Talk:Japan/Archive 13

Last "citation needed" link gone

I updated the populations of the top ten cities and provided ref for the "citation needed" tag. As far as I can see, there are no other "citation needed" tags in the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Second World War crimes

Can the debatable information regarding to Japanese war crimes please be contained to articles on such matters. This article is about Japan as a whole and is not a forum on Japanese war crimes. If that is what you seek I suggest you use such forums available on the internet instead.

In fact the war crimes that occurred in WWII is not "debatable information" due to the hundreds of thousands of victims that have come forth and told of their first hand experience of the rapes and torture, as well as well documented incidents agreed upon by the majority of historians around the world. A user has suggested that the "victor" writes the history textbooks. In fact this has not been the case, since Japan was defeated in WWII but the textbooks used by students simply do not include the atrocities that the Japanese government has partook and the prime minister even to this day has denied such incidents adamantly. To not include factual events is surmount to censorship. To suggest the removal of historical events because it may appear negative towards a country is simply unacceptable. All the countries in the world have done bad things, ie. China (tianmen square), ie. slavery in the United States. This is like removing the boston massacre incident from American history which was key in America's independence from the British.

Somethingoranother 19:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently the article has only 3 or 4 sentences on the war crimes. It's not intrusive and I think the information needs to be there, because it's a big part of Japan's history. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. We have already linked the main article with Japanese war crimes. There is no need to actually spell out the various war "crimes"(in quotes because i believe victors write the history books). Please revert to last version. --WoodElf 06:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WoodElf, are you saying that the Allied forces went around and beheaded civilians en masse? Did they go on a rampage raping thousands of women and children? Did the Americans, British, and Chinese experiment on live human beings in laboratories using cruel and torturous methods? If so, this is news to me.--Sir Edgar 01:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Detailed mention of war crimes from 70 years ago on a general country article? Intentional suppression of current great power status? Oh, no, no bias here, folks! Dekkappai 07:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the "great power" issue, actually. I wasn't even involved in those edits or that discussion. But regardless, I've corrected this problem I've mentioned here by making the section NPOV. Plain to say, if the article is going to include details of the negative impact the war had on Japan "from 70 years ago", then we should also include details about the war crimes. Otherwise, both should be taken out. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but you and the other "uninvolved" editors silently let mention of Japan's status as a "great power" go not just overlooked, but intentionally unmentioned. You, on the other hand, are not satisfied with a passing mention of Japan's war crimes, and a link to a more specific article on the subject, but edit-war in mentions of specific war crimes in this general over-view the country. I don't really care that the "great power" status is mentioned or not. But the near-simultaneous edit-warring out of positive information, and the intentional edit-warring in of negative information smells an awful lot like editorial bias to me.

You say "only 3 or 4 sentences" on the war crimes in this article is not intrusive. Check out the Columbia Encyclopedia article on Japan. The most specific mention of war crimes is "Many of the militarist leaders and generals were tried as war criminals and in 1948 many were convicted and executed..." I don't think it would be biased to go just a little further into mentioning Japan's atrocious record during this period, and later attempts to cover it up. And I also fully support linking to a separate article on Japan's war crimes which goes into all the gruesome details, so long as it's all well-sourced and unbiased, as is Wipedia's policy. However, again, to dwell on specific war crimes from 70 years ago in a general article on the country, while intentionally leaving out positive current information about the country, is to present biased information, plain and simple. And yes, I would be just as suspicious if the editors who oppose any mention of Korea in this article were winning out. But their bias is clearly recognized and reverted like the near-vandalism it is. But incidents like these make me wonder if that side loses not because of its clear bias, but because the "consensus" is biased in another direction.

All this said, I've just checked out the the current version in which specific war crimes are not emphasized, and specific damage to Japan is also not emphasized. This seems like a decent compromise to me. Dekkappai 16:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What? I was completely neutral about whether or not to mention Japan as a "great power". The fact that I did not involve myself in that semi-edit war and the discussion does not mean I support either side of the argument. If I didn't want "great power" to be mentioned, I would have editted it out. Most of the active editors for this article did not try to insert the statement that Japan is a "great power", does that mean they silently supported its non-mention? Serious gap of logic there.

And WP is not Columbia Encyclopedia. Would you rather we paraphrase word-for-word what Columbia says? It also mentioned the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity sphere, gave much more details about how Japan invaded China and set up a puppet government, and how it allied itself with Germany and Italy. I don't see you bringing up the exclusion of those facts in the WP article, when comparing it to the Columbia article. Columbia also did not mention that thousands of civilians in Japan were killed by American bombing, or that the US held a steel embargo against Japan, or that the war costed "millions" of Japanese lives and destroyed its industry and infrastructure. You seemed to have no problem with the fact that WP had mentioned these things. Really, stop your POV-pushing for this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so what is the POV I'm pushing? And how am I pushing it if I don't even edit this article? Your POV is offensively obvious in your edits. Not that it's any of your business, but I and my wife both had family killed by the Japanese. Blindly pro-Japan, I am not, and I am offended by your inference that my wish that this article NOT push YOUR POV makes me so. Again I see why Wikipedia fails so miserably in this sort of article, and I will leave you to further show that failure by pushing your bias-- I mean "consensus"-- while paying lip-service to Wikipedia standards. Regards. Dekkappai 17:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your POV-pushing is well highlighted in my last comment. You have a problem with the amount of information the article had on the war crimes (and that's only 3 or 4 sentences), while not complaining about the information that was there about the negative impact of the war on Japan. Let's use your own logic here: Detailed information on how badly Japan was affected by the war 70 years ago? Intentional suppression on information about Japanese war crimes? Oh, no, no bias here, folks! But hey, don't take that rhetoric too seriously. If it was up to me, I'd include more details on both the negative effect the war had on Japan and the negative effect of Japanese aggression in WW2. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dekkappai, that "consensus" you speak of is built by members of JABA. I could care less about consensus. Regardless, those edits that had Japan as a "great power" also reduced Baekje to "a kingdom in the southwest of the Korean Peninsula" and kept harping about the UN report's investigation being "a nine-day investigation". Lack of NPOV credibility can be blamed on user Somethingoranother.--Sir Edgar 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ichiro Suzuki?

