Talk:Japan

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Archives
2002—2003 2004 2005 January 2006—March 2006 (part) March 2006 (part)—May 2006 (part) May 2006 (part)—Jun 2006 (part) June 2006 (part)—July 2006 (part)

Bad Plagiarism

Could someone fix the plagiarism? It's been on there for quite awhile, and it's not even a good copy. The plagiarism is more bothering than the Korea↔Japan agenda afflicting this page -- I'd edit it myself, but I don't want to touch this article with a 10 foot pole. Falsedef 16:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an example of the plagiarism? Good friend100 16:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It was in the link I provided above: Talk:Japan/Archive_7#Plagiarism, and if one portion is ripped word for word from the CIA factbook, I suspect other parts might be Falsedef 23:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If this article is a candidate for a featured article, then the best thing we can do is find and rewrite all the plagiarized parts. Its going to be a pain, but if the editors are pushing for featured article status, then editing the article again is neccesary. Good friend100 13:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook is a US government publication, which should automatically make it public domain (per US copyright law, read up on it). But a word-for-word copying from the Factbook indicate lack of original writing. I think writers need to be able to write in their original words or the writing is no good.--208.54.15.129 02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments on two matters. First, copying. This article incorporates lots of material from CIA sources. The authors and editors strive to cite sources. If the article fails to cite a source, please help Wikipedia by inserting appropriate citations.

Second, candidacy for featured-article status. The criteria for featured-article status do not list originality as a requirement. Analogously, the criteria for featured pictures do not require originality, and several images from public-domain sources have achieved featured status. Many Wikipedia articles similarly include text from the public-domain Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. To get an idea of how many, you can visit Category:1911 Britannica. And that's just one example of a public-domain source for Wikipedia information. If you find that the Japan article falls short of meeting one of those criteria, please help Wikipedia either by improving the article or by pointing out which passages fail to meet which criterion. Thank you for your assistance. Fg2 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

READ THIS

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,625427,00.html

"I, on my part, feel a certain kinship with Korea, given the fact that it is recorded in the Chronicles of Japan that the mother of Emperor Kammu was of the line of King Muryong of Paekche," he [Emperor Akihito] told reporters.

• • PEAKCHE OF KOREA AND THE ORIGIN OF YAMATO JAPAN

• Japanese Art and Its Korean Secret

Unfortunately, many of Korea's greatest monuments were burned down by the Japanese. National treasures were looted and destroyed. This can give the impression of cultural superiority.

• Who rightfully owns Korean artifacts looted by Japan?

"Historians believe Japan carried away the bulk of its Korean cultural assets during two aggressions: the 16th-century invasion of the Korean peninsula and its 20th-century occupation."

"But the size of the haul is astounding. Eighty percent of all Korean Buddhist paintings are believed to be in Japan. And, says Seoul art historian Kwon Cheeyun, "35,000 Korean art objects and 30,000 rare books have been confirmed to be there, too." That's only the tip of the iceberg: much more is believed to be hidden away in private collections."

"More than 1,000 bronze, gold and celadon pieces owned by the late businessman Takenosuke Ogura now make up the core of the Tokyo National Museum's Korean section. Another precious item is a two-meter-tall stone tablet, originally built in northern Korea to commemorate the country's repelling of the 16th-century Japanese invasion."

Taeguk Warrior 00:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you remember what happened when the emperor declared Korean ancestry? Japan was really quiet. They weren't surprised because they already knew it. Japanese people already know of Korean ancestry, they just don't talk about it. Good friend100 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Japanese are mostly the same ethnic group as Mongolians. Of course, it's nearly impossible to avoid intermingling with Koreans to some degree given the fact that Japan often had a presence in one form of another on the Korean peninsula. What's more, the emperor's line is from the continent as opposed to the island, and his comments were that his line was not so much a mix of native islanders (the Ainu) but originally derived from the continent (he felt kinship with Koreans, who are also derived thusly). Komdori 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why the emperor didn't declare his kinship to Mongolian ancestry, maybe it had something to do with Emperor Kammu and the influx of Baekje scholars, in addition to the influx of Yayoi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Japan#Korean_influences Taeguk Warrior 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Reason to delete Tendai & Kokugaku

Korean often deletes an important event of the history of Japan. They has value that is higher than Begja by these events though they insist, "It is worthless" on this event.

What can be higher in value than learning how to write?

• Tendai　Tendai is a Buddhism sect by which it had a big influence on the history of Japan. The priest such as Shinran,Nichiren,dougen is training with Tendai. And, the political influence power continued until the age of Oda Nobunaga.
• Kokugaku Kokugaku became basic of the Sonnō jōi thought at the end of Tokugawa shogunate. This thought helped Meiji Restoration. And, it has a strong influence on the

militarism of Japan.

Koreans,　Explain the reason to delete this event. --HaradaSanosuke 18:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop referring to people as Koreans. Should you continue to resort to ethnic labeling, you will be reported. Racism is not acceptable at Wikipedia.--Sir Edgar 22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that I have already warned you on your User talk:HaradaSanosuke page. Even one hint of a racist remark by you again and I will do my best to see that you are banned from Wikipedia forever.

