Talk:Japan/Archive 11

Templates at the end of the article
We have nearly a dozen templates at the end of the article. Are all of them desirable? If not, which ones are redundant or of lesser importance? Fg2 05:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The recently added sea articles. They are the biggest but provide the least useful information. Do we need to link Chile and Fiji to Japan - they are on opposites sides of the world? --Merbabu 05:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Whaling in Japan
This articles contents should be incorporated into the country article page given that Japan is unique in a global minority of countries that still carry on the practise. Like Norway they have argued to the IWC that it is an integral cultural aspect of their nation, yet it isn't mentioned anywhere on the page. 211.30.71.59 07:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems like a relatively small part of Japan to be squeezed into an already cramped article. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 04:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first user that whaling support by Japan and the fact that it is in the news every year should cause it to be part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.28.132.30 (talk) 03:18, February 21, 2007 (UTC)

Korea was not the only source of Chinese culture for classical Japan
Korean Peninsula had three kingdoms. Koguryo( Koma in Japanese), Paeckje ( Kudara in Japanese, Shilla ( shiragi in Japanese) southern tip kingdom Minama ( includes Cheju Province and Tsushima Island). The closest Kingdom that had closest ties with Japan was Paeckje ( Kingdom of 100 followers) and Shilla. The kingdom that transfer Korean and Continent culture was Paekje Kingdom. Yamato, Nara, Asuka culture was based on Paekje ( Korean kingdom). The Chinese script and Buddhism were introduced by ( Paekje Korean Kingdom Monk) He wasn't chinese. The first pottery culture came from ( Paekje invasion to Japanese island). The horse riding theory by Japanese historian Igami Namio. You really cannot separate Korean Kingdom or Korean contribution to Japanese culture. Geographically, Race, Linguistically, Politically, etc.

Chinese writing, Buddhism, advanced pottery were not "all introduced by Korea." Chinese Buddhist monks and commoners also went directly to Japan either by sea or through Korean peninsula. There is a reason why a lot of Japanese kanji have 呉音 (Go-on) pronunciations. Go-on was based on the Chinese dialect (呉方言) spoken around Nanjing/Suzhou in southeast coastal China (呉越地方). The ancient name for Suzhou is Go 呉. There is no way Go-on could have came from Sino-Korean, unless you believe a lot of Southern Chinese lived in Korea during Baekje. If Southern Chinese can reach Korea, they could reach Japan too. Japan's earliest book Kojiki was written based on kanji in the Go-on pronunciations. The idea that everything that Japan got from China had to be first filtered by Korea is not substantiated. More like modern quasi-fascist Korean propaganda.

While quite a bit of Chinese culture might have been introduced via Korea's Baekje, there is also a lot of evidence suggesting direct communication existed between the Chinese and Japanese during the first millennium, particularly from the Chinese coastal region near the Yangtze River Delta (Shanghai/Suzhou area), which has direct one-way sea current to Kyushu. --Naus 18:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

FA nomination?
I think we seem to have got most of the problems sorted out, apart from petty vandalism (which we can't do much about). Shall we focus on a general check for grammar, spelling and the like? If it comes out a-okay, would someone like to list for FA? John Smith&#39;s 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Give me a break. This article is so POV. It just goes to show how overwhelmingly pro-Japanese Wikipedia is... and infested with anime-lovers, Japan nerds, members of the Chrysanthemum Club, etc. There is virtually an article for every little aspect of Japanese society on Wikipedia and it is all written POV. Each article is written to maximize a positive portrayal without balance, even deleting facts or twisting the truth.


 * For example, a report by the United Nations has said that racism in Japan is "deep and profound", but look at the following in the Japan article:


 * "Immigration, however, is not popular as recent increased crime rates are often attributed to foreigners living in Japan both by the National Police Agency and in popular Japanese media. But despite public views on foreigners, the Japanese in general do not mind foreigners in their country, and this is pointed out when comparing the increasingly common inter-marriage between Japanese and foreigners, but opinions on "rebellious" foreigners are still strong. Ethnic issues are improving, so there is a narrow but strong chance that if more foreigners enter Japan, and decide to marry another foreigner or Japanese resident, this may increase the chance of the population growing again.


 * Can you say "weasel words"? The use of "but" twice in the same sentence to try to explain away things. What a JOKE of an article... You people should be ASHAMED of yourselves. How can you allow this??? Ridiculous.