The baseball player's first name should read Ichiro, last name as Suzuki.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6615 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.36.172 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-11 09:40:31

Done, thanks. Fg2 09:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing

There are those who wish to hide all Japan's wrongs, slight its neighbors, and present only the positive, to serve their own biases. There are also many who nurture their hatred of Japan like a cherished family heirloom, and are incapable of ever conceding anything positive about the country. Both groups are free to use their own blogs as soapboxes for their causes, but, according to WP's NPOV stance, neither group should be allowed to shape any Wikipedia article. It seems obvious that editors of both camps constantly attempt to use this article to further their cause. It also seems obvious that one camp has the upper hand here because they are a little more literate, a little less oafish, and much more subtle in their POV-pushing. People like this think that they win when their offensive bias, and their childish "You're with us or you're with them!" accusations drive off people who really want Wikipedia to present a good, unbiased article, rather than to serve as a conduit for their bias. What they succeed in doing, however, is showing Wikipedia's weakness. I see no welcome here to editors who don't wish to push one bias or the other, and who have no desire to engage in childish edit wars with the childishly biased. Good luck to those who do. Dekkappai 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the proselytizing. But I'm sure I speak for many of the editors here, probably even the ones I've had arguments and disagreements with, when I say that we're all constantly trying to achieve a NPOV state for the article. We only disagree on how to achieve this. None of us, including you, exactly have a monopoly on what NPOV means for this article. This last comment of yours seems like something better put on your userpage or on the Talk pages of official WP guidelines and policies. Your childish "better editor than thou" comments are kind of pointless, in my opinion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's really sad to see Japanese nationalism and history whitewashing constantly corroding this and other articles at Wikipedia. Not everyone interested in Japan is a revisionist, and there are many good editors here, but a few vocal apologists really poison the community. Wikiment 18:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's pretty laughable to see edits that try to put silly, useless comments like "Japan is a great power" and then delete important and relevant historical facts like the Nanking Massacre.--Sir Edgar 23:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You may also get a laugh out of this, Sir Edgar. When, in accordance with Wikipedia policy I have edited and created articles related to Korea, and opposed POV-pushing from the Japanese side, they called me a "Korean nationalist." You commented how pitiful it was that if someone did not share their bias, they were automatically labeled a "Korean nationalist." Now, when I express concern that bias may be coming from the other side, you see nothing wrong with labeling me a "Japanese nationalist," even after I shared the fact that both my wife and myself had family killed by the Japanese. You may find it funny, but I find it quite disappointing that is is not the bias per se that you and the other editors object to, but only other people's bias. I'll leave this pit of vipers to spew hatred back and forth to each other. You only succeed in making your own side look as bad as the other to outsiders. Regards. Dekkappai 00:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I never labeled you a "Japanese nationalist". I was only agreeing with Wikiment's comments about rampant whitewashing. Do you see anything wrong with what he has stated? I don't know anything about your editing on other articles and, I'm sorry to say, but I don't care to know about your personal tragedies. What I am concerned about is that you've just made a passive-aggressive attack on other people. It's clear who you've identified as "POV-pushing children", but know well that you have violated Wikipedia:Assume good faith by accusing others of being in two "camps" who "constantly attempt to use this article to further their cause". What cause? Personally speaking, I am trying to restore balance to articles and add content. What are you doing, but whining on the Talk page and taking a "holier than thou" attitude without anything to back it up? I don't see any recent edits by you at all in this article.--Sir Edgar 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Factual Information Being Deleted From Introduction Without Any Reason

Why is factual information being deleted from the introduction without any reason? The information is in no way POV or offensive so I can't see any other reason than anti-Japanese sentiment. This is a reportable offense if true. I'm not Japanese I'm British but I hold not grudge against Japan as it seems some do. Somethingoranother 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This anti Japanese sentiment seems to be coming from Chinese users. Can they please leave Japan alone. Also it's ironic that they tell to stop reverting their constant reverts of my work and then warn me about the 3RR. Also I was reading their contributions and they were saying to other users to discuss in the talk page before reverting work yet they have reverted my work many times and have never even given a reason in the reason space let alone discussed it in the talk page. Seems the Big Communist Dragon has extended its hand of aggression and hatred now even onto Wikipedia and has Japan in it sights. Somethingoranother 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss your additions, shall we?