If you would like to edit in Tendai & Kokugaku, then do so. But please do not delete other content. I think that's why your edits are being reverted. What you are doing is Wikipedia:vandalism and people don't like that.--Sir Edgar 23:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

These articles were deleted by you. (for the reason worthlessly. )If you understood the value of this article, you should return this article. 　--HaradaSanosuke 18:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Overall, some people need to change their attitude toward Koreans. Good friend100 00:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that in Japan it is still widely believed that 倭国 established 任那日本府 somewhere in Baekje? That was the main evidence for Japanese to deny any significant influence from Baekje, I think. However, as you know, 任那日本府 was a representative example of the manipulated history of Japanese imperialism before WWII. It is ridiculous to say that the culture of Baekje was inferior to that in Japan at that time. Ginnre 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The main point is, Japan was highly influenced by Korea, or Baekje (as some people say "Baekje is not Korea"). I don't think you would disagree with the Japanese royal line, who even admitted their Baekje descent? Good friend100 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

CONFLICTING INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE　(Korean Problem)

In the main article the Yayoi are referenced to be from Korea and maybe China. This agreement was difficultly reached last month because of the overwhelming evidence about Korea and DNA theory adding to the Korea evidence and including South China as well. Then in the bottom summary section people keep deleteing any mention of Korea. Instead it states China as the influence such as Yayoi culture etc. This needs to be corrected. Either the information above about the Yayoi needs new references pointing to mainly China as the Yayoi or the summary at the bottom of the article needs to mention "China and Korea". Please do not let your emotions work against logic and evidence. Tyler11

Please think about the entire balance. And, please have consideration one by one. There are a lot of hypotheses of ancient information. more insistences become edit battles.

I agree. This article is about JAPAN, not Korea and korean history. We should think about the balance of the article. Gegesongs 15:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is also not about China, America, England or Germany but can't exclude them if they are a part of your past, You can't just say this is about Japan and exclude ALL these countries.

With respect to the Yayoi, "Korea and maybe China" is wrong. This needs to be corrected to "Korea and China", due to the evidences relating to human DNA and rice.--Endroit 15:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Having a common ancestry is not the same thing as the Korean ancestry of the Japanese. If they share some ancestors, then they just share some ancestors. It doesn't necessarily follow that the Korean nation became independent out of the supposed common ancestral tribe first and then the Japanese diverged from the Koreans. Indeed DNA researches suggest that the Japanese and the Koreans diverged from each other way earlier than when the Koreans started identify themselves as "Koreans" or whatever name of the ancient kingdom that the Koreans claim to be theirs. --Hermeneus (user/talk) 05:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You can say the same for South Chinese who are not part of Chinese culture yet but bring the rice cultivation to them and Korea. Why is it ok to only write Chinese when we are talking about people from South Chinese region and people from the Korean region. Please stay consistent. If you wish to exclude Korea then bring in the evidence and references and change the above information about Yayoi in the main article to match the summary. Tyler111

What same thing? The point is that DNA is DNA and it's got nothing to do with Korea or China or whatever other nation influencing Japan in the Yayoi period or later. BTW login and sign your edit with "~~~~" rather than hand-inputting username. Hermeneus (user/talk) 10:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

???What??? DNA is DNA which traces Japanese to Korea, then further traces Koreans to Manchuria, China and South China. I didn't understand the point of the above paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.96.104 (talk • contribs)

DNA doesn't "trace Japanese to Korea, then further traces Koreans to Manchuria, China and South China." The DNA research only shows that the Japanese and the Koreans share the same ancestors. It doesn't say which originated from which. Hermeneus (user/talk) 07:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

But if you look at the DNA evidence and combine it with archeological and linguistic evidence you can further trace Japanese to Korea then trace Koreans to Mongolia, Manchuria, China and South China. But you are right if you only look at the DNA evidence and ignore the other historical records like artifacts/archeology and linguistic roots, then all you can conclude is that Japanese and Koreans share a common ancestor and Japanese are closest to the Koreans genetically. But why would you want to ignore the other evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk • contribs)

You are the one biasedly selecting evidences that support your theory only while deliberately ignoring evidences that are contradictory or unfavorable. DNA is DNA. It doesn't absolutely substantiate your theory. Neither do other evidences. It's only your biased selection and interpretation of evidences that make your theory appear right. Stop trying to impose your theory on others as if it's the ultimate truth when it's only a weak hypothesis at best, and show some understanding to the supporters of rival theories. Hermeneus (user/talk) 10:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

All I asked was why would you want to ignore the other evidence and only rely on DNA. Do you believe that PBS and other american historians who did archeological research in East Asia are all biased? And what are they being biased on. Yes, these historians relied on archeological, artifact and carbon dating information. What are you talking about? Contradictory and unfavorable to what or who? I'm just pointing out what a simple Google search will tell you, which mainly states what the current beliefs and theories are. Don't get me wrong if later lots of new carbon dated artifacts or new archeological evidence is found the current theory might change again, to what it will change to who knows. The current belief is information flowed from China to Korea then to Japan. And I did say you are right if you only look at the DNA data you can not conclude anything other than Japanese and Koreans sharing a common ancestor, in addition to Japanese being closest to Koreans genetically. But why would you ignore the other evidence? --4.23.83.100 11:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You are the one alleging that it is "conflicting" to remove some references to the Korean influence on Japan in ancient times while retaining info on the Chinese influence when there is "overwhelming evidence" such as a DNA research that "traces Japanese to Korea." Like I pointed out earlier, in reality the DNA research proves nothing like what you claim, and therefore your allegation on "CONFLICTING INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE" is invalid.

If you want to include some info on the Korean influence on certain aspects of the Japanese society in ancient times, then state spesifically who influenced what and when with concrete citation of objective sources. Stop complaining in general terms because it won't get you anywhere. Hermeneus (user/talk) 12:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The conflicting information I was talking about were about Yayoi, how the citations and references state Korea as the main source, and is mentioned in the above paragraph, then in the summary only China is mentioned with Yayoi. Yet the citations and references mainly state Korea & (China to a lesser extent.) The DNA information is not conclusive other than Northeast Asians may have similar ancestors and would mainly be relevent to rice cultivation, the other technologies would not be relevent cause South Asia didn't have these technologies at that time and other people have pointed out that rice cultivation was a Southeast Asia region idea which included what is today South China but South China was not part of China back then. If we try to write all this in the sentence, structure of the sentence would get all weird and you would have run on sentences, so if we just write Korea and China and write a link for articles on bronze technology, shamanism, burial rituals, rice cultivation, pottery in NE Asia, it would be concise and the presented information would match the noted citations. --Tyler 13:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Conflicting information" only exists in your head. Like I said earlier be spesific and discuss each topic individually first before talking about summary. Hermeneus (user/talk) 13:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well how much more specific do we need to get, we are discussing each topic individually, look at all these references below from multiple sources, not just one source from one nation.

