Mentioning "Hideyoshi's Invasions" Be?

I made this section for un-involved editors state their opinions on the matter. Read the above section for more background regarding the dispute.

I personally believe that this section should remain as concise as possible, since other important conflicts (arguably more important than this one, such as the Russo-Japanese war and First Sino-Japanese war), are explained with just a sentence or two. I don't think that this conflict should have a whole paragraph dedicated to it, considering its relative importance.

As a result, I propose the following revision, which is a slight modification of the stable version before the dispute even began:

"Hideyoshi invaded Korea twice, but due to defeats by Korean and Chinese forces and Hideyoshi's death, Japanese troops were withdrawn in 1598.[34]"

Please tell me what you think. BlackRanger88 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that I agree with User:BlackRanger88 that the description of Hideyoshi's invasion should be as concise as possible. I don't know exactly what the view of User:Redfoxjump is, because his or her comments are too long, difficult to read. Is there a more specific content issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Robert McClenon: Thanks for your response. Redfoxjump basically wants to include very specific events such as the military stalemate that took place during the war. However, given that the descriptions other major wars/conflicts in the article are very brief and don't mention specific events/campaigns, I think that we should avoid including specific events in this one as well. BlackRanger88 (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be minimal, or maybe even struck from the article completely. This article is about Japan, not Korea. While the invasions happened yes, they didn't really have an impact on the development or culture of Japan. In fact there is currently more in there about that than about the Sengoku period itself which was hugely impactful on Japanese culture and the Shogunate. Personally I don't think it warrants mention in such a high level general section in the article at all and should be left to the main history article. Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Canterbury Tail: I think that's a fair assessment as well, especially considering that Japan was involved in a war in its ancient history that isn't mentioned in the article at all. My only reservation regarding striking it completely is that Hideyoshi is often regarded as one of the most pivotal figures in Japanese history, and is significant both because of his unification of Japan and attempted invasion of mainland Asia. Perhaps we could shorten the passage even more by combining it with the previous sentence mentioning Hideyoshi:

"After he was assassinated in 1582, his successor Toyotomi Hideyoshi unified the nation in 1590, who would later launch two unsuccessful invasions of Korea."

For reference, the article currently uses this revision:

"After he was assassinated in 1582, his successor Toyotomi Hideyoshi unified the nation in 1590. Hideyoshi invaded Korea twice in 1592 and 1596 during the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98). The Japanese armies initially succeeded in occupying large portions of Korea, but the Chinese and Korean forces forced the Japanese forces to withdraw to the southern coastal areas of Korea,[41] where both sides became locked in a long military stalemate. With Hideyoshi's death[42] in 1598, limited progress on land, and continued disruption of Japanese supply lines by the Korean navy,[43][44][45] the Japanese forces in Korea were ordered to withdraw back to Japan by the Council of Five Elders."

Please tell me what you think. BlackRanger88 (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Canterbury Tail also. It should be as short as possible. The one-sentence mention proposed by BlackRanger88 is sufficient. Also, the way that the name of the period is tacked onto the end of the paragraph makes it sound like an afterthought. It should be brought to the start of the paragraph. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

So for now, the proposed revision is: "After he was assassinated in 1582, his successor Toyotomi Hideyoshi unified the nation in 1590, who would later launch two unsuccessful invasions of Korea." Please tell me if you have any concerns or any changes to propose.

@User:Athomeinkobe: As for the name of the period, I think that adding that to the sentence that first mentions Nobunaga would be appropriate, since his consolidation of power marks the period's beginning. What do you think? BlackRanger88 (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The ", who would" wording also sounds a bit clunky. I suggest: "After he was assassinated in 1582, his successor Toyotomi Hideyoshi unified the nation in 1590 and launched two unsuccessful invasions of Korea in 1592 and 1597."

Sounds good. I'll go ahead and add both edits in. BlackRanger88 (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Is Akihito a non-heterosexual?