1. Tokyo is one of the 3 most major global cities in the world... Your source, or at least, the website you provided as a source, does not actually say that Tokyo is one of the "3 most major global cities". It says it is a "command centers for the global economy". Furthermore, it's questionable whether or not this information is needed in the intro for an article about Japan overall. It's probably more appropriate for the Tokyo article.

2. Japan's economy creates the world's largest surplus of revenue and has the world's largest reserves of currency. Japan is also the world's largest aid donor. This information has no source and it's unverified as far as the article is concerned. Plus, I think the US has the distinction of being the world's largest aid donor - but correct me if I'm wrong.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the website relating to Tokyo is a Princeton University article and is about as reliable of a source there could be. Japan is the largest aid donor. Look it up if you don't believe me. All the information I added can be confirmed in sources and is even common knowledge. Besides it is obvious that the constant reverting of the information I added is anti-Japanese sentiment. The fact you gave no reasons for reverting the information and wouldn't discuss it on the talk page proves you have no real reason to revert it other than for POV reasons. Anyway I've reported this to the Administrators board and have lodged a complaint. Somethingoranother 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good for you. But that doesn't addressed the points I've brought up at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also you dispute the common knowledge facts ( even those confirmed by Princeton University) given in the introduction yet you delete the picture of a Bullet Train aswell? Why? Your deleting of much of the article is getting out of hand. Somethingoranother 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask are you really doing all this for racist reasons? I'm not from Japan or China but I would never to harm either of their articles like how you seem to be on this Japan article. Somethingoranother 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said in a previous statement - one of your additions is not supported by the source you provided, and it's arguably unnecessary, your second addition is unsourced and unverified. "Common knowledge" doesn't work here on WP. If you want to add that Japan is the world's largest aid donor, you need to actually provide verifiable evidence. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you say here, but I'm curious as to why the Shinkansen image is being removed, as well as the shortening of the following:

The author of the report, Doudou Diène (Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights), concluded after a nine-day investigation that racial discrimination and xenophobia in Japan primarily affects three groups...

Can you explain those two edits? siafu 21:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually care about those two edits. But it was part of a revert that was done by other editors. I do care about the edit about Baekje being a "Korean kingdom" versus "a kingdom in Korean peninsula". On that, I prefer the former wording. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've made those two edits twice now. If they're not part of the program, please be more careful with the reverting. siafu 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the UN report, I don't think it's necessary to include all those details. As the person who put in the original content, I object to the efforts to make it seem like it is one individual's report and not a UN report. Also, specifically saying that the investigation "lasted nine days" is not needed in the main Japan article. It can go into a more specific article about racism in Japan. The additional edits are attempts to make this report seem less legitimate, when it is perfectly legitimate.

On Baekje, the user seems to want to make it seem like Korea did not exist at this time. If this is true, then certainly Wa, Yamato can be described as "a tribe on the Japanese archipelago". We must keep things in perspective and "Korea" definitely existed at least 1,000 years before "Japan" emerged as a civilization.

We should not discount this person as simply "a troll" though. As we've seen many such people come in and make the EXACT same claims, we know that this is not just a few people but symptomatic of education in Japan. It seems difficult to understand how a modern, developed country can promote such false information and the twisting of facts, but it's been going on for quite a while now.--Sir Edgar 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

==Unit731==

you guys have to stop bickering HongQiGong, Please submit the trial record that makes Unit731 guiltiness to talkpage. I worry that you are causing the false charge.--Sir Joestar 23:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course the trial did not involve Unit 731. Did you even read the passage you were deleting? It says that Unit 731 was exempt from the trial. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a mistake to insert an unrelated ear duster to the trial. 731 forces are one of the anti-Japanese that Chinese Communist Party willingly uses advertisements. Could you present Public Record concerning Unit 731?　--Sir Joestar 19:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that the US gave immunity to Unit 731 even though it performed human experimentation. Check the Unit 731 article. And here's a source from the article[1]. You're trying to delete relevant information. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your source is quite unrelated to Tokyo war crimes tribunal. Please produce the conviction of Tokyo war crimes tribunal and the evidence of the plea deal of Unit731. --Sir Joestar 07:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

JoeStar, I'm afraid you're missing the point. As HongQiGong explains, diplomatic and political deals were made to exempt Unit 731 from the warcrimes trials. However, I'm afraid I must disagree with Hong on the importance or necessity of including mention of this group in an article on "Japan". This article is meant to cover the entire breadth of all of Japanese history, culture, economics, politics, and society - This goes back to the same thing I said regarding another post about 17th century Japanese persecution of Christians. Unit 731 is simply not an important enough topic to warrant its inclusion in such a broad article. Hiroshima and Nagasaki only get a sentence or two, and these were among the most significant events in global modern history. LordAmeth 11:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)'

Great Power is POV?