 * It seems the Japanese-American-British Alliance still dominates here... Shameful.--Sir Edgar 04:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish I could just delete all the contributions I've made to Wikipedia. All of it. I can't stand how people selectively pick and choose the content that I've created using it towards their own biases in such a blatant way. Assholes.--Sir Edgar 04:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This used to be an A-Class article. Certain people brought it down to B-Status by twisting facts, using weasel words, and adding convoluted sentences to "explain away" things. It should not be a Featured Article until these issues are resolved. I don't think that's possible with the group that is editing the article right now.--Sir Edgar 00:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest going for GA status first. If we can get it there, then FA would be a good next step. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  00:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A beautiful vase that has small holes at its bottom is still a worthless vase.--Sir Edgar 08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Edgar, there isn't that much wrong with the article. Stop making mountains out of molehills! John Smith&#39;s 13:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attacks which do not belong here. Please do not use this talk page to bicker back and forth. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  06:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion in Japan
Although the original religions in Japan were Buddhism and Hinduism (the two religions borrowed from China), what part of the century was Christianity brought to Japan? --PJ Pete


 * Not sure about Hindu, and I'd call Shinto original. Christianity arrived in 1549 with Francis Xavier. Fg2 07:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah; many elements of Hinduism may have been absorbed into Japanese Buddhism, but the Japanese never practiced Hinduism per se. LordAmeth 09:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity was brought to Japan in the 16th century? I don't think so, it was brought to Japan in the 19th century. Shinto is a false religion, am I right? --PJ Pete


 * Christianity was definitely in Japan with nationwide spread (07:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)) in the 16th century. (It might have been known to a very few people several centuries earlier, but I've never heard of any converts or practitioners.) As for Shinto, what is your definition of a false religion? Fg2 07:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a movement in the late Meiji period to absorb Shinto into "traditional culture" and to essentially declare it no longer a religion. To this day, many (most?) Japanese will follow certain ritual traditions of both Shinto and Buddhism while insisting that they're not religious, just traditional. Essentially, Shinto (the Way of the Gods) is of course a religion, but Meiji-era ideology and other 19th-20th century developments in culture and ideology have turned people's perceptions of it. (PS I don't mean to speak for PJ Pete; I do not presume to know what he was referring to.) LordAmeth 09:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