There were claims that Akihito was depicted in a non flattering photo with male partners. The photo was confiscated by japanese intelligence. The main article doesn't include enough information on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.217.139 (talk • contribs)

That would not be appropriate content for this article, as it is far too detailed - if you have reliable sources to support these claims, I suggest proposing them at a more narrow article, such as that of Akihito himself. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Soviet declaration of war

The introduction suggests Japan only surrendered due to the atomic bombings. In reality the Soviet declaration of war on 9 August 1945 and simultaneous invasion of Manchuria were major factors as well. (79.67.113.117 (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC))

Inconsistent population numbers

How come a country can lose 2 million people in five years? According to current population estimates Japan lost 2 million people between 2010 and 2015. I think 2010 number is erroneous. Sheriff (report) 19:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Update: Damn, it's truly losing it. Japan is rapidly losing population—and half the world is about to join it

voting age

The voting age on this article is no longer accurate...it has been lowered to 18 yr olds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.123.136 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. It has been updated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

American English

Just wondering, why is this article written in American English as opposed to another variety? SFSSAnimating (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@SFSSAnimating: There is a custom within Wikipedia that the variety of English which is first used when an article is created is kept. This is to prevent constant battles between people switching between British and American variations. The exception is when the topic is specific to one country, so for example an article about an Australian city should be in Australian English. You can read more about it here. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2016

43.252.244.18 (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No specific request was made, declined. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/exrimpac/abt_rimpac.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.erca.go.jp/taiki/history/ko_syousyu.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/c09cont.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.airports.org/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-212-218-222_666_2__
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mext.go.jp/english/statist/05101901/005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110501141220/http://www.sankei.co.jp/seiron/koukoku/2005/0504/ronbun3-2.html to http://www.sankei.co.jp/seiron/koukoku/2005/0504/ronbun3-2.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140816173655/http://www.worldriskreport.com:80/uploads/media/WorldRiskReport_2013_online_01.pdf to http://www.worldriskreport.com/uploads/media/WorldRiskReport_2013_online_01.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110323165908/http://www.env.go.jp/nature/yasei/pamph/pamph01/en.pdf to http://www.env.go.jp/nature/yasei/pamph/pamph01/en.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151208112614/http://asia.nikkei.com/Markets/Equities/Tokyo-Stock-Exchange-ranked-third-in-Asia-in-2014 to http://asia.nikkei.com/Markets/Equities/Tokyo-Stock-Exchange-ranked-third-in-Asia-in-2014
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101109122744/http://www.oecd.org:80/document/17/0,3343,en_2649_34111_40353553_1_1_1_1,00.html to http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,3343,en_2649_34111_40353553_1_1_1_1,00.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100310203313/http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp:80/en/profile/intro/honor/fields.htm/ to http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/profile/intro/honor/fields.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070321160909/http://www.jaxa.jp:80/index_e.html to http://www.jaxa.jp/index_e.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110430010519/http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=15429 to http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=15429
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070405075716/http://www.fpri.org:80/footnotes/087.200312.ellington.japaneseeducation.html to http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/087.200312.ellington.japaneseeducation.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131217224929/http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/rugbyworldcup2019/news/newsid=2069327.html to http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/rugbyworldcup2019/news/newsid=2069327.html#japan+reaches+rest+asia
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090319120122/http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/index-e.html to http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/index-e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.erca.go.jp/taiki/history/ko_syousyu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

American English

Is there a special reason why American English is strongly used on an article about a country who's native language is not English? 86.185.32.151 (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is the English Wikipedia, so the article will be in some variety of English, whether American or another one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much what Nikkimaria wrote. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

the population

the population of 126 million is the world's tenth largest. Japanese make up 98.5% of Japan's total population. approximately 9.1 million people live in the core city of Tokyo.

more than 126 million is from China, is not the world's tenth largest. about 10 Japanese people live in Tokyo. please classify between from China and Japanese. Yuriko Tanabe (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. Are you arguing that only Japanese in Japan should be considered in population count? If so, I would disagree. Are you suggesting that only 10 people in Tokyo are Japanese? If so, I'd like a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

OP's posts seem to indicate an obsession with some sort of imagined racial purity policy that Wikipedia's policies simply do not support. She seems to believe that marrying a westerner or being a Christian somehow disqualifies one from really being Japanese. I'd be more willing to assume that the "10 Japanese people live in Tokyo" bit is some major typo, but between all the other posts (especially this one), I'm starting to suspect that she's not here to build an encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Photos regarding WW2

Why the only photo about WW2 is the atomic explosion, and not the victims of japan, japanese imperialism or massacres they did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.244.48 (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps because the article is about Japan, and not those other things? There are articles about them which have photos. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

-This is part of the History of Japan and should be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.244.48 (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a general article about Japan - there are many, many things that are part of its history, culture, etc, but we can't possibly include pictures for all of them here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