Observation from an uninvolved bystander here: I'm wondering why "Japan is a great power" is removed as "POV," when Japan is listed at the article on the great powers. If that's a POV statement, then Japan should be removed from the Great power article. If Japan is a great power, one would think that deserved mention in the Japan article. These political argument articles are not my area of interest, I'm just wondering about the neutrality of this particular one. Dekkappai 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Japan is a great power and it's not POV to ad it because no one disputes it. I think being the second largest economy, largest reserves of money, largest creditor, largest surplus of revenue, own space program, one of the top 5 armed forces spending wise, most of the world's largest electronics and automobile companies, massive producer of electronic goods and cars, major ship builder, largest aid relief donor to the UN, and pretty much most advanced country technologically all adds up to being a great power, which is said that it is on the great power article anyway. Also Japan currently has a seat on the UN Security Council on a non permanent 2 year basis. Japan is elected to the UN Security Council as one of the Asia seats often, which demostrates its influence, and may soon become a permanent member as its candidacy seems strongest. It's nonsense to be called POV and is just anti-Japan sentiment again. I say if you can't do anything but hinder an article then don't do anything at all. Somethingoranother 02:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

From great power:

Despite initial gains, Japan suffered defeat and occupation at the conclusion of World War II, events regarded as signalling its loss of Great power status.[73] Opinion is divided as to when this status was regained.

Apparently it is disputed. siafu 04:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your own quote says "WHEN this status was regained" is disputed, not "IF it was regained is disputed." But consensus is on your side, so you are free to suppress this information in this article, for whatever good that does your cause, whatever that may be. To me, it's articles like this one that call into question Wikipedia's worth. The best this article can ever aspire to be is a duplicate of any one of dozens of print or online encyclopedia articles on Japan. But even that questionable goal will never be reached because we have a constant edit-war between people attempting to spread either pro- or anti-Japan/Korea/China/etc... disinformation either explicitly or implicitly. Wikipedia's real value is in the non-traditional, "unencyclopedic" subjects about which it is difficult if not impossible to find reliable information in English-- and those are the ones that are put up for deletion on a regular basis. The next time one of those articles is nominated for deletion as "unencyclopedic" by a self-appointed guardian of public decency, I think I've found a very good counter-argument right here. Dekkappai 19:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will think of the children, don't worry. siafu 19:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "great power" an outmoded term now anyway, I thought is went out of fashion after world war 2, when everyone started caring about the "super powers" (USA ans USSR), despite the fall of the USSR I don't think the term great power has really come back into use. Noting that Japan is one of the G8 (so a defacto "great power") should be enough to demonstrate Japan's international clout as a developed nation and is without question a FACT so not a POV statement at all. Tomgreeny 21:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New Info

I removed the new para on Diene's report to Ethnic issues in Japan. Please, all new info should be removed to the concerned articles. The Japan article is already far larger than we would like it. --WoodElf 16:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with a couple of your edits - 1) the removal of information about Nanjing Massacre and Unit 731, and 2) removal of the mention of the UN report on racism in Japan. My reasons:

1) I believe the information about the Nanjing Massacre and Unit 731 are at least as important as some of the information presented in the paragraphs before and after the particular paragraph that mentions the two issues. The removal of these two issues essentially left no details about the war trials, but only stated in one singular sentence that Japanese leaders were tried for war crimes - but why were they tried, and what is at least one notable fact about the war crimes? I have re-added the information, but have shortened it by a little.

2) The removal of the UN report basically left the Demographics section with a statement that crimes are often attributed to foreigners. This makes the section very POV. The UN report balances it out by pointing out that the UN found racism toward foreigners and ethnic minorities. I have re-added this also and have also shortened this by a little. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

2）2 is a clear mistake. The report is a report of the staff of the United Nations whom the NGO group [2] in Japan invited. It is not an official opinion of the United Nations. The policy of this NGO group is "Japan is suppressing the minority. " Exactly, HongQiGong is used for Probaganda of this political organization. --Sir Joestar 07:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

God, who cares if it was the "United Nations" or a representative of the United Nations that made the conclusion. I only want the information about the findings to be included. If it makes you feel better, then go on thinking that it's not "an official opinion of the United Nations" that racism is found to exist in Japan. Heck, if it makes you feel better, go on and tell yourself that there is no racism at all in Japan. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Demographics section

I feel that the last bit of the Demographics section needs a little re-write, but I'm not sure how to re-write it. This is how it reads at the time of my comment here:

Demographers and government planners are currently in a heated debate over how to cope with this problem.[29] Immigration and birth incentives are sometimes suggested as a solution to provide younger workers to support the nation's aging population.[30] Immigration, however, is not popular as recent increased crime rates are often attributed to foreigners living in Japan,[31] and there are indications of racial discrimination and xenophobia as well.[32] [33][34] The World Factbook of the CIA estimated 0 migrants per 1000 population as of 2006.[35]

1. This paragraph is trying to tie in two issues that are arguably only peripherally related: an aging population, and ethnic issues in Japan. Should we split this up?
2. Take a look at source [31], it only verifies that a recent increase in crime is attributed to foreigners, but it does not verify that "immigration is not popular". Should we take out the part about immigration not being "popular"?

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody answered offered any suggestions, I've gone ahead and edited the section myself, re-adding the information about the UN report. I've also put a citation needed tag on the statement that "immigration is not popular". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

An open letter to user HongQiGong

I am quite disturbed by your continuous POV pushing. Your personal opinions about the Japanese people are impertinent to this article. Furthermore, your Japan-bashing is upsetting not only to this article, but to the very spirit of Wikipedia. Please stop.