1. Many people from Korea emigrated to Japan. Those people brought rice cultivation and metal work to Japan during the Late Jomon Period. Jomon people started to learn and practice those new things. The cultural effect from Korea was reflected in the shape of earthenware vessels, tools, technology and society in Yayoi period. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/japan/yayoi/yayoi.html

2. According to one estimate, Yayoi Japan received several million immigrants from Korea, utterly overwhelming the genetic contribution of Jomon people (thought to have numbered around 75,000 just before the Yayoi transition). If so, modern Japanese are descendants of Korean immigrants who developed a modified culture of their own over the last 2,000 years. http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2350.html

3. The Yayoi period brought also the introduction of iron and other modern ideas from Korea into Japan. http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2131.html

4. Unlike Jomon pottery, Yayoi pottery was very similar to contemporary South Korean pottery in shape. Many other elements of the new Yayoi culture were unmistakably Korean and previously foreign to Japan, including bronze objects, weaving, glass beads, and styles of tools and houses. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so191/PacificRimReadings/JapaneseRoots.html

5. In this sense, a very great part of Japan's origins, both culturally and ethnically, can be traced back to Korea. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ getarticle.pl5?nn20020312b6.htm

Etc, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk • contribs)

An assembly of sketchy secondary sources of unknown credibility don't mean much. Either they have no info on the authors or the auhors are not academic historians who could represent the mainstream opinion of the field of Japanese history. On the other hand the authority of Encyclopaedia Britannica is well established, and it states that most of the cultures that came from Korea to Japan in ancient times were originally from China (or continental Asia). [1] The Britannica article is not so much "conflicting" with the sources that you cited above but is only more spesific, accurate, and credible. Hermeneus (user/talk) 11:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your looking at two different points in time. The Yayoi period is thought to have started at 300 BC (migration around 400 BC). The point in time Britannica is talking about 108 BC. We are looking at a 200 year difference. The Japanese references that I brought above are actually more specific and is letting you know more in detail of what happened in the prior 200 years and the migration & technology transfer at that time of 300 BC. If you believe Japanese sources are sketchy I don't know what to tell you other than there are more sources from studies done by PBS, American, British and Korean. Please read the archive citations from months ago above. And actually if you look at the sources they are from academic historians of mainstream opinion, please re-read all the citations and references even the ones in the archive sections. No one is denying that rice cultivation was of Southeast Asian origin (What is today South China), but your looking at 200 to 300 years in difference. Trying to confuse people by writing about two different points in time as if they were the same is not right, Please be honest. --4.23.83.100 12:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, a bunch of sketchy secondary sources of unknown or unacademic authorship don't amount to anything. State what name scholar, with what credentials, argues what culture came from Korea to Japan when and in what manner, based on what primary sources. Otherwise there is no argument and Britannica stays. Hermeneus (user/talk) 13:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please be honest, do not try to confuse people by talking about two different points in time as if they are the same. Please read more than one book :)--Tyler 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ther is no confusion. The bottom line is that your biased selection of sources have very limited credibility whatever time period they may be about and so don't merit reference at all, whereas the Britanica article is legit and should stay. Hermeneus (user/talk) 13:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Are a Chinese character and the Buddhism the cultures that arose in Korea?　The original of the Buddhism is India. And, the root of the Buddhism sect in most Japan is China. Who has succeeded to the Buddhism of Korea?　--HaradaSanosuke 11:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But Japan based their root on Chinese buddhism cause Korea was based on Chinese buddhism. The people from Korea brought it to Japan initially and you can't just bypass that cause you have the names of the men who brought it and the king who commissioned it. You can't compare Japanese buddhism to Chinese buddhism without mentioning Korean buddhism cause then you can see the transition in practices and the differences which appear from Japanese to Chinese make since when you study the Korean practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.96.104 (talk • contribs)

Please write the Korean's name. --HaradaSanosuke 16:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look below the names are written. King Seong of Baekje, King Widok of Baekje and Goguryeo monk Hyep'yon (Keiben in Japanese), please also read the referenced material below and the books on Buddhism in East Asia.

The problem is, many editors believe that Korea was only a "gateway" for Chinese culture to Japan. That is not true. Korea passed a lot of Korean culture as well as Chinese culture. The Buddhism we are talking about is general. Although Buddhism is different thouroughout each country, that doesn't mean Buddhism never came from Korea just because "Japanese Buddhism is different". Good friend100 21:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please write the Korean's name. (For instance, Ganjin,Ingen etc)

If you look below the names are written. King Seong of Baekje, King Widok of Baekje and Goguryeo monk Hyep'yon (Keiben in Japanese), please also read the referenced material below and the books on Buddhism in East Asia.

Is that a joke or something? Your links are names of Chinese people. Are you saying that Korean and Chinese names are the same? Also what do you mean by write the Korean's name? Good friend100 03:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he want to know who brought Buddhism to Japan. Please teach him the name of Korean who brought Buddhism to Japan. >Goodfriend 100 Gegesongs 13:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, here are the names:

See Korea - A Religious History by: James Huntley Grayson p. 33

Buddhism went from Northern Wei (China) to Goguryeo/Baekje (Korea) to Yamato (Japan).