- But there is a picture of the atomic bomb. So if there's a picture about the History of Japan on this very issue ALREADY, why is it the atomic explosion and not Japan's war crimes all across Asia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.244.48 (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The photo of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki represents one of the most important and most infamous moments in Japanese and world history. Therefore, it has been deemed suitable for a brief paragraph of Japanese history on the main Japan article. Please understand that this is a general article on Japan and includes a very small sampling of all the topics that can be discussed with regard to Japan. However, feel free to add photos and other content in the relevant articles you are interested in on this wiki. User:WoodElf 11:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

For example -https://www.google.co.il/search?q=japan+ww2&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=775&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL-b_do5HOAhXHCcAKHUjTBqcQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=NO1j-CuvJ6xaFM%3A and https://www.google.co.il/search?q=japan+ww2&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=775&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDueinpZHOAhXrB8AKHetTDL4Q_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=japan+war+crimes&imgrc=M_M67RN9IH07HM%3A and https://www.google.co.il/search?q=japan+ww2&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=775&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL-b_do5HOAhXHCcAKHUjTBqcQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=dDFooPosneJ6XM%3A and https://www.google.co.il/search?q=japan+ww2&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=775&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDueinpZHOAhXrB8AKHetTDL4Q_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=japan+war+crimes&imgrc=c9XRmlNl_XMNWM%3A to mention a few. I don't have any wiki account or the knowladge of addinbg photos but I would love if someone do that. This is very important part of History, and expose the full picture that led the atomic bomb. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.244.48 (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but due to copyright and licensing issues, we do not add photos from Google searches. We've already explained why we aren't going to do what you suggest. There's no valid reason to do so. There are scores of Japan-related articles linked to from this article which contain a lot of different photos and other images discussing the topics of those articles in more detail. We can't possibly include all of them here. This is a summary article, and will therefore have only a small fraction of all the possible information on Japan in it. Please stop beating a dead horse. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 14:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait a second here User:WoodElf no one made you judge and jury on which images can and can't be on this article. In fact, it looks like you were the one who removed the image of the Japanese surrender which ended WWII and added (without making any mention in your edit summary) the image of the mushroom cloud. An image which portrays the Japanese as victims of American bombing and not the victims of a totalitarian military regime which led to the deaths of tens of millions of people across Asia and the Pacific is not neutral and not a good choice for this summary "history" section of the Japan article. Next time you would like to change the images on this page please first discuss them on the talk page, get consensus and then state your changes in your edit summary.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I admit I am not the sole contributor to this page. In my humble opinion, the photo of the atomic bombing is more notable (and also makes the article more interesting) than the photo of the Japanese surrender. If you see my original edit, I also reduced the number of photos as they were cluttering up the article and creating white spaces. At the same time, it bears repeating that this is an article on Japan. Japanese war-time atrocities may be noteworthy for those specific countries and territories that were affected, but ultimately less notable in the history of Japan itself. If I may draw an imperfect parallel, the article on the UK does not mention Malaysia or the Malay peninsula at all, but the article of Malaysia gives prominence to the role of the UK in the colonization and development of the country. Similarly, Japanese atrocities certainly have their place, but they can hardly be considered more than a footnote in this article. Personally, I am worried that this obsession to remove any mention of Japanese casualties during WWII, as well as the tone of your comments, may reflect a bigoted "they got what they deserved" mentality that may not be neutral w.r.t. this topic.User:WoodElf 17:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you are not the sole editor but you are the editor who removed the image of the surrender (without mentioning this in your edit summary) and then added the image of the atomic bomb. I'm sure you are aware that the atomic bombings are a controversial topic and since wikipedia should be neutral an image of the conclusion of the war is far more appropriate. A photo of the surrender and conclusion of the war very accurately reflects the content of the section that is all about the war (and not just the two bombings). Wikipedia does have guidelines for when you use images and you were right to remove an image from the section since more than 2 is generally considered too many. What you went too far with was when you removed the existing images and inserted a controversial one without discussing it. The fact that a user has decided to bring this up on the talk page indicated that the change was something significant and should at the very least be discussed on the talk page first. I am reverting the page back to it's previous form and keeping the additional text edits of mine which you also reverted although they are not related to the image discussion.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that the atomic bombing image is more appropriate as that is what most people in the English-speaking world will think of when they think of Japan and WWII. Yes, atomic bombings are controversial (there have only ever been two, and hopefully it will stay that way), but Wikipedia is not shy about presenting controversial information. Controversy != not neutral. Please heed your own warning and stop reverting things without discussing it and coming to a consensus first. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Monopoly, can you please clarify what exactly is "controversial" about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or if their "controversial" nature precludes the inclusion of the photo under discussion in this article? I have noted your point, but honestly the argument does not hold much water. It is inaccurate to say that the photo is controversial or misrepresents history. Please note my earlier comments as to reasons to include it. I also asked that the article not be edited until this discussion is resolved, however you've ignored that and tried to enforce your version multiple times. Please do not instigate an edit war.User:WoodElf 12:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Representing Japan's involvement in World War II with an image of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki is revisionist history that attempts to portray Japan as the victim of the cruel Allies who would bomb cities and kill innocent civilians in order to force the government's surrender. I'm sure that as members of the Japan Group you are aware of revisionist attempts to white-wash Japan's involvement in WWII and to quote the page "Reflecting Japanese tendency towards self-favoring historical revisionism, historian Stephen E. Ambrose noted that "The Japanese presentation of the war to its children runs something like this: 'One day, for no reason we ever understood, the Americans started dropping atomic bombs on us.'" There are many other images that could represent Japan during the 8-14 years of World War II. The article rightly mentions the "Nanking Massacre", (far more commonly known as the "rape of Nanking" in the English speaking world) and editors would be just as right to include an image of that since it is equally described in the text and more aptly describes a longer term phenomena during the the War than the relatively brief Allied bombing (much less the two atomic bombings) of the Japanese home islands. The reason for not including either of these images is that both are included on Wikipedia's list of controversial topics and the signing of Japan's surrender is not. As I mentioned before, you were right to delete the third image image but to delete the non-controversial images and add a controversial one was not correct and that is why I reverted it. It's clear that you did this in a good faith effort to improve the page and, in part, you did improve it by removing the extra image. Still, adding the controversial image and doing so without discussion or even an edit summary has resulted in the creation of this discussion on the talk page and that is why it has been reverted to the status quo ante.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: Wow. You sure live in a bubble. Using that picture does nothing of the sort (except perhaps in your mind). The vast majority of English-speaking people will think either of Pearl Harbor (which wasn't in Japan), or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when you ask them about WWII and Japan. Since this article is about Japan, it makes sense to include a picture of the one incident that is foremost in most peoples' minds that actually happened in Japan. I know absolutely no one (including those many people I know in Japan) who think Japan was a poor, innocent victim in WWII. The articles about Nanking and other atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers during the war can rightly go in those articles. The way you are acting here smacks of ownership, not trying to maintain the status quo. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"You sure live in a bubble."- Could you be any more rude or condescending to another editor? It doesn't matter whether or not you know people in Japan who feel a certain way about WWII. Wikipedia does not work the same as a personal blog. That won't work. Yes, the pages about atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers do have pictures of controversial topics but that's because that's exactly what those articles are about. You won't find images of WWII war victims (much less famine, murder and rape victims) on the pages for China, Korea, Vietnam and that's the point I've been making.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Capital of Japan