As an ethnic Chinese, your hatred for the Japanese is understandable. It is not, however, excusable. You have learned to abhor the Japanese at your mother's knee. But if you could, for one moment, free yourself from the hatred and prejudice that blinds you, you will realise that modern Japan has little to do with its war-time atrocities.

In conclusion, please limit your ranting to the discussion page ONLY. We have been trying to achieve an FA status for too long to have you ruin it.

--WoodElf 06:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree that I'm POV pushing. I'm trying to make this article as NPOV as possible. Your accusations are unfounded. And also, please assume good faith. If there are specific instances where you feel I am POV pushing, by all means, we can discuss them here. I have absolutely no hatred for the Japanese, and am dumbfounded why you would think so. I have never even said anything bad about the Japanese. If, for example, I feel that information about how bad the Chinese government was during the Cultural Revolution ought to be included in Chinese history articles, do I suddenly have hatred for Chinese people? If, for example, I feel that information about how African Americans were oppressed by the US government ought to be included in US history articles, do I suddenly have hatred for American people? The fact that I want the current mention of the war crimes to remain is because that is important information, and it also serves to make the article more NPOV. As I've mentioned, the article states some of the negative effects the war had on Japan. In light of that, the war crimes deserve more than just a passing mention in one sentence. NPOV dictates that we include different and sometimes opposing views. In case you did not notice, it was me that re-inserted the information about the negative effect that the war had on Japan[3], and this information, by the way, is something that I don't ever remember you thinking ought to be taken out, nor did you take that information out when you took out information about Unit 731. Should I, in a reverse fashion, accuse you of POV pushing? Should I accuse you of being blinded by your love of Japan? To use your own rhetoric here, your personal accusations are upsetting not only this article, but the "very spirit of Wikipedia" as well. Please stop. And let us get back to discussing how best to edit the article. In the future, please put your "open letters" to any specific user in the appropriate user account talk page. I'm not going to dignify your accusations here any more than I already have with this reply. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I sound high and mighty up there. I was quite upset by your insistence about including Unit 371 et al in the article. As was pinted out some time ago, it's not really so important to find a place in the main article. Kindly understand that all Japanese wartime history is not about Unit 731.

--WoodElf 07:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. But the information about Unit 731 does not dominate the article. There is exactly one mention of it in the entire article. All I'm saying is that if we are to include the negative effect that the war had on Japan, then we need to include the negative effect that Japan had on other countries. Either they're both in, or they should both be taken out. This is how we make the article more NPOV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Include it in the respective country articles then. Your version sounds a bit like: Japan started a war against China and bombed Pearl Harbor, thus starting WW2. They were defeated and the leaders prosecuted for their atrocities. ok so far. then you say there was Unit 731 which experimented on people including POWs. they werent punished because they sold their research to USA. and then, Japan got a new constitution, became very wealthy in the post war years, but growth has declined till recently. Do you realise that Unit 731 completely dominates the para on WW2?

I suggest we put it to a vote to avoid an edit war

--WoodElf 07:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How does it make this article NPOV if we ignore those facts in this article? And no, what I prefer is that if we are to include information that the US bombed civilians and that Japan's economy was devastated by the war, then we should include that the Japanese military was responsible for the Nanjing Massacre, and that it conducted human experimentation. Again, if we are to include the negative effect the war had on Japan, then we should also include the negative effect Japan had on other countries during the war. It's a simple balance, but certain editors seem to be opposed to this without giving any reasons. They just want to leave out details of the war crimes while including details of how badly Japan was effected by the war. This makes the article very POV. And I absolutely disagree that mention of Unit 731 dominates that paragraph. It was mentioned exactly once. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am currently working on readding the elements you felt were important, along with the elements which I and John Smith believe to be crucial to understanding Japanese postwar history, namely the tremendous damage done to Japan during the war, not only by the Allied bombing, but by the Japanese government's inability to care for and support its own people, supplying them with food, infrastructure, etc. I hope that by including both you will believe this to be NPOV, and we can settle this. LordAmeth 16:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Like I've said before, I would prefer both the negative impact on Japan and the negative impact Japan had on other countries to be included. If one should be taken out, then the other should also be taken out in order to maintain NPOV. There appears to be a lot of resistance for having any mention at all for the Nanjing Massacre and for human experimentation/Unit 731. But both of these subjects have been widely published by mainstream media, both inside and outside of Japan. Books have been written on these subjects. It's irresponsible to exclude these things from an article about Japan. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I hope we can come to a resolution on this. Please take a look at the articles Germany, China, People's Republic of China, United States for an idea of the weight given war crimes and other such subjects in the overall summary pages for these countries. Please remember that these pages are meant to serve as an overview of everything about the country, from geography, demographics, culture, economics and politics to a brief overview of the history. My omission of references to Unit 731 is purely just for length, brevity, and balance of coverage of periods of history. It is not intended to deny or obscure such events. As I have stated before, please feel free to discuss Unit 731 and Shiro Ishii at further length in articles such as Japanese war crimes, Second Sino-Japanese War, Human experimentation, etc. I hope that we can reach a settlement on this issue and move on. LordAmeth 16:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm Ok with your revision, and I've re-inserted a source for the information about certain people receiving immunity from the war trials. The Germany article actually has a short paragraph in its WW2 section, mentioning specifically these facts: 11 million people killed in the Holocaust, 4 to 6 million of which are Jews. WW2 and Nazy genocide responsible for about 35 million dead, with about 30 million of these in Poland and the USSR. I'd say that compare to the mention that the Germany article got, the Japan article is sorely lacking in details about the negative impact Japan had on other countries in WW2. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both HongQiGong and LordAmeth. I don't think a Japan article can go without mentioning the Nanking Massacre and, at the same time, for the sake of brevity, a reference to Shiro Ishii can be removed.