• 372 Buddhism is introduced to Korea and Goguryeo (see Korean Buddhism for this)
• 384 Buddhism is introduced to Baekje (see Korean Buddhism for this)
• 538 - 552 Buddhism is introduced to Japan, as King Song of Baekje sends Buddhist statues and scriptures to Japan, which is under Emperor Kimmei and Soga clan
• 560 Goguryeo monk Hyep'yon (Keiben in Japanese) goes to Japan
• 554 - 587 King Widok of Baekje sends more sutras, statues, monks, nuns, teachers, and artisans to Japan
• 607 Empress Suiko of Japan sends an envoy to Sui Dynasty of China to copy Sutra (see Buddhism in Japan)

--Endroit 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats like asking somebody who invented fire. Or asking who brought Buddhism to Korea. Buddhism went to Japan by means of Korean Buddhist monks, traders, missionaries, etc. There is no specific person. >Gegesongs, Harada Sanosuke Good friend100 20:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" vs. "Imjin War"

Please join discussions at Talk:Imjin Wars. I think the correct title of that article needs to be Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea. This is based on my Google Books count, which represent citations of scholarly materials....

• 204 instances of "Hideyoshi" AND "invasion of Korea"
• 76 instances of "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" OR "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea"
• 37 instances of "Hideyoshi" AND "invasion of China"
• 22 instances of "Imjin War" OR "Imjin Wars"
• 6 instances of "Hideyoshi" AND "seven year war"

Note: The last page of the search was used, as that appears to show the actual number of links. (Google searching has its peculiarities.) When viewing details within the above links, click "PREVIOUS" repeatedly to see the rest of the material.

Invasion of Korea comes out on top, while Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea is 2nd place. However, because Invasion of Korea is used in the context of "Hideyoshi" anyways, Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea is a more appropriate name.

Also invasion of Korea outnumbers Imjin War(s) by a factor of 9 to 1. Hideyoshi's Invasion(s) of Korea outnumbers Imjin War(s) by a factor of 3 to 1. Also, Imjin War(s) is usually never used in the Japanese context, as most instances have the word "Korea" prominently in the book title, topic, chapter title, etc., proving that it is used mostly in the Korean context, and not in the general context.

Finally, all mention of "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" in this (and all Japan-related articles) should use "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" rather than "Imjin War".--Endroit 17:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I live in Japan. However, I have not heard the fight of the Imugen river. Wikipedia of Japan is named "Bunroku-Keicho-NO-Eki"ja:文禄・慶長の役. --HaradaSanosuke 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In Japanese it may be "Bunroku-Keicho-no-Eki", but in English--in the Japanese context--it is commonly called "Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea" or simply "Invasion of Korea". "Imjin War" is almost never used by other scholarly references in any Japanese context, English or Japanese.--Endroit 17:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As the original request said, please join the discusstion at Talk:Imjin Wars. Discussion here at Talk:Japan is likely not to be read or taken into account when a decision is made about Imjin Wars. Fg2 00:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert only the part of your concern

Dear reverters, please be careful and do not cancel contributions that are not of your concern. --LittleTree 01:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Heisei era

What were written in the subsection 'Heisei era' of 'Modern era' were about post-war period of Showa era. Nothing to do with Heisei era. So I made a subsubsection in the previous subsection 'Meiji, Taisho and Showa eras' to put the sentences in. Then, there is nothing in 'Heisei era'. Looking back in the history, some descriptions about Heisei era were removed by the edit of '06:06, 14 July 2006'[2]. At that time, the subsection was named 'Modern Japan'. Then the subsection was renamed to 'Heisei period' at 04:05, 21 July 2006[3]. So I temporarily restored what were removed before. Any comment?--LittleTree 02:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Literature

I have completely rewritten this section, which was written in SHAMEFULLY HORRIBLE ENGLISH. As I have stated elsewhere, these additions are very hard to read, and are confusing information, often strongly biased as well. It was not the case here, though. However, some sentences were thrown completely randomly... and without references, it goes without saying. I have taken out Higuchi Ichiyō of the list of "representative" Japanese writers. And changed "typical" to "representative", if there is such a thing. "Typical" is a terrible adjective. Essentialist, and completely ignorant of the diversity of modern Japanese literature. I have replaced her by Tanizaki, arguably a more central writer in the literaty canon. Shogo Kawada 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Editors speaking English as a second language should either post their information on the talk page for others to edit and then insert into the article. Good friend100 00:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Korea Problem

Accoding to Encyclopædia Britannica　[4]

• In 108 BC the armies of the emperor Wu Ti occupied Manchuria and the northern part of the Korean peninsula, where they established Lo-lang and three other colonies. These colonies served as a base for a strong influx of Chinese culture into Korea, whence, in turn, it spread to Japan.
• 　The dead were buried in either large clay urns or heavy stone coffins. Both were common in northern Kyushu and neighbouring areas; similar urns and coffins also are found on the Korean peninsula, where they probably originated. The graves were usually marked by mounds of earth or circles of stones, but a special type employed a dolmen (a large slab of stone supported over the grave by a number of smaller stones). Since the erection of dolmens was widely practiced in Manchuria and Korea, these, too, are believed to be a sign of an influx of continental culture.
• 　While these new cultural elements represent a migration to Japan from the Korean peninsula or China, the migration was not of a magnitude to change the character of the people who had inhabited the islands from Jomon times.

Please make it to an easy sentence.

"Yayoi Japan received several million immigrants from Korea, utterly overwhelming the genetic contribution of Jomon people (thought to have numbered around 75,000 just before the Yayoi transition). If so, modern Japanese are descendants of Korean immigrants who developed a modified culture of their own over the last 2,000 years." http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2350.html

Well, alot of the discussions above are about Yayoi in 300 BC, which is 200 years before 108 BC and if you read the Korea section of wikipedia there is an article on Lolang (the other 3 posts were destroyed immediately) and it's ramifications on Korea. Then you have to relate this to 4th, 5th and 6th century AD Baekje, by which time Lolang was destroyed and alot of Chinese culture was modified or additional indigenious culture was incorporated, in addition to indigenious culture of the peninsula to begin with. Every one is aware of the flow of information. From China to Korea then to Japan. Being chronologically sensical is important.