According to Constitution of Japan, she does not have a capital. Tokyo is only the largest city where the Palace is and where the Central Government is. Therefore, it should be written: None (de jure) Tokyo (de facto) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.202.167.204 (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The name Wa

I think there is an issue with the wording here. Wa is not a native name for Japan, it was a designation by the Chinese, and Japan considered its use pejorative. Using this here without explanation is wrong, and can be considered a POV. Articles should be careful when words that are possibly pejorative are used. Note that modern Chinese use of the word is meant to be intentionally pejorative. That there is further explanation in other pages is neither here nor there, since the casual reader would not necessarily click on the other page, and may get the impression that it is a native name, and that would be entirely wrong. Hzh (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with your argument; however I was worried about the length of an already lengthy article. In fact, I'd love to know if you're open to making this para even shorter. Please take a look at my proposal below and let me know your thoughts:

The Japanese word for Japan is 日本, which is pronounced Nippon or Nihon. The English word "Japan" possibly derives from the historical Chinese pronunciation of 日本. The Old Mandarin or possibly early Wu Chinese pronunciation of Japan was recorded by Marco Polo as Cipangu. In modern Shanghainese, a Wu dialect, the pronunciation of characters 日本 Japan is Zeppen [zəʔpən]. The old Malay word for Japan, Jepang, was borrowed from a southern coastal Chinese dialect, probably Fukienese or Ningpo, and this Malay word was encountered by Portuguese traders in Malacca in the 16th century. Portuguese traders brought the word to Europe. An early record of the word in English is in a 1565 letter, spelled Giapan.

From the Meiji Restoration until the end of World War II, Japan was formally named Dai Nippon Teikoku (大日本帝國), meaning "the Empire of Great Japan". Today the name Nippon-koku / Nihon-koku (日本国) is used as a formal modern-day equivalent simply meaning "the State of Japan"; countries like Japan whose long form does not contain a descriptive designation are generally given a name appended by the character koku (国), meaning "country", "nation" or "state".