why doesn't this article say anything about the Kirishtan Holocaust during 1596-1597? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.149.188 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Because (a) this is a very general overview article on every single aspect of the country; Wikipedia's not hiding it or anything - see Edo period, Sakoku, Kirishitan, and Religion in Japan for more. (b) It's simply not as significant an event, considering the whole full range of Japanese history (or world history) as some sources might make it out to be. It was certainly not a Holocaust, and was not nearly as systematic and widespread as some sources may indicate. It was still a significant development, absolutely, within the context of missionary history of East Asia, religious history of early modern Japan, etc, but not, I would argue, within the broad spectrum of all that "Japan" or "Japanese history" or even "Edo period history" encompasses. I hope I am not reading too much into your question and am not being too harsh in my response. Simply want to be clear, is all. Merry Christmas! LordAmeth 21:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation?
The article Park golf about a game ingvented in Japan includes the line "Every year, in Japan, August 9 is declared 'Park Golf Day' in hopes of raising the profile of the game." Does anyone know how to confirm this? RJFJR 05:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, 8/9 can be pronounced as Pa Ku; so it is not completely unreasonable. Sorry, no real answer though.  Speaking of which, does anyone know if there is an article about some of the other number pronounciations (like, 11/22 is ii fuufu, a popular day for marriage; etc).  Neier 06:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a little bit in Japanese abbreviated and contracted words. It's not specifically about number pronunciations. Also a bit in Japanese mobile phone culture. If you write an article, you can include May 30 (gomi zero), the usual story about 8-9-3 (yakuza) (whether it's true or not I don't know, but it's repeated often enough to be a good example of a number pronunciation even if it's not the actual derivation of the word), 39 (sankyu, "thank you" which for example McDonald's once used as a promotional price for a hamburger), 42 (shini, "death") and 4219 (shiniiku, "go to [one's] death": see ja:ナンバープレート (日本)), くノ一 (a female ninja, "ku-no-ichi": if you put the three together you get 女). Daytime television programs have lots of ads with catchy ways to remember the telephone numbers; these can provide examples. Newspapers and weekly magazines have many of the same. Fg2 07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an article about Goroawase. --Kusunose 08:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's a new one on me! Fg2 08:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I just realized that you probably were asking about an official Japanese gov't declaration or something. That is not likely.  I just found http://www.ipga.jp/01/pg-day.html which is not what I would call a solid reference, but, it at least shows that the park golf association refers to it that way. Neier 06:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what I was looking for. Thank you everybody. RJFJR 13:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who knows Japanese history...
Did the Japanese adopt a lot of the culture from China, or is it because the Japanese did originally come from the Chinese, and brought the culture over to the new land? Because someone tells me that Japan has a history of adopting other cultures (whichever is the most dominant) to better themselves; first they take the culture of China, then, when they found out about the dominance of the Europeans later on, they started to adopt their practices (and started using guns, etc). The Japanese also tried to take over other areas and lands (imperialism) during the time of the second World War, to immitate the success the Europeans had -- such as the Rape of Nan King. The person told me that Japanese just have a constant habit of adopting to new cultures -- according to him, it's in their culture AND in their bloodline to imitate the most dominant culture. Any of these theories true? Is it just in their nature and personallity? I would think that all other cultures are guilty of the same thing -- to adopt a more dominant society's culture (it's just survival). I don't know enough of Japanese history, or other World history for that matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.51.27 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Well, as with any historical subject it is much more complicated than is able to be concisely explained, but I'd be happy to cover the main points.
 * The Japanese are not ethnically originally Chinese. The influence from China came largely after the Japanese were settled in Japan as their own people, with their own culture, etc. China was to Asia in many ways what Greece & Rome were to Europe - the dominant ancient culture which others sought to emulate.
 * The Rape of Nanking is by far not the whole story to Japanese imperialism, it's just the one point that racists and anti-Japanese extremists choose to focus on, and has absolutely nothing to do with "imitating the success of the Europeans." Japan invaded China, Korea, and other parts of Asia for, essentially, three reasons: (1) national gain - Japan needed land, natural resources, etc. (2) they sought to prove their power and worth to Europe, so that Europe might view them as equals on the world stage, and treat them fairly politically and economically, and (3) in order to help sweep away European dominance from Asia - motivated allegedly by some sort of feeling of brotherhood with the other Asian nations, and seeking to ally with them to maintain their independence from Europe.
 * Admittedly, most of what your friend says is not incorrect in the details, but it sounds as though he is coming from a fairly racist, anti-Japanese (possibly pro-Chinese, pro-Korean) point of view, and has framed the whole thing in the wrong perspective. As you say, every country does what it can to get ahead, including "borrowing" or "adopting" cultural elements, technology, etc, from others. And that's basically what Japan did. Korea borrowed from China, too. China borrowed from Europe, England borrowed from Wales and Scotland...
 * Um... I guess I've hopefully clarified things a bit. Please feel free to ask further questions... only by understanding the true motivations behind historical events, rather than viewing them through the lens of another culture's basic assumptions and biases can we hope to discover the true story of history. LordAmeth 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

koku
Is koku measurement? If it is, then why is it an element of so many names? Particularly regional names? And, most especially, the official national name?

This period also saw the first use of the word Nihon (日本) as a name for the emerging state.

This period also saw the first use of the word Nihon (日本) as a name for the emerging state.

Can you provide depth to?:

Nippon

Nihon

nihongo

Thank You.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta &#124; &#91;&#91; &#91;&#91;%c2%a1]] &#91;&#91;%c2%bf]] &#91;&#91; %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 17:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Koku~country (国) and Koku~measurement (石 or sometimes 斛) are different characters and have unrelated meanings as far as I know. As to "depth" ... I'm not sure what you are looking for.  In the current article, see: The characters that make up Japan's name literally means "the sun's origin", thus Japan is also sometimes known as the self-identified "The Land of the Rising Sun", a name that comes from the country's eastward position relative to mainland Asia.  Nihon and Nippon are alternate readings of the "sun-origin" characters (日本) ... "go" (語) is a character that roughly means language, so Nihongo is literally "sun-origin-language", or perhaps a little more eloquently, "the language of the Land of the Rising Sun".  I hope this helps! CES 18:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Wikipedia has an article on Names of Japan. It has more depth. Fg2 21:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Style clean-up - Economics section
I've gone in and fixed some of the more glaringly awkward phrases in the Economics section, such as the redundant "For example such as..." But I am not too well versed in financial/economics jargon, and there is one more phrase I think ought to be looked at again. "the Tokyo Stock Exchange, with a market capitalization of over 4 trillion USD." This sounds odd to me, but I have no idea how to fix it. How is "market capitalization" supposed to be used in context? Thank you. LordAmeth 10:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article?
I think this article should now be nominated as a GA. Any seconders.?