If you read the paragraphs above (Not sure who put the paragraphs there) but you can see indigenious culture being incorporated. "Both were common in northern Kyushu and neighbouring areas; similar urns and coffins also are found on the Korean peninsula, where they probably originated" Also, lets remember the time points considered to be important in relation to the Korea Problem which was the influx of Yayoi in 300 BC and introduction of Chinese writing system and Buddhism on a mass scale around 538 AD.--Tyler 09:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please consider these facts when making an easy sentence.

Sir Edger, Baekje is not being written in the source at all. And, the source is not writing the relation between Japan and China at all. Can the source be trusted?

??Sir Edgar?? Is their a discussion going on here in private, I didn't know Sir Edgar posted anything yet. I only brought one reference but their are another half dozen above and more than a dozen in the archive section up top. The Baekje references are also above you and in the archive section. I was only mentioning Baekje cause it is part of the Japan article with references that keeps getting deleted or modified. The point in time the above paragraph are about 108 BC Quote- "While these new cultural elements represent a migration to Japan from the Korean peninsula or China, the migration was not of a magnitude to change the character of the people who had inhabited the islands from Jomon times." I wanted to point out that the discussions "Korea problem" was not about 108 BC but about 300 BC Yayoi information and 4th thru 6th AD Baekje information. --Tyler 12:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. You are not speaking the topic of Baekje. The topic of Baekje is reserved. By the way, did Japan import a Korean culture?　Did Japan import the Chinese culture?

It wasn't a result of imports. The Baekje court retreated to Japan after being conquered and passed Korean and Chinese culture to Japan. Good friend100 13:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Country size

"At over 377,873 square kilometers". I find this clause confusing. If we have information on the country's size down to the exact kilometer, why use the word "over"? MarkBuckles 23:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

New template

Hope u all appreciate the new template i created for the "misc. topics" section.WoodElf 10:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sixe of this article

This article is 66kb long, which is more than double the recommended size... someone, anyone, a wikiwizard, PLEASE help reduce the size of the history and economy sections. WoodElf 10:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Today's Korean POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Japan&diff=66786785&oldid=66784734

The Yamato Court which was probably a Baekje colony, concentrated in the Asuka region, had the strong influence in West Japan and the southern part of a Korean peninsula. During the 5th and 6th centuries, Chinese writing system, Buddhism, advanced pottery, and ceremonial burial were all introduced by the Korean kingdom of Baekje, to which Japan provided military support.

It can't be denied. Good friend100 00:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph above has valid references, but it will be difficult to get the wording of the paragraph in a way that won't be vandalized. The inclusion of disregarded theories about tribute or Japanese relation with the southern part of Korea needs to include the current theory of an expedition force from Baekje. Or we can state that the exact nature of the relationship is unresolved. I think the current version were the exact nature of the relationship is not resolved is more neutral and better. --Tyler 13:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

>Tyler111 You know Gwanggaeto Stele? Recent theories of scholars in China, Japan and Western countries usually accept that the epigraphy is genuineness and so they think that Japan had some influece to South Korean peninsula as the epigraphy. Please give us some materials to show "Japan was probably a Baekje colony". I know many materials to give us the reverse interpretaion, such as a hostage of Baekuje's royal family. I don't think that Baekje was Japanese colony, however, hostages must be needed to form an alliance in ancient times. But the advocacy that Japan was Baekje's colony is ridiculous after studying them. Mythologia 13:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mythologia, you don't know about the conspiracy theories on the stele? Japanese interpretation is highly suspicious because it looked like tempered by some Japanese imperialists around the beginning of the 20th century Ginnre 15:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article ever mentions that "Japan was a Baekje colony". Ginnre, it didn't "look like it was tempered" it was vandalized. It is a known fact that after Korea was annexed, some Japanese people rewrote some information on the stele. The authencitity of the stele was challenged by Lee Jin-hui in the 1970s. And the stele was an important part of Korean history, now gone because of that cruelty. Good friend100 01:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

>PEAKCHE OF KOREA AND THE ORIGIN OF YAMATO JAPAN--Tyler 07:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

List of blocked sockpuppet account users.

The following is a list of people who were blocked indefinitely for using sockpuppet accounts, primarily to engage in revert wars involving Japan-related articles:

1. HaradaSanosuke aka Kamosuke

2. Mythologia aka Shougiku Wine

The above persons have also used abusive language against other Wikipedians and, despite previous warnings, insisted on making statements that are in violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civil, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. They also made numerous racist remarks (often misdirected), while accusing others of being racist.

We assumed good faith believing that these were different people we were talking to. Instead, they turned out to be the same people using coordinated, despicable tactics for political purposes.

Not only were your edits misleading and inaccurate, but also poorly worded and lowered the quality of this article. You did not contribute to Wikipedia. Instead, you damaged it and you hurt other Wikipedians with the insulting remarks you made along the way. Your crude remarks and baseless accusations only made your country look worse. Instead of thanking people for making a good Japan article, you only focused on a few Korea-related references with a vigorous obsession that was tasteless and offensive. You are pitiful.

Nobody will take you seriously any longer. You have no right to be a part of Wikipedia. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

In addition, the following users have been blocked for 3RR violation:

1. Questionfromjapan

2. Komdori

If there are others, please add them to the list so that we may know which persons to ignore.--Sir Edgar 05:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar is correct. However, I'd like to add to what he said, and point out that it works both ways. Dollarfifty aka Appleby was also a sockpuppet.