The character nichi (日) means "sun" or "day"; hon (本) means "base" or "origin". The compound means "origin of the sun" or "sunrise", acknowledging Japan's eastward position in relation to the Asian mainland, and is the source of the popular Western epithet "Land of the Rising Sun".

--User:WoodElf 13:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That sounds better I think - the original first sentence repeated what's said in the last paragraph, putting them together makes it read better. It is also better to start with its Japanese name. One thing is that it doesn't tell us how, why or when "Giapan" became "Japan", therefore a sentence or two on the attested use of "Japan" or how it came to be the official designation of the country in English would be useful. I think it is of reasonably length, and compares favorably to other articles such as England and United States length-wise. I notice that you removed the Wa reference, I should say that I don't object to its inclusion (or indeed exclusion) as such, but rather if it is to be included it should be clearly explained because of its pejorative use, particularly in current Chinese usage. Hzh (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Government section should include dominant-party

Government section should be Unitary dominant-party parliamentary constitutional monarchy. For more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant-party_system Also, see Syria's government section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria

Majorb123 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The definition of a dominant party state is a country where the leading party's defeat is unlikely in the future.

Japan's leading party 'Liberal Democratic Party' has been in power since 1955 with the exception of a few instances.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_(Japan)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant-party_system (Even mentions Japan as a dominant-party state)

Now you might be wondering why should we bother adding that to the government section. Because the line is found in articles of other nations that also has a dominant party. (See Syria).

Majorb123 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Dominant-party system lists Japan in the "Former dominant parties" section. Even assuming that the source provided in the lead of the article mentions Japan, it was written in 2006. In recent years the LDP has needed the help of Komeito, so they are not as dominant as they once were. So without a more recent reliable source supporting the claim it will not be added here. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

G8 should be changed to G7 in some cases in this article

Japan is a member of the *G8*, APEC, and "ASEAN Plus Three", and is a participant in the East Asia Summit New and used cars are inexpensive; car ownership fees and fuel levies are used to promote energy efficiency. However, at just 50 percent of all distance traveled, car usage is the lowest of all *G8* countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriNating (talk • contribs) 08:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

...And why should G8 be changed to G7? Your reasoning does not follow your claim. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2016

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population , Japan is now the 11th most populous nation, not the tenth. Legoman5746 (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. The page itself looks like it's tagged with certain problems. If you have a source, re-open here and we can enact the request — Andy W. (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong wording in the Lead

I have two problem with the following sentence and its vague wording in the third paragraph of the lead: "Nearly two decades of internal conflict and insurrection followed before the Meiji Emperor was restored as head of state in 1868 and the Empire of Japan was proclaimed, with the Emperor as a divine symbol of the nation." First: Meiji was not "restored as head of state". The emperors never stopped beeing the head of state, even during the tokugawa shogunate. Although he shogun excercised complete political and military power the Emperor remained the Sovereign i.e. the "head of state". Second: What is a "divine symbol of the nation" supposed to be? I would rewrite the sentence like this: After nearly two decades of internal conflict the imperial court, with the help of several clans from choshu and satsuma, regained political power and established the empire of japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.134.198 (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion, although it should still incorporate a link to the Meiji restoration, as it is commonly known. I'll make the change unless there are any objections. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Just be sure to fix the grammar and spelling issues in the suggested wording. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

As of now the old version is still online, will someone make the edit? 141.76.21.235 (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016

simple change, in the caption for the photo featuring "Kitaro Nishida" under the "Philosophy" subsection, I believe the "philosofer" should be spelled "philosopher." Thanks.

Baconguy123 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016

I want to update population in japan so it would be an accurate number because its actually 13.62 million people living in Tokyo, Japan right now that is why I'm asking for permission to edit I promise that I won't change anything else Babooshki666 (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I am to cautious to add to this protected file

However "Wildlife" or Animals and Flora are not included at all! NB. The carrion crow is abundant in Japan, not only in the Mountains and forests but it has also entered the cities. - Attenborough. D. 1998. The Life of Birds. 1998. p. 295 ISBN0563-38792-0 Osborne 19:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency in era usage?