However, the statement that other articles do not devote as much space to "war crimes and other such subjects" is not true. Look at the Germany article:

"In what later became known as The Holocaust, the Third Reich regime enacted governmental policies directly subjugating many parts of society: Jews, Slavs, Roma, homosexuals, freemasons, political dissidents, priests, preachers, religious opponents, and the disabled, amongst others. During the Nazi era, about 11 million people were killed in the Holocaust, including between 4 and 6 million Jews. World War II and the Nazi genocide were responsible for about 35 million dead in Europe, with nearly 30 million of these in Poland and the Soviet Union alone."

That's three full sentences. The Japan article only has a sentence and a half.

In addition, I think articles should occasionally include interesting, though not pivotal, facts. That's what brings a lot of people to Wikipedia.

So, I am retracting my edit of mentioning Shiro Ishii, but would like to include Unit 731. Anyhow, without it, the half sentence is too vague.--Sir Edgar 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW--

WoodElf: You have violated Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your comment that HongQiGong must hate Japanese people because he is "ethnic Chinese" is totally racist, rude, and a shameful violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I find it very offensive that you would talk about his mother in a public forum like this. Normally, I would not get involved in this kind of discussion, but I think you've clearly CROSSED THE LINE. I think it's less important to say that you're sorry for sounding "high and mighty", but more important that you apologize for being REALLY inappropriate in your comments.--Sir Edgar 02:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry for my behaviour towards Hong. I realise I was completely out of line for saying such things. I only hope he and my fellow editors can forgive me. Please. I guess I was just sick of all the reverts and editing. I dont think I could have normally written such harsh words. I retract my statements.

Concurrently, I refuse to apologise for my love for Japan. I am not ashamed to say that I think that Japan is one of the greatest country ever!!

PS. Do we have a consensus on this issue or not? --WoodElf 06:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just move on. I'm going to start a new section for discussion on the WW2 mention in the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WoodElf, I'm glad that you're honorable enough to admit your mistake and openly apologize like this to Hong. Good for you! I'm also glad that you can admit your love for Japan. This shows that you may want to refrain from editing controversial content because you cannot maintain NPOV on this subject matter.

I also greatly admire traditional Japanese culture and think that it is a stunningly beautiful and tranquil country that is also very modern and interesting. I look upon my time there with fond memories and enjoy visiting each time and, in fact, will be in Japan again in a couple of weeks. However, I also think that there are serious problems in the way history is taught there and how Japanese people perceive the outside world. Recently, it was National Foundation Day (Kenkoku Kinenbi)-- a totally bogus holiday created during the Meiji era to bolster nationalism and loyalty to the emperor (two things that caused so much pain to others before and during WWII).

With a population that is not properly educated about its origins (from Korea), its development (from China), and its past (Nanking Massacre, etc.), I am worried about its future (re-militarization). A country that until recently didn't even consider itself "Asian", because of its extreme disdain for such an identity, can only de-humanize those who are. Furthermore, people who cannot fully own up to their wrongdoings (or the wrongdoings of their predecessors), will never change. And then history repeats itself.

If this article is to attain Good Article and Featured Article status, it must be balanced, well-written, interesting, and useful. Putting in facts like the Nanking Massacre helps balance. Including links to Unit 731 makes it interesting. You may not like that, but without all its elements the Japan article would merely be a facade.--Sir Edgar 23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

While going through the Unit 731-related articles, I happened upon this quote from Yoshio Shinozuka, a member of the Japanese Imperial Army's Unit 731: "At the time the war was being fought, I had no idea I was a war criminal, but I knew I was part of a secret unit. I figured if a person can be shot with one bullet, what's wrong with using this person's body as an experiment for developing medical industries? Besides, I had been taught in school that the emperor is the son of God and that we are different from other Asians. Whatever orders we received from commanders of Unit 731 we followed, because they were imperial orders."

http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/shinozuka.htm

--Sir Edgar 04:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Immigration not "popular"?