--WoodElf 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be nominated. John Smith&#39;s 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it stable enough? Are we truly done arguing over "China and Korea" vs "continental East Asia", and over the phrasing of references to Korea/Baekje's early cultural influence? LordAmeth 18:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, and no. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But Hong, people like you are never satisfied and never try to resolve anything on the talk page. If we have a vote, will you shut up? John Smith&#39;s 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I will "shut up" when this article accurately reflects its sources. And please do not personally attack me.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * HongQiGong, you appear to have violated WP:3RR. Please also watch for WP:POINT violations as well.  Everyone, you need to discuss controversial changes beforehand, if it may be against consensus.--Endroit 18:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realised that after you mentioned it. My first revert within the last 24 hours was actually before I went to bed last night.  I apologise.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So maybe you should self-revert as a sign of good faith. John Smith&#39;s 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hong, so what you're saying is that you will always push your POV even if every single editor disagrees with you? You're not even willing to respect the views of a majority of editors? I would be. John Smith&#39;s 18:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Please don't put words in my mouth.  I am saying I will always edit to accurately reflect the sources cited.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So if you take part in the poll below, will you respect it? Yes or no, please. John Smith&#39;s 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If the poll justifies bad editing and inaccurate information as per sources cited, then I think the poll is meaningless. Please read WP:POLLS.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you should have refused to take part. You can't use a poll to push for your own POV and then reject it if you don't like the result. So either strike out your vote and boycott it/comment further, or let it stand and agree to be bound by the result. John Smith&#39;s 19:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, please read WP:POLLS. Polls are for probing opinions and are not binding.  I wanted to participate in the opinion probe that you initiated, so I voted.  And again, please don't put words in my mouth.  I am not "pushing my own POV".  I am pushing for information on this article to accurately reflect its sources.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So you won't respect the result of the poll if you don't like it, then. Ok, I just wanted to be absolutely sure on that. John Smith&#39;s 19:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, please read WP:POLLS. Polls are not binding, and are for probing opinions.  A poll does not justify bad editing and inaccurate information.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "The lady doth protest too much, methinks!" John Smith&#39;s 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I only want the article to reflect what its sources say. I believe you were the one that kept harping on me to discuss and to take part in a poll, only to complain, or "protest", about what I have to say.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're both wrong.

How to refer to the spread of "influence" from the mainland to Japan - AGAIN
History) is based on facts. Lets keep things simple based on facts. The word Korea derived from the kingdom called " Korguryo" it was largest Korean kingdom in Korean peninsula. Again Korean peninsula and people existed in Korean peninsula along before Japanese existed in Japanese island or people living in Manchuria. The Chinese have no idea about Korea or Korguryo Kingdom because " Manchuria" wasn't part of China or Chinese Dynasty ( Chinese kingdoms).

Spread or Influence) Japanese never had contact with Chinese. Only contact Japanese had with Chinese was Okinawa and WW.11. During Yamato, Nara, Ausuka, Mongol invasion. The culture, Race migration or Race intermixing, Political ties or War was done by Korean Kingdoms or Korean penisula. Its historical reality. All educated historicans knows this. Its a historical fact. So again lets not argue with historical facts please!!!!

We've already had a discussion on this, but certain parties are still not satisfied. So I would like to have another discussion on this and a vote. This should be the final time we talk about this, to the point where if any editors try to insert their desired interpretation in we should agree to revert it back even if we secretly might prefer it. This is to be honest a ridiculous argument, so we shouldn't waste much more time on it. John Smith&#39;s 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Poll
This is a poll to resolve the issue of how we can refer to the transition of culture to Japan in the relevant part of the "Jomon and Yayoi eras" section of the article. The one problem last time was that people could vote multiple times for multiple suggestions. This time we should vote once for what we prefer.

This poll should last two weeks from publication. For either option to be regarded as having sufficient support, it must have a majority of votes supporting it.

Please sign underneath the option you wish to choose for the disputed part, stating Support Option X. If you vote you are agreeing to be bound by the decision of a majority of votes - if you reserve the right to edit as you see fit, do not take part.

Options
Option 1

"The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from China and Korea."


