Talk:Japan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Emblem

I was just wondering why some other encyclopedias display a national emblem or coat of arms on Japan, which is like a sun used in imperial settings.

Chin Chinguri

The /Introduction and /History pages could probably be combined....

Yes, you're right. I don't like deleting other people's stuff though. I suppose if whoever wrote that doesn't object, I'll delete the Intro once I write the post-WWII entry, which will basically just expand on the Intro.


The /Introduction page comes from the CIA World Factbook's "History" section; Jimbo Wales put it there originally.


It seems that there are too many details on this page. I think it is better, if some sentences were moved to "sub-articles" and that some categories were blended.

What I think, it should be done

  • Agriculture: moved to economy of Japan
  • GDP growth during the 60-80s ...: moved to economy
  • List of prefectures: link moved to geography
  • Foreign relation of Japan: link moved to politics
  • Japanese Constitution: to be moved to politics
  • Japanese language, anime, manga, Japanese food: create "Culture of Japan" then move all that there.
  • Ainu: to be moved to culture and history
  • Rulers: moved to history and politics

Regards Youssefsan 08:12 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

"Japan was finally defeated in 1945 by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki"? That statement isn't uncontroversial. There have been a lot of talks about in the role of the bombs in the surrender. It seems Japan was willing to surrender, but the bombs were needed to get them to an unconditional surrender. // Liftarn 12:52 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

I changed a following sentence

This military expansion ended after Japan surrendered to the United States and her Allies on August 15, 1945 after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated by two atomic bombs.

after -> in the meantime. It may be my POV but after strongly connotes the atomic bombs were needed to convince Japan to surrender, which is not true. -- Taku 05:09 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"The former 9.11 attack"

The attacks on Pearl Harbor are not related or similar enough to the September 11 terrorist attacks to be labeled as "the former 9.11 attack" unless I am missing something here.


The description " According to traditional Japanese history, the Japanese Islands were created by Amaterasu, the Sun Goddess, in the 7th century BC, and Japan's first emperor is Jimmu, son of Amaterasu, the first in an unbroken line of 125 Emperors that extends to the present day. There are several theories on the origins of the Japanese people; the traditional view was that all Japanese people were, like Emperor Jimmu, descended from the Sun Goddess. Modern scholarship suggests links to other Asian peoples. Japan was, and still is, home to a distinct group called the Ainu, who are physically, culturally and linguistically distinct from other Japanese. Today they live mainly on Hokkaido. " is incorrect!

"Japan wrongfully acquired Korea, Taiwan..."

Wouldn't the passage 'Japan's new ambitions led to invasion wars that exploited and killed thousands of people in mainland China (1895) and Russia (1905) in which Japan wrongfully acquired Korea, Taiwan and other territories' be better expressed by replacing 'wrongfully acquired' with 'annexed' or 'annexed and subjugated'? Of course we know it was wrong now, but all of history has been filled with successive wars and annexations, and nor was it even Japan's first invasion of Korea. The entry for Germany describes in dispassionate and non-judgemental terms Hitler's annexation of countries in Europe and India's entry describes its 'subjugation' under English rule without the need to specify that it was 'wrong'. Wouldn't an objective description of the nature of the annexation and the subjugation go further towards proving to any intelligent reader that it was wrong without compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia with editorializing? -- Tlotoxl 02:12, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I removed following sentence:

A number of new religions established after or slightly before World War II are also influential.

Is it so?

As I wrote on Religions of Japan, Soka Gakkai is definitely influential because it has Komeito, a part of coalition government. Toitsu Kyokai isn't small either. Duckie
There are many influential interest groups in Japan besides Soka Gakkai. The point is that if it is necessary to talk about Japan. I think the power of LDP, for example, should be more emphasized. Also, the sentence gives us an impression that new religions are popular in Japan and have effected many aspects of Japanese society. While it may be true in terms of stats, but roles of religion in Japan are really different than those in other countries. -- Taku 15:48, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)