I'd like to bring up this minor issue again:

Demographers and government planners are currently in a heated debate over how to cope with this problem.[30] Immigration and birth incentives are sometimes suggested as a solution to provide younger workers to support the nation's aging population.[31] Immigration, however, is not popular[citation needed] as recent increased crime rates are often attributed to foreigners living in Japan.[32]

There is a source to confirm that increased crime is attributed to foreigners, but can we confirm that "immigration is not popular" because of that? Or is that some original research that an editor inserted? If we can't find a source for that statement, I'd like to delete it and move the crime rates information to the next paragraph, which is the paragraph about reported racism in Japan. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article from The New York Times entitled "Insular Japan Needs, but Resists, Immigration":

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/24/international/asia/24JAPA.html?ei=5007&en=53c7315175389e69&ex=1374379200&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all&position=-

-Sir Edgar 05:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WW2 paragraphs

I just want to state for the record that I am OK with User:LordAmeth's revision here. Now having said that:

1. I would not mind if human experimentation is mentioned in a singular sentence or inserted as part of an existing sentence. In doing that, however, I don't think it is necessary to name Unit 731 specifically, as human experimentation was carried out in other places as well, including Southeast Asia.
2. I don't think it is necessary to specifically mention that it was the GHQ and Douglas MacArthur that lobbied to give Hirohito immunity and let him retain his position.
3. At the same time, I also don't think it is necessary to name Shiro Ishii specifically.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think both a link to human experimentation and Unit 731 is needed. You can't just talk generally about human experimentation without a specific reference to Unit 731 and you can't talk about Unit 731 without mentioning human experimentation. As for the GHQ, MacArthur, and Ishii, I agree that we can take all of that out. But until a better sentence is constructed, I'm going to leave it as is.--Sir Edgar 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Overall, we are trying to make this article as concise as possible. Might I suggest the following?

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East was convened on May 31946 to prosecute Japanese leaders for crimes against peace and humanity, such as the Nanking Massacre. Emperor Hirohito was rendered immune to prosecution.

The above mentions a specific atrocity, but removes Unit 731 ref. Hong has mentioned above that this format would be acceptable to him. A poll on this issue would help. Please leave your votes and/or comments. Support Duh, I came up with it. But seriously, the specific war crimes can be found in the Japanese war crimes article, which is linked to the article. Mentioning it here borders on redundency.--WoodElf 07:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. Specifically, I said that LordAmeth's revision is acceptable to me:

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (on 1946-05-03) was convened to prosecute Japanese leaders for crimes against peace and humanity, such as the Nanking Massacre, where between 100,000 and 300,000 civilians were murdered by the Japanese Army. Some of the accused were given immunity in exchange for vital information, and the GHQ, headed by General Douglas MacArthur, lobbied successfully to keep Emperor Hirohito's name off of the list of indictable war criminals, and he was allowed to retain his position as emperor.

It includes a number estimate of the civilians killed in the Nanjing Massacre, as well as that some figures responsible for war crimes were given immunity. Yeah, there's an article for Japanese war crimes, but there's also an article for WW2 and individual articles for what's mentioned in the History section. That does not mean we should exclude vital information. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Post-1990s content for the Modern Japan section

It seems like about a decade is missing at the end. Japan's economy is recovering and there has been much that has happened since the 1990s. I suggest we add another paragraph to this section. What do you think would be appropriate to put in here?--Sir Edgar 00:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there really a definitive opinion that the Japanese economy is recovering? Every once in a while I'd read a news article about how it's recovering, then a few days to a week later I'd read another news article about how it's not. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it's recovering doesn't matter. I think we need post-1990s content in there.--Sir Edgar 02:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, nothing really exceptional has happened in the last two decades in Japan, so one or two lines is ok.--WoodElf 07:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. A nuclear incident at a nuclear-fuel processing plant, major financial scandals, the arrival of holding companies, the trend toward a two-party system and collapse of the Socialist/Social Democratic Party, new airports here and there, Shinkansen extensions, breakdown in the education system, the renaming of MITI, the legalization of the dollar, and --- who'd have predicted it? --- the return of black hair. Fg2 08:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good one! :D But lets try to keep it real, kay? --WoodElf 08:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fg2, would you be willing to write something up? If we can at least have a start, I'm sure others (including myself) will jump in and add more content/edit.--Sir Edgar 04:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

BBC interview with Doudou Diène, before he submitted the UNCHR report

I have deleted the BBC interview with Doudou Diène because that info is old and inaccurate. The BBC interview with Doudou Diène describes how Diène was about to submit his UNCHR report (before the fact), but was going to consult with the Japanese government first. Subsequently, Diène retracted his view that the "government does not recognise the depth of the problem", because there are passages in the actual UNCHR report describing certain aspects where the government actually recognizes some of the problem. Obviously, Diène changed his position after his BBC interview, before submitting his report.

• Here's the actual UNCHR report: http://www.imadr.org/en/news/pdf/DienRacismReportJapanwithCorr-E.pdf