 * Support Option 1 - Because it accurately reflects the sources cited. And also, I want to point out WP:POLL.  This poll is meaningless if it justifies bad editing and inaccurate reflection of sources cited.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You have waived any complaints over the validity of the poll by voting, as I mentioned above. If you want to claim option 2 is unacceptable, then you should have commented first. John Smith&#39;s 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read WP:POLLS. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. - I think "continental East Asia" is a copout. LordAmeth 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd be fascinated to learn more about potential connections between Japan and SE Asia in the early formative period; but as the vast majority of sources out there say China & Korea, and have very specific things to say about it (so-and-so first introduced Buddhism to Japan in X year in such-and-such a way...); until we have the kinds of sources that back definitive statements about what was brought from Viet Nam, Champa, Kamboja, whatever, in what year, etc, ... LordAmeth 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - More importantly, the sources do not day that rice farming, iron and bronze making come from "East Asia". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. You're right; that's why I've voted for this option. But I really must say, since becoming an editor on the 'pedia, I've become increasingly tired of such debates. "East Asia" or "continental East Asia" or whatever is a copout, and a compromise, but it's not wholly inaccurate. I would much much rather see Stability here than to push through my personal opinion of how this should be phrased. Whichever result is agreed upon I will absolutely respect and go along with - it's about time we all got over this, and let it be, so that this article, and others, can be relatively stable. LordAmeth 23:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Option 2

"The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from continental East Asia."


 * Support Option 2 John Smith&#39;s 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Option 2 Hidvegi.gabor 19:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Option 2 This MSN Encarta citation shows a possible Mongolian connection. This DNA study shows a likely Southeast Asian connection.  Therefore "Continental East Asia" is the most accurate wording.--Endroit 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Option 2 or the following HongQiGong/Endroit compromise from the discussion below:
 * The Yayoi period, starting around the 3rd century BC, marked the influx of new practices such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery, brought by migrants from the Chinese mainland and the Korean peninsula. With the development of Yayoi culture, a predominantly agricultural society emerged on the Japanese archipelago.
 * --Endroit 13:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - So we can add Mongolia along with China and Korea as cultures that influenced Yayoi Japan. And if I might note, the sentence in question here talks about how rice farming, iron and bronze making were introduced to Yayoi.  Do those sources say that these things were introduced to the Yayoi culture by Mongolians or Southeast Asians?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Option 3

"The Yayoi period, starting around the 3rd century BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from the Chinese mainland and the Korean Peninsula."