If you must, see the following for recent sockpuppet confirmations:

1. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kamosuke
2. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Appleby

Mind you, both opposing parties had sockpuppets. However, WP:Assume good faith. I'm sure the sockpuppeteers are capable of making positive contributions, given a chance. Although they've used sockpuppets to revert-war, Wikipedia is lenient enough to forgive them if they play by the rules. We'll see if they behave in the future. Also, if anybody sees a problem with the wording, please discuss here and bring it to everyone's attention. Don't just revert-war, and please, don't break the rules.--Endroit 06:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: While Endroit wrote above that "both opposing parties had sockpuppets", thats not entirely accurate (or at the very least could have been worded better (no offense). An editor unfamiliar with the situation reading those words could be lead to believe that both "groups" coordinated sockpuppets to engage in an edit war. But in actuality, the Appleby group was based on, from what the checkuser report said, only one person and so could not be an actual physical group of real people while the checkuser report for the Kamosuke group states that it seemed "quite possible that there's substantial meatpuppetry going on" as well as the sockpuppetry. [5].

I guess we should move on and try to improve Wikipedia now that this episode is over. So I hope we can keep it breezy, keep it bright, and always keep it semi homemade. Tortfeasor 08:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite shocked that Appleby was running a massive puppet show. I thought many of his posts were very reasonable in the past. But I don't think Wikipedia should be used in a dishonest way like this. Regardless, I don't think his actions were as disruptive or harmful as the above mentioned, at least not from what I've seen in Japan-related articles.--Sir Edgar 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What is a relationship between my modifications and vandalism? I feel this is an obvious personal attack. You clearly teate me as a troll. I am not a troll. I require you to delete your insult and apologize to me.--Questionfromjapan 22:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't really have to take it seriously. Its just an extremely strict warning, which I believe is neccesary in these related articles. I don't want scribbles all over the talk page by vandalizers and I don't want suddenly new users that have sharp knowledge of the articles.

I agree with Sir Edgar, I believed Appleby to be a good editor, but that wasn't the case. It hurts everybody. Good friend100 01:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Motto of Japan

A user wrote that the motto of Japan is "Peace and Progress". However, the user has no information about it (See Talk:Peace and Progress) and it is really doubtful. I think this should be removed.--Mochi 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Attack of the Korean who used 13 puppets

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HSL

Is not Korean's propaganda stopped?

Don't be a racist and say like this in WP.Ginnre 03:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

massive rewrite

Hi all,

user:220.212.100.227 made a major rewrite of Japan. I thought I should mention this and that I reverted because it was already a FA. Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 17:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting a lot of people's work and keep this article evolving and chaning

I don't know who wants to stick with the old version of the article, but should article must evolve and continue to evolve. Suddenly people waking up and reverting like 3 months worth of work should not happen. For three months there were consensus and evolution of the article, so there shouldn't be any huge reason to revert back. 168.253.17.46 23:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. There was not consensus, only multi-ID vandals and anonymous accounts working together to insert a nationalist agenda. This reduced the quality of the article. Now, it's being returned to its original quality with all valid updates since. Thank you for your comments though, User 168.253.17.46...--Sir Edgar 00:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no "nationalist agenda," this is common and get use to it. Take a look at Germany article, that article is full of nationalistic, heroic, and perhaps more seriously Nazi (German superior) intention in it. So small bias is always there, so I wouldn't suggest you bring it to the opposite side. I would suggest accept some facts and bias to a certain degree, but don't revolutionize this article. Yes there was consensus, if you look at the discussion and edits, otherwise it is reverted very quickly. So don't get twisted. 168.253.17.46 01:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous accounts "working together" how do you know that, where is your fact and evidence to pull an assumption like that. You don't have evidence, so I wouldn't suggest you bring your ideas in larger degree and try to make it a big impact on the article as a whole. UK, Germany articles are all nationalist, heroic, greatest, white great articles. accept it and move on. 168.253.17.46 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to say, it would be a lot better if you would get a username. Its easier to identify a user and its more formal. Good friend100 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear 168.253.17.46, the article was stable for a much longer period of time prior to the sock puppet invasion. So, there was nobody was trying to "revolutionize" it, just revert it to the original version accepted by more people for a longer time. I don't think your "accept it and move on" comment is very responsible.

I would be interested in seeing an alternative introduction that is less history-focused, but the one that you support has very little useful information. For example, do we really need to know that, "At over 377,873 square kilometers, Japan is the 62nd largest country by area." This sentence doesn't even make sense. How much "over" 377,873 square kilometers? Is being the 62nd largest country by area something significant and worth mentioning. The answer is no.--Sir Edgar 04:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are in violation of three edit rule if you revert one more time. 168.253.17.46 04:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well even if that's the case that a normal common sense people will understand that over means "just over". Also including like 3 paragraphs worth of history in the introduction is "boring" and nobody wants to ready boring article. User comes in and wants to read about the economy have to read 3 paragraphs worth of history and then get on with it. That doesn't make sense. It should be short and to the point, take a look at Germany. Also that 3 paragraph historical introduction is sounding little patriotic to Westerners like "We the white people laid the foundation for Japan, they were just barbarians back then, now they are second largest economy and people should know that and give credit to us." Seriously. Just think about it a lot and if you have ever taken college course in writing, writing should be interesting concise and organization should be strictly maintained within sections. Intro should summarize the article in whole, without giving periods and divelging into years opening, closing, bombings, etc. I think that is totally unnessecary to this article. I also think the history should be expanded and the whole article should be expanded in general. 168.253.17.46 04:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The article is already too long. You seem to contradict yourself in by lecturing me on how to write concisely and then suggest that "the history should be expanded and the whole article should be expanded in general". Are you even thinking clearly?

Regardless, as I've said before about the introduction, I'm willing to entertain alternatives though.--Sir Edgar 05:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You can write much as you want in the history section, I don't care, just don't write the history in the introduction section. Move that information down to the history section and expand it. 168.253.17.46 00:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Do you really think USA and Germany articles are very descriptive also?