The history sections of this article mostly use the BC/AD dating system, but at at least two times, they use BCE. Should these dates be changed to BC, or all the dates to BCE/CE? It is really not a big issue, but I don't find it necessary to have both dating systems in the same article. I think changing it would make the article consistent. What do you think? NewByzantine (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

pronunciation of name

It would be useful to have the name clarified a bit. The audio file seems to pronounce it two different ways - with a p and with an h. To write "Nippon or Nihon" is informative, but could be more so. Are these 2 different words? If not, how is "pp" like "h"? (which it isn't in English). Etc. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Check out Names of Japan EvergreenFir (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Letter

"The Emperor of the land where Sun rises sends a letter to the Emperor of the land where Sun sets. Are you healthy "as usual"?" I prefer this. --61.23.104.146 (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no source for this passage, neither the transliteration or the English translation. ja:日本#概説 has the same passage, but written in kanji, so the transliteration into roman alphabet cannot be confirmed. That section quotes a Japanese encyclopedia (p.387-8 of the ja:世界大百科事典, presumably Vol. 21). The sentence is supposedly in the Book of Sui, so we should have a separate source for the English translation rather than making our own. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. In case anyone was wondering, this is referring to the second paragraph of the almost entirely unreferenced section at Japan#Etymology. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

67.53.74.202 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stikkyy (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please dont change the religion japan.. buddhism country... 99%shinto 80%buddhism..... ok??

Please.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlaghksrnr33 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If you meant that the article's information should not be changed: you don't have to make a request for that.

If you meant that the article should describe Japan as 99% Shinto and 80% Buddhist: the article already kind of does.

If you were praying that Japan never changes their religion: that's not a request that Wikipedia is equipped to handle.

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2017

The caption under the map says "areas controlled by Russia shown in green" which is not correct. Bradvertising (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Done It was vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316050633/http://nisee.berkeley.edu/kanto/tokyo1923.pdf to http://nisee.berkeley.edu/kanto/tokyo1923.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917191036/http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-pubs-annolist-japan/main/ramsar/1-30-168%5E16573_4000_0__ to http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-pubs-annolist-japan/main/ramsar/1-30-168%5E16573_4000_0__
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140524003624/http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20140523-00000073-jij-pol to http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20140523-00000073-jij-pol

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usc0001xgp/neic_c0001xgp_wmt.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160508231752/http://www.jnto.go.jp/jpn/news/data_info_listing/pdf/160420_monthly.pdf to http://www.jnto.go.jp/jpn/news/data_info_listing/pdf/160420_monthly.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160327031517/http://www.ifr.org/industrial-robots/statistics/ to http://www.ifr.org/industrial-robots/statistics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency on life expectency.

Howdy, I've noticed an inconsistency in the article.

These are the two inconsistent sentences:

"Its population enjoys the highest life expectancy and the third lowest infant mortality rate in the world."

"Japan has the second longest overall life expectancy at birth of any country in the world: 83.5 years for persons born in the period 2010–2015."

Hope this helped.

--DuckLazers (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Massive changes by Dr.Koo

Dr.Koo made massive changes, including removing images, adding new images, and removing an entire section. I reverted these changes, and he promptly undid my edit without any discussion. How about we discuss things and come to a consensus, Dr.Koo? Obviously, at least one person disagrees with your sweeping changes. This is a featured article, so we need to be careful about such large changes. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the article before the changes by Dr.Koo: [1]
• Here is the article after the changes by Dr.Koo: [2]

Just to make it easier to compare them side-by-side. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I don't consider these to be "massive" changes; he mostly just changed some of the images included, sometimes actually for the better like the images for the government section. I do strongly disagree with his removal of all images and especially the pie chart in the religion section. I think these changes should be discussed image-by-image, section-by-section to get the best results from this discussion. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe. Regardless, the discussion is my main concern, especially with the blanking of a section and the image removals. He is just ignoring the discussion, however. Instead, he posted on my talk page stating "I intended to remove seemingly uninformative/misleading materials from the pages and added new pictures that I find constructive." Then he reverted things and hasn't interacted since. It's very frustrating. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The pie chart in the religion section is outdated. That is the main reason as to why I deleted it. I also added the portrait of the prime minister in the government section and did other minor edits. The only section that I definitely changed a lot is the history section. I have deleted some seemingly misleading, insignificant pictures as I said. Added some constructive pictures, such as the two maps of Japan history. Those are what I call significant informative pictures. ___User:Dr.Koo · 07:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the changes in the history section. ___User:Dr.Koo · 10:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.Koo: I don't think you understand how consensus works. Consensus is not "I made a comment on the talk page letting you know I've made my desired changes yet again." Please stop trying to force through your changes until we can come to a consensus here. I suggest creating a table showing the image you want to replace and the image you wish to use in its place, and explain why you think the change is good. Then let people discuss it. This is a featured article, so changes like what you are doing should always be discussed and a consensus determined before they are made. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The history section first. These are the images I deleted:

• File:Mōko Shūrai Ekotoba 2.jpg
• File:Ｓａｍｕｒａｉ.jpg
• File:Meiji tenno1.jpg
• File:Generals Pyongyang MigitaToshihide October1894.jpg
• File:Umezu.jpg

I am replacing them with these:

• File:Azuchimomoyama-japan.png
  Reasons: To give more information of the period.
• File:Red Seal Ship departs Nagasaki to Annam (Vietnam).jpg
  Reasons: A well-known Japanese merchant vessel. It should be used in its place.
• File:Bank run during the Showa Financial Crisis.JPG
  Reasons: The Showa Financial Crisis. A significant incident of Japanese history.
• File:Second world war asia 1937-1942 map de.png
  Reasons: More information about the course of the war.
• File:Treaty of peace with japan.jpg
  Reasons: Another significant event in Japanese history, sign the end of the allies occupation period and implicitly the war itself.

___User:Dr.Koo · 2:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussing individual images

Okay, so to make it easier:

• Images to be removed:
• 
  R1: needs a reason
• 
  R2: needs a reason
• 
  R3: needs a reason
• 
  R4: needs a reason
• 
  R5: needs a reason

• Images to add:
• 
  A1: To give more information of the period.
• 
  A2: A well-known Japanese merchant vessel. It should be used in its place.
• 
  A3: The Showa Financial Crisis. A significant incident of Japanese history.
• 
  A4: More information about the course of the war.
• 
  A5: Another significant event in Japanese history, sign the end of the allies occupation period and implicitly the war itself.

Let's discuss each of them. You can use the numbers I added for each so the entire title doesn't have to be typed out. R1-R5 for those Dr.Koo wants to remove (they need the reason added), and A1-A5 for those he wants to add. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

To start off, I'm not seeing a valid reason to remove R1-R5. They all work well within the sections they are used. For the images suggested to be added:

• A1 is already used in Azuchi–Momoyama period, so there's no reason to use it here since it's so specific.
• A2 could possibly be used in this article, though I'm not sure where at this moment.
• A3 is referencing the Shōwa financial crisis (and is used in that article), which is not mentioned directly on the page except as a link in the collapsed "Periods" section of the {{History of Japan}} template at the top of the History section. It could be added here, but I don't see it replacing any images already here.
• A4 is in German, so would be best to not use on enwiki.
• A5 would be fine to add, but it shouldn't replace anything here. It's already used in History of Japan.

Those are my thoughts on the suggestions from Dr.Koo. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I would have to agree that the images don't necessarily conflict and most of them, except A5 and R5, could coexist in this article. I don't think we should replace Emperor Meiji (R3) with an image of a crowd (A3). I would say keep R1, replace R2 with A2, keep R3, find another Japanese Empire map to add, and replace R5 with A5. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Why replace R5? The ceremony in A5 was largely ceremonial. The one in R5 was ending the conflict itself,. which I think is far more important to show in this article than "handing over the keys", so to speak. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Replace R5 with A5. A5 is far more significant in post-modern Japanese politics than R5. Moreover, R5 is strictly a form of military etiquette; hence, not official in nature.___User:Dr.Koo · 20:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This one is in english: File:Second world war asia 1937-1942 map en6.png ___User:Dr.Koo · 20:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me coming in on the discussion at this late stage, but I hope I might be able add something that may prevent the the dialogue from stalling. Where I see this could happen is in regards to identifying the most "significant" of the events that designates the end of WW2 and the subsequent restoration of sovereignty to Japan under international law. The reason why I raise the point is that the Japanese government, scholars, and the public (both in Japan and abroad) have been debating this since the "end* ("ending") of the war. In the least a review of journalistic sources of discussions concerning the 全国戦没者追悼式 and the informal 終戦記念日 (which has changed over time) would serve as a guide.

The significant events are: a) the August 14 Armistace when the Imperial government notified the allies they would accept the Potsdam declaration,

b) August 15 玉音放送 I.e. The Showa emperor's announcement to the Japanese people that the government had accepted the Potsdam declaration and the Imperial forces had (were to, upon hearing the broadcast or military telegram) unconditionally surrender,

c) September 2, the execution of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender onboard the USS Missouri, d) September 8, 1951 the execution of the San Fransisco peace treaty with Japan, and or,

d) April 28, 1952, when Article 11 of the San Francisco peace treaty came into effect restoring political sovereignty to the Japanese nation (well most of it, the rest rolled out over years and decades thereafter.