 * Support Option 3 Talking about China and Korea in this time period is a clear anachronism and "Continental East Asia" does sound like it is trying to hide something. This article shouldn't be about promoting nationalist agendas, it should be about accurately reflecting what historian currently believe to be the case. If people think there is clear evidence that there was a significant number of immigrants from other areas (although I live in Japan, have read lots of books on the subject in Japanese by serious Japanese scholars, and they are all pretty much in agreement (and do not try to deny) that the influence was from the mainland and the Korean peninsula), I would be open to adding "primarily" before the word "migrants", although I don't think it is necessary at all.-Jefu 23:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, was there such a thing as the "Chinese mainland" then? What overseas territories did China have? Second I don't think that is actually a valid vote, as you've just stuck this in the comments section. I have modified the title until we can clear this up. John Smith&#39;s 23:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course there was. It is a geographical term (like Korean Peninsula). Note the distinction with "Mainland China", which is a geopolitical term. And I don't understand why this isn't a valid vote. Are you the only person who can decide what options we have to choose from?-Jefu 23:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia actually redirects "Chinese mainland" to "Mainland China", so it might be confusing - maybe you could think of something else, given people have raised questions about other Asian influences as well. Also the vote was in some respects invalid because you put the new option in the comments section - which made it look like you were arguing for a third option to be included. I was not "deciding" you couldn't have another option, I was trying to make things clearer. John Smith&#39;s 23:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. Sorry for misplacing the new option. That was unintentional. And if someone can think of a better term, I would be open to it. But I think Wikipedia's redirect is wrong and should be fixed. Mainland is the noun and Chinese is a modifier, and this term refers to a geographical location. Geographical names are retroactive, but geopolitical terms (like Mainland China, where the noun is the political entity known as "China") are not, and I think there is a very clear difference between the two. In Japan it is just referred to as "the mainland" and everyone knows what you mean. Outside of Japan, however, you need to add a modifier to distinguish it from other mainlands. The question is what that modifier should be. "Chinese mainland" gets over 1 million hits in Google. "Continental East Asia" gets about 800. And rather than tryin to catalog where all of the influences came from (all of which will almost certainly be minor, compared to the mainland and the Korean peninsula), I think we could just add "primarily", although, like I said, above, I just don't think this is necessary.-Jefu 00:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing with google hits is that "Chinese mainland" is often used casually - sometimes in the way you think it shouldn't. John Smith&#39;s 00:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, which is why I only quote them to show relative frequency among alternatives, and only when the difference is as significant as one million to eight hundred. But Google quotes or no, nothing changes the fact that the noun here is a geographical term and not a political entity. Do you have a different suggestion as to how we should refer to the geographical location? You even use the unmodified word "mainland" yourself in the title of this poll. I just think mainland, without some modifier, could be considered misleading to some. I continue to believe there is nothing wrong with Chinese mainland, but how about Asian mainland.-Jefu 02:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You could have mainland Asia - but in that case why distinguish the Korean peninsula? Why not just say mainland Asia and be done with it? John Smith&#39;s 10:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Poll opened. John Smith&#39;s 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hong, the article you actually added to the reference says "A new wave of migration from the Asian continent began arriving on the island of Kyushu and islands in the Tsushima Strait beginning around c. 200 BC." Note "from the Asian continent". It does not say "China and Korea" all the time. So it does rather suggest you can say from Asia in a more general respect - option 2 is even more specific than that. John Smith&#39;s 19:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement that is sourced is not specific about migration, but about how rice farming, iron and bronze making were introduced to the Yayoi culture. And if you read the next paragraph down from what you've quoted here, it said "The sudden emergence of the Yayoi culture had a profound impact on Japan, an impact that far surpassed even the transition imposed by the Industrial Revolution. Japanese culture changed almost overnight, as 8,000 years of cultural serenity was suddenly replaced by a very advanced culture that bore all the marks of China's Qin/Han culture. The three major symbols of the Japanese Kingdom:  the bronze mirror, the sword, and the royal seal stone are exactly the same as symbols used by the Qin Dynasty."
 * And I want to add, I really don't understand the resistance in noting specifically China and Korea as sources of influence on Yayoi culture when so many sources specifically mention the two, instead of noting an ambiguous "continental East Asia". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hong, I don't understand why you consistantly refuse to accept any opinion other than yours gaining precedence on the article. The edit was adopted because of a dispute some time ago. It was thought better to have a more general term that was not just limited to China and Korea. That was what was thought then, maybe people have a different opinion now. It is unfortunate you are being so stubborn when others here have shown they are happy to accept a consensus and move on. John Smith&#39;s 22:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not my opinion of anything. The sources specifically mention both China and Korea.  That's what the article should reflect.  You seem to be skirting this issue and using a non-binding survey poll to justify an inaccurate edit.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct that China was the most important influence to Japan. The Britannica article on Yayoi credits Chinese colonies in Korea for the introduction of Chinese culture into Korea and Japan.  It says:
 * These colonies served as a base for a strong influx of Chinese culture into Korea, whence, in turn, it spread to Japan.