2. Discuss the history in the history section, it is convoluting the main introduction, it's much more about its history

3. When you say it has been stable for long time, doesn't mean it's good. What if people didn't care?

4. This one is not "sock puppet" That is your judgment, not necessarily others.

5. You are in serious violation of the three edit rule of wikipedia my friend. That is policy violation. 168.253.17.46 04:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's necessary we would need to lock down this article, until this dispute is resolved. Let's see what others think. 168.253.17.46 04:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement about 3RR rule violation. No such thing occurred and if it did please feel free to make a report.

By the way, kindly register your account. I am certain we will conduct another sock puppet search shortly.

And LOL about "lock down". Lock down to what? An inferior version? :)--Sir Edgar 04:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No not an inferior, version, you are consecutivally doing 3 reverts less than 24 hour period and have done that consistently and that is violation of a policy, that's why you have to come to the talk page and discuss it before you violate the policy. "Inferior" that is your judgment, not necessarily others. Yes lock it down, make no one can edit this until we solve your revert problem. 168.253.17.46 04:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds more like your problem. You seem nervous and insecure about the revert to the original version. I know eventually the better original version will prevail and I am willing to take my time to make sure of that.--Sir Edgar 05:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's other people decide. What I'm only doing this is making it similar to other countries articles that are much more developed and cleaned out. Let's just wait and see, and my main problem is that introduction being too historical and extremely biased towards the west, that's my concern. Let's wait. 168.253.17.46 00:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've re-inserted the previous introduction. I have deleted some unnecessary information though, such as "Japan is the 62nd largest country by territory, etc." I think it still needs some work though.--Sir Edgar 06:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you make a wikipedia account. Its more polite to the other editors, instead of barging in without a name or something. Good friend100 03:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Official name

I did some searching on the web, and I can nowhere find any confirmation that Japan is officially called the "State of Japan". Could someone please look into this?

Sir Edger

Please do not do a large-scale edit without obtaining consensus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Japan&diff=next&oldid=67192147

The previous version never got "consensus".-- Sir Edgar 23:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Japan&diff=67540030&oldid=67537924

The article on Edger has worsened further. A lot of information is deleted, and Korea is added.

Incorrect. The article's been returned to its "A" quality. The Korea information was always there, but only deleted by immature haters.--Sir Edgar 02:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Edger, Aren't you immature haters?　--220.212.101.110 14:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

His purpose is not to write a historic fact but to satisfy their own pride and to look down on Japan. Japanese had better to falsify and exaggerate Korean history. The articles about Japanese is NOT for Japan but for Korea. Gegesongs 15:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

How are you so sure about your knowledge on Japanese history? In this article Korean influence is not described in an appropiate way. If you want to insist based on historical facts, learn them first. But not only from Japanese source. Ginnre 21:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't assume what other people do. It just makes you look bad. Sir Edgar is trying to help the article. If you believe the "Koreans" are at fault think again. Other the past several weeks, editors have repeatedly deleted all the information about Korean influence on Japan. That is considered vandalism.

"Exxagerate Korean history". Ummm, no, its not exxageration. The fact that some Japanese ancestors are Korean and Korea greatly influenced Japan cannot be denied. Good friend100 23:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that these anon accounts are all the banned users. If this is true, then that is truly pathetic. This is just a guess though and we must assume good faith. But they're still anon accounts working together and making false accusations which are offensive.--Sir Edgar 01:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Who deleted "Government and politics" section?

Who deleted that section, that was major vandalism and someone should've caught that. No sections should be deleted at all without consensus and from spur of the moment. 168.253.12.197 04:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar don't do massive revert

You are deleting sections that were added to make this article more comprehensive, you are removing these sections. This is absurd. What is your problem? 168.253.14.129

I am returning to previous version that was more stable longer and was a Featured Article.--Sir Edgar 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ask rest of the editors, if that's what they want first. Ask first and then get a consensus. Period. 168.253.14.129 00:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

When you're all done, please fix the rugby disambig problem that I fixed in the middle of this edit war. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To-do list

Based on the opinions we received during the article's candidacy for featured status, we have the following tasks:

1. Solve the edit war
2. Improve the religion subsection
3. Format two external jumps into references
4. Add citations to the first section on history, including statements on pottery and the Ainu; land bridges, migration from Southeast Asia, Book of Later Han, military budget, fishery, religion, education
5. Remove weasel words
6. Remove excess links to "dictionary items" and clean up stubby paragraphs.
7. Write Natural Resources section. Mention anime, manga, computer games in culture section
8. Complete all sections, especially Major Cities and Fishery
9. Add up-to-date information to Fishery section

Fg2 05:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

More To-do things:

You guys really need to fix the Yayoi section. If you go in to the Yayoi article, it talks about the Origin as being 300 BC from (2 main thoeries) Korea/China. We are talking about 300 BC. Not 108 BC. But the Japan article here keeps deleting references on 300 BC Korean migration and only state China as the source in 108 BC, while using Korea as a bridge for the Chinese to go to Japan. But if you go in the the Yayoi article it theorizes about Korea as the source for Yayoi culture and also theorizes a Chinese migration as well. Endroit, I know you have always stated that Korea and China via Korean peninsula was the correct term when people were using Korean peninsula only or Korea and possibly China as the source for Yayoi. Please stand up and comment about the new version like you did for China, now that the situation is reversed. Endroit if you had problems with the earlier versions you must have problems with this new version which is one of the worst summarizations we have had so far. Endroit since you have commented so much in the past Yayoi discussions, I hope you make a similar suggestion here. Where did you go when we need you, did you go on vacation, I hope you come back from your leave of absense and stand up for the article to make it a better article like you did before. --Tyler 09:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the Korean still continue the propaganda that uses the sock puppet? The evaluation of the article on Japan fell on B by Korean's ravage.　Most Japanese are not interested in Korea. Could the Korean stop the stalker to Japan? 　