For the most part all of these events have at different times and in different fields of scholarship as being the most important. For my old Iaido sensei, who was a Japanese airforce veteran, and my 97 year old great grandmother-in-law, the Emperor's announcement is by far the most significant event. My father who worked in military intelligence for the other side would state the Armistace was the most important event... Political scientists prefer the execution of treaties and other documents in ceremonial fashion, and for economists, the restoration of sovereignty and the economic benefits that follow is the most important.

I'm sure there a lot of good photographic material out there for all of these events. That is what makes it so fascinating and I guess why we're talking about this so passionately. The Japanese government has tried to please as many as possible too, giving August 15, 2 or 3(?) official titles...I think And recently announced another or related day close to August 15. My opinion is that you could make argument for any of these events being important. So given all things equal, I would ask for what have we to choose from in terms of the quality of the image? And also perhaps what looks good glancing over the article balanced with what looks good close up. I have a personal preference for faces, charts (with good data), and maps (in English). I hope that helps somewhat. Dr.khatmando (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you please add some paragraphs? Your wall of text is very difficult to read and very easy to get lost in. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Ooops my apologies. I hope this is better

@Nihonjoe: Three reasons: the surrender and the restoration of sovereignty are too closely related in time and subject to both have an image in this broad article, we have enough images of the war, and I personally feel the treaty was much more significant than the surrender as marking the official transition to the post-war era (unless we have a third option of adding an image of the Constitution). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I can go with that reasoning. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes me too. I would go for the treaty over the constitution, which looks like any other genpon youshi Dr.khatmando (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Sound good. I am totally fine with that. These are the images to use in the section. I replaced the ww2 map with its English version. ___User:Dr.Koo · 07:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

There is a photo of Yoshida Shigeru signing the treaty by the same photographer (same license as this one). Do you think it's worth considering in comparison to this one? Dean Acheson was Secretary of State, and Yoshida Shigeru is arguably the founding father of the modern State of Japan. Dr.khatmando (talk)|

Please provide a link to it or insert it here so we can see it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I might of got this wrong with how the licensing works. The image I was talking about is the first one below. It's the same photographer as the other one. I did find a second image below of Yoshida originally from the Bettman Archive.

• [[3]]
• [[4]]

My apologies if I've got the licensing mistaken. Dr.khatmando (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

We likely can't use anything from Getty Images. They are a for-profit image supplier. The images would have to be hosted on Commons for us to use them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not think I will contribute to this discussion any further. I had seen the concern raised by nihonjoe on the Wikiproject Japan science and technology taskforce page, and thought I could add value to the discussion. This has led to some kind of WP investigation that I don't fully understand, and just seems like unnecessary trouble. I'm a semi-retired academic, and I've spent my life producing academic scholarship. I enjoy what WP provides because I get to use the tools of my craft, and explore new possibilities for writing. So having to defend my contributions in some adversaries pseudojudicial forum is just a headache for something I do for no remuneration. It's unfortunate there are people lurking on this discussion who wish to cause strive. I think the discussion here has been useful and constructive, and the result will be positive. Dr.khatmando (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.khatmando: I can't find the concern I raised on the "Wikiproject Japan science and technology taskforce page". Please provide a link. As for the stupid sockpuppet investigation, just ignore it. There's no basis to it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok if it's ok to blow that off, then that's good enough guidance for me. Thanks again. The link that originally brought me here was Discussion of significant changes to Japan article Do you think we should discuss the pie chart matter under another talk heading? It's a shame to dump the chart just because the data is out of date. That's stats stuff which I can do if we want that graphic to reflect more recent data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.khatmando (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A photo of Yoshida Shigeru signing the treaty, not the same photographer though.___User:Dr.Koo · 22:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• 

Is consensus reached as for the history section? I am replacing the images if there are no further comments.___User:Dr.Koo · 23:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.Koo: Please summarize exactly what is going to be done since there was discussion of multiple versions of images and such. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Pie chart

Let's discuss the pie chart here. My opinion is that it should remain until such time as we have more recent data with which to replace it. It would be good to add a date to the chart so people can know that information. It should not simply be removed, however. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This PDF (archived here) might be useful. It's from December 2013, so much more current. It will require some study, however, to determine which set of numbers we want to use. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I support retaining the pie chart with a year added to it, and updating it to the most recent data we can find. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)