 * Lelang commandery (Lelang, also called Lo-lang, Luolang or Nangnang) was the most successful of these Chinese colonies. Read more on "Chinese commanderies" here, in Gina Lee Barnes' book.
 * In fact the technology transfer was specifically "from China via Korea", and NOT "China and Korea" (ie: it didn't originate in Korea).--Endroit 15:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as a side-note, I would like to stress that any consensus arising from the poll can of course be modified subsequently. At the moment I am trying to resolve a very specific conflict to improve page stability. LordAmeth has very graciously said he will respect the poll result - I wish other people would do the same. John Smith&#39;s 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed, after much revert-warring and disruption. See the following:
 * Previous discussion: Talk:Japan/Archive 9
 * Previous poll: Talk:Japan/Archive 9
 * If anybody is interested, there is an older discussion during the revert wars:
 * Old discussion: Talk:Japan/Archive 5
 * Pay particular attention to the "Previous poll" above. A consensus for "continental East Asia" had been reached previously.  If anything I believe that wording that uses the word "mainland" or "continental" had consensus over specifically mentioning "China" and "Korea".  And I believe that's still the consensus.--Endroit 15:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, please read WP:POLLS. Polls are meant to be surveys and they're not binding.  Having said that, the sources specifically say "China" and "Korea", not the ambiguous "continental East Asia" or any of its derivatives.  That's what the article should reflect.  It's more specific and accurate.  It's really very straight-forward.  Read the sources.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It says "Chinese colonies in Korea", NOT "China and Korea". As I stated above, "China and Korea" would be inaccurate.--Endroit 16:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of the three existing sources for the statement in question, only the first one listed makes mention of colonies in Korea. Two other sources were taken out by User:John Smith's, and I don't believe they mentioned colonies either.  But sure, if you feel it's more accurate to make mention of colonies, we can include that, also.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that mentioning the colonies would be a good idea, and more encyclopedic. I really believe that the "from China via Korea" wording would be most accurate.  However, editors from previous discussions wanted to include possibilities of "directly from China" and "directly from Korea".  And there ARE citations saying rice farming may have reached Japan directly from China.  Also, some editors denied that Korea existed back then because Korea was in its formative years.  (Also, although not previously mentioned in any discussion, but stated in the Gina Lee Barnes citation above, North Korea denies that Chinese colonies existed in Korea.)  So in conclusion, we ended up choosing the vague wording.  Out of all the vague wordings, "Continental East Asia" was the most accurate, because East Asia is clearly defined in Wikipedia, and the word "continental" is unambiguous.--Endroit 17:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "East Asia" is problematic because that includes more than just Korea and China. Especially since we're talking about more than two thousand years ago, who knows what other cultures existed?  The sources, however, specifically mentions Korea and China.  That is a lot more accurate.  Whether it's "China and Korea", "China via Korea", "China via Chinese colonies in Korea", etc etc, all these make specific mentions of China and Korea.
 * I do remember some editors saying that China and Korea did not exist back then. Unfortunately for them, in the face of existing sources, that would be original research and we can't use that.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To say that China and Korea did not properly exist is not original research - it's common-sense. It's also widely apparent to anyone who reads Chinese/Korean history. John Smith&#39;s 17:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me add that, there WERE extensive discussions before, and the previous poll WAS linked to discussions, in accordance with WP:POLL. HongQiGong, if you strongly believe that combining English words from dictionaries is original research (ie: "continental" and "East Asia"), I think you are in the minority.--Endroit 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not combining words from dictionaries. Saying Korea and China did not exist is original research - because sources overwhelmingly contradict that.  And in accordance to that twisted logic, "Japan" did not exist either, only Wa did.  That logic would entail that the history of Japan on WP starts when the English word "Japan" became common usage.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, again, WP:POLLS states that polls are meant to be surveys, and are not binding. The sources specifically mentions "China" and "Korea".  It's very simple.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If Lelang Commandery was a Chinese commandery in Korea, a sizeable portion of Korea was part of China. Or arguably, an independent Korea perhaps didn't exist, or was very weak, or was still in its formative days.  There are many interpretations.  It is NOT original research.--Endroit 18:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That really doesn't matter. WP editors are not supposed to put their own conjectures into their edits.  Again, that's original research.  If there are reputable sources that claim "Korea did not exist" back then, then we might be able to include that in this article.  We're only supposed to reflect what the sources say.  And once again, sources specifically mentions China and Korea.  The sources we have right now do not say Korea did not exist.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said, "China and Korea" is wrong. It's "China via Korea" (or "Chinese colonies in Korea") per cited sources.  It was made more vague due to discussions.--Endroit 18:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can certainly change the text to reflect that. But let me suggest something else.  See the section below.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We have to honor the consensus regardless. If you want change, you should consider building a new consensus, or try something else in WP:DR.--Endroit 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise
I still don't understand at all why we should use the ambiguous "East Asia" or "continental East Asia" when our sources specifically make mention of China and Korea. It flies against the rules on original research and polling. But whatever. Let me offer the obvious compromise - don't mention where the Yayoi influences come from at all.