This comment is obviously from a racist. Don't behave like this in WP. And please sign your ID. Ginnre 03:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't go away. It's just that, I was trying to figure out where the consensus was. There appears to be multiple editors in Japan supporting this particular POV, and a few of them had their accounts blocked due to sockpuppetry. However there are many valid users as well, and I believe we still need to work with them. I have this theory that in the Japanese language, the word "Korea" is translated into 朝鮮 "Chōsen" (Joseon}, which strictly refers to Korea AFTER the 14th century in the Japanese language. And this may be part of the problem: The translation of this Wikipedia article into the Japanese language made the article seem false to them. As proof of this theory, look at the Classical section. They have kept the word Baekje but deleted the word "Korea". I have a feeling that if you used words such as Silla and Gaya in the Yayoi section as well, it may be more agreeable to them. Also, perhaps if we use "ancient Korea", it may be translated into 古代朝鮮 "ancient Chōsen", and may be acceptable to them? Who knows. I don't know if forcing the word "Korea" to them is working at this point.--Endroit 16:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Silla, I distinctly remember Kamosuke suggesting this source, which talks about the origin of 陶器 tōki (advanced pottery?) in Japan to be the Izumo region, but originated in 新羅 (Silla). This source cites the stories about a Silla prince as well as about Susanoo in the Kojiki.--Endroit 16:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The word of "China" overflows in Japan though Chinese doesn't operate a puppet. It is only Korean that information on Korea is necessary. Most of the Korean culture is included in a Chinese culture. Hangul was invented in the 14th century. The sect of the Korea Buddhism doesn't influences Japan. We do not want to cooperate in the propaganda of an arrogant South Korean(VANK). Thank you.

The edit battle quieted down by ending Appleby. Please avoid the topic of Korea.... Please interest in the topic of Japan.

The edit battle is still happening. If you look at the history section in the Japan article, you will see at least 4 to 6 reverts a day. The only difference is that people who sign in do not seem to violate the 3RR rule. Oddly now we seem to have multiple anon. users. Anyways, we were discussing the references that keep getting deleted for Yayoi. And yes we know about the banned Japanese sockpuppet and meatpuppet runners and we know about the Appleby being warned for his part in the sockpuppet issue. But you still can't just delete references. If you change the Japan article to not correlate with the Yayoi article then you have to change every other article that mentions the Yayoi and delete all the references in those articles without a reason being given for the deletion. I'm going to try what Endroit suggested and put in ancient Korea and see if that is left alone or if Japanese nationalist propaganda with weasel words will come back to mislead this article. At least the old version wasn't constantly being accused of weasel words. --Tyler 05:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Officially protest "Sir Edgar"'s massive reverts and edits

I would like to officially protest edits that happened more than 6 times by User:Sir Edgar, which is this one [6]. Please sign your name saying protest and no protest below.

He is deleting sections, and his only claim is that this was "featured article" now he is saying it should be reverted back not caring how much edit expansion was added to this article. He is deleting expanded section. We are getting vandalized more because of this previous "featured article" status article. Sir Edgar don't ever think of reverting back, don't even try, it will be reverted back as long as you keep doing it. Don't even try. If you don't like it, then copyedit it, don't be lazy and selfish and keep reverting people's work. 168.253.21.234 05:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Officially request this article to be "locked" because of Sir Edgar's vandalism

I would like this article to be protected from Vandalism from Sir Edgar's edits. Please lock it down as long as we don't get vandalized and threatened with reverts from Sir Edgar. Admins please lock it down, until we get sufficient editors to counter Sir Edgar's selfish one sided edits and returning this article to simple form. Please lock it down! 168.253.21.234 05:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the funniest post I've ever seen at Wikipedia yet.

I propose that it be locked to the version that made it a Featured Article and was stable for much longer than the one proposed by anonymous user and his/her crew of vandals (many of whom are now banned indefinitely for using sockpuppet accounts and engaging in vicious attacks against other Wikipedians). It is obvious that these are the same (or similar) people who have been disrupting Wikipedia recently and they should be ignored.--Sir Edgar 06:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This article should be locked, to stop your threat of revert, threat to expansion of this article, threat to change, threat to betterment of this article, threat to advancement of this article. Someone please lock this article. This is serious. So is your basis that "Featured Article" should forever stay the same and accept no changes? Please lock it down. Don't ever revert back, don't even try. 168.253.21.234 06:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You have no evidence for this. Please!!!. Someone just lock it, to make this article sane from User:Sir Edgar. Please lock it down, let's get some constructive discussion going on with other editors. 168.253.21.234 06:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is when referenced material is being deleted by anon users. Sir Edgar is only bringing in multiple references/citations. That was why Sir Edgar's version was considered as a featured article. If you look at the new version there was an overwhelming amount of objections against the article to even be a candidate. (Please refer to, To-do list discussion section for new candidacy request; opinions we received). Also, please stop using Japanese references (written in Japanese) as a single source of certain paragraphs. This is difficult for English editors who can not read Japanese. Please only use references written in English for English version of wikipedia. Please use multiple references versus only one reference to get a general consensus. Please do not use only one reference to lead the direction of the article in a certain way. --Tyler 07:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

74 KB

The japan article is now 74 kb long... WAY too long.WoodElf 12:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the source is that long. On screen there are closer to 50 KB but that's still too long. We should cut relentlessly. Details belong in the main articles, not this overview article. I think the article also has far too many visuals. Fg2 12:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we follow Wikipedia:Summary style. Dump some of the text into their respective "main articles". I suggest starting with Japan#Economy section, since that material seems to be less contentious. I believe we need to sync that section with the Economy of Japan article.--Endroit 16:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should go back to Sir Edgar's version which was shorter.--Tyler 06:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the article on Edger, information on Japan is short. And, information on Korea is long.

Anime

Anime was added. --61.209.162.75 18:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)