At present, there is only one single sentence about Yayoi, and that is not very informative at all. I suggest replacing this:
 * The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from China and Korea.

To this:
 * The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery. Replacing the Jomon culture, Yayoi society became more complex and developed distinct social classes.  Yayoi people wove cloth, lived in permanent farming villages, constructed buildings of wood and stone.

All that information was taken from the Yayoi article. We can leave the issue of where these influences come from on the Yayoi article, which covers it in a lot more detail. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinions follow....
 * The status quo is:
 * The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from continental East Asia.
 * The sentence may be changed to:
 * The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming and iron and bronze-making.
 * The pottery may be from Silla, Gaya, etc. during the Kofun period. The other stuff are not necessary in the Japan article.--Endroit 19:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're talking about a different controversy, that of the influences of Yamato culture. I think it's safe to assume that the pottery associated to the Yayoi culture has been dated to the Yayoi period, and not the Kofun period.
 * At any rate, why not include a little more information, like the re-write I suggested? The Yayoi period could use more than just one measly sentence in this article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The pottery should be included if you have definitive sources. The other stuff are subjective comments, suggesting that some of those advancements never existed during the Jomon peiod.  It's not solid knowledge, therefore not important enough to be included.  That's what the main article Yayoi period is for.  All the stuff we omit here should go there, and should go into more details there (not here).--Endroit 19:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The three existing sources in the article concerning the Yayoi do cover these facts. One of those sources is specifically about pottery.  They're only subjective if there are reputable sources to say that these practices are not new to the Yayoi period, because regardless of where these practices came from, sources agree that Yayoi practices were distinctly new and different from that of the Jomon.  Here is a specific paragraph from one of the sources:
 * The new mode of living appeared first on the north coast of Japan's southwesternmost island, Kyushu, just across the Korea Strait from South Korea. There we find Japan's first metal tools, of iron, and Japan's first undisputed full-scale agriculture. That agriculture came in the form of irrigated rice fields, complete with canals, dams, banks, paddies, and rice residues revealed by archeological excavations. Archeologists term the new way of living Yayoi, after a district of Tokyo where in 1884 its characteristic pottery was first recognized. 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..
 * Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * HongQiGong, you haven't explained why these additional stuff (including pottery) are important enough to be included in this article. Why are they really so important to Japan?
 * Why not just put them in the Yayoi article?--Endroit 19:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just thought the Yayoi period could use more than one measly sentence, that's all. And its important because sources say that all those practices were introduced to Japan in the Yayoi period.  I think it deserves mention.  I mean, your question could be applied to basically anything and everything in the article.  Your contention with the inclusion of that information is that it's subjective - but this is clearly not true unless we can find contradicting evidence to say that none of those things were new to the Yayoi.  That the Yayoi style pottery existed in Jomon, that large-scale rice farming existed in Jomon, etc etc, that basically there was no such thing as a Yayoi period.
 * And the origins of those practices and influences would not be mentioned at all. So what's the problem?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a simple reason for that: revert-warring. My question is applied only to areas in the Japan article with proven potential for excessive revert-warring:  Why introduce stuff with proven potential for excessive revert-warring, if they're not so important to Japan as a whole, to begin with?  For example, who cares if Yayoi pottery replaced Jomon pottery, in terms of Japan as a whole?  The details can be put in the Yayoi period article.  We have a link to it, don't we?--Endroit 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If revert-warring is a good reason to leave out information, half the articles on WP would not exist. The Yayoi culture introduced entirely new practices to Japan, that's why it's important.  Besides, like I keep saying, the information I mentioned is not subjective, so there's hardly any chance for revert-warring.  According to your logic, a whole bunch of information could be taken out of this article.  I mean, who cares if "Japan is the sixty-second largest country by area"?  That can be put in Japan geography articles.  Who cares if "The Jomon people made decorated clay vessels, often with plaited patterns"?  That could be put in the Jomon article.  etc etc.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe that you may be in violation of WP:POINT if you knowingly start a revert war by introducing disputed material. (Actually, you already DID start one and broke WP:3RR.)  The dispute is over "whether Korea existed" back then, and whether the word "Korea" should be used in that particular instance.  Therefore, unless you have consensus regarding this topic, I suggest you don't make any changes to the "Yayoi" section of this article.--Endroit 20:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I violated WP:POINT. I edited the article to accurately reflect its sources.  But yes, I realise I did violate WP:3RR.  That was not my intention and I apologise.  My first revert in that 24-hour period happened to be right before I went to bed that night and I neglected to count how many hours had lapsed.
 * But anyway, I'm offering my suggested re-write to see what other editors think. I haven't actually put the re-write in the article yet.  1) It leaves out where Yayoi influences came from, and it 2) expands information about the Yayoi period beyond the one measly sentence.  I think it's a good re-write.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I think unilateral editing against consensus is in violation of WP:POINT. "One measly sentence" is all you need in country articles.  Compare it with the Greece article for example; it never mentions intermediary pottery, building styles, and cloth weaving.  Tell me which other country article even mentions "cloth weaving"?  HongQiGong, the additional intermediary stuff from 2000 years ago you're trying to add, is NOT important in any country articles.  And get consensus first, don't engage in WP:POINT.--Endroit 14:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to talk about it more on the talk page, before we insist it be used. John Smith&#39;s 10:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Endroit - What I'm doing is not violating WP:POINT. If I wanted to violate WP:POINT, I'd take out other facts that, according to your logic, would be unimportant to this article, like for example, that Japan is the thirty-second largest country, or that Jomon people made decorated clay vessels, or that the Tokugawa enacted some fief rotation policy, or that new pottery and literature emerged out of the Heian period. I won't do that, because why? I think those are useful and informative facts, just like the facts I would like to add about the Yayoi period. Honestly, give it a break already. I'm perfectly OK with agreeing to disagree with you on whether or not those are important facts, without you trying to label some violation of policy on me. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)