--Endroit 17:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that decision. One shouldn't use a BBC report before the event to discuss what happened afterwards. John Smith's 17:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the paragraph without using BBC as a source. But it's very interesting indeed that you did not just take out the part about the Japanese government, but also took out that he said that racism is "deep and profound" in Japan - something that the report still contains. Nice work, really. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment; if it's inaccurate, it's got to go! Now regarding this addition by HongQiGong, I'm sure that 3 sentences regarding racism is too long, and I trust that somebody can trim it down. (Or else, show me a few country articles where 3 sentences are devoted to a particular report on discrimination. Germany? United States? Russia?)--Endroit 19:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If we're using the contents of other countries' articles, such as Germany, as a standard of what to include and what to exclude, I can certainly go ahead and add more about Japanese war atrocities in the WW2 section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Be sure you get consensus first, or else you'll just get reverted.--Endroit 20:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Same goes for the racism section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You two are really doing your best at trying to sanitize this text. It's quite blatant. What kind of content have you actually added to it? Are you making it a BETTER article? Endroit, you are such a terrible reader. Your assessment of the report is totally inaccurate. What makes you assume that Diene "retracted" his statement? One of the first statements in the UN report is... "there is profound discrimination of a cultural and historical nature (in Japan)". It also says, "The Government, at the highest levels, should officially and publicly recognize the existence of racial discrimination and xenophobia in Japanese society." That means the Japanese government does NOT recognize the existence of racism in Japan. And it says, "The Government should strongly condemn and oppose to any statement by public officials which tolerates or even encourages racial discrimination and xenophobia..." That means it does NOT condemn public officals for racist statements. And, "The Government and the parliament (Diet) should as a matter of urgency proceed to the adoption of a national law against racism, discrimination and xenophobia..." That means there does NOT exist a national law against racism in Japan.

Re-inserting quote and source.--Sir Edgar 23:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's just plain Original Research by Sir Edgar, claiming that BBC reported Diène's findings early in 2005. This edit by Sir Edgar, says the following:

• In 2005, BBC News reported a United Nations Special Rapporteur's findings that racism in Japan is "deep and profound", and that the government does not recognise the depth of the problem [4]

The actual UNCHR report by Diène (see p.7)in 2006 says:

• Certain national and local authorities with whom the Special Rapporteur met recognized the discrimination against certains groups, while others minimized it. Overall, these authorities identified the following groups as being victims of discrimination: the Buraku, the Ainu, the Koreans, the Chinese and the other foreigners, and migrant workers..

So in fact, Diène's official position is NOT that "the government doesn't recognize the problem", but rather that "only certain authorities recognized the problem."

Other than that mistake, these additions would make a great stub for a new aritcle Racial Discrimination in Japan. But for now, I suggest that this great material be moved to another article, Ethnic issues in Japan.--Endroit 08:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Endroit, and I don't appreciate Sir Edgar's personal attacks on him. This is not about biased attempts to "sanitize" the text. It is about combating attempts to bias the text towards a representation of Japan as racist and a country of war criminals. Please, this is meant to be an article on all of Japan. If you want to discuss war crimes or atrocities or racism or ethnic issues or UN criticisms (by, I might add, one observer who is by no means the sole authority on such issues in Japan), go create other articles, or discuss them in other places.

As far as I am aware, there are very few, if any, other country articles on wikipedia that have this kind of issue. I have no problem with a sentence or two mentioning cultural/ethnic issues in Japan - every country has issues of discrimination, and issues of ethnic or national identity - but to mention the UNHRC report and Doudou Diene by name implies a greater significance and a greater problem than is indeed present. All in all, this is not that different from the issue of Shiro Ishii and Unit 731 - this is not about the content, per se - I am not trying to sanitize the text or impose any kind of pro-Japanese bias. This is a summary article summarizing everything that Japan stands for. It is simply put not the place for these kinds of detailed specific citations on such incredibly specific events or reports. LordAmeth 10:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think these are important, relevant facts that need to be discussed in the main article. The UN has specificially mentioned Japan as having unique racial discrimination problems. As a major industrialized country, I think this is worth noting. Especially in regards to its history developing as an Asian nation that does not consider itself Asian and thus considered other Asians sub-human, I think its ongoing discrimination against such people needs to be discussed.

What would be a Germany article without mention of the Holocaust? If there remained a significant population of Jews in Germany today and the German government continued to allow systematic discrimination against them, then it would be worth mentioning in its Demographics section. However, this is not the case and thus not mentioned.

LordAmeth, you admitted to not reading the UN report. I suggest you do so. You also said, "As far as I am aware, there are very few, if any, other country articles on wikipedia that have this kind of issue." That's correct. And there are also few, if any, countries that have the UN cite it for "deep and profound" racial discrimination.

Regardless, I'm going to reduce the amount of content on this report, but I think it still deserves a couple of sentences.--Sir Edgar 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Unit731 and anti-Japanese

Unit731 is a word that the anti-Japan ideologist frequently uses. For instance, Novel that writes that Korean people persecuted Japanese after World War II So Far from the Bamboo Grove, the newspaper of South Korea was written that father of the author of this book was a staff of Unit731. [5](Her father was a staff of South Manchuria Railway.) Unit731 has little precise data. Therefore, a lot of anti-Japanese ideologists exaggerate and quote Unit731. --Sir Joestar 18:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong: I didn't see any part of the passage on Unit 731 that was inaccurate. Some members of Unit 731 were not part of the trial because they were off the list to begin with, were they not?--Endroit 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that the only part of Japanese WW2 history you think is important are the "atrocities". All is fair in love and war, and what is and is not an "atrocity" is quite arbitrary. Is not the murder of a human being an atrocity enough? Anyway, these are simply my personal views. About this article: a single mention of the war crimes is more than sufficient. Those of you who wish to dig up every shred of evidence about Japanese "crimes" may do so in the respective articles.

I do not support what the Japanese army did; i simply wish to point out that speaking solely about the negative effects Japan had on its neighbours as purely POV. They have been blown out of proportion. Further, such specifics have no place in a main country article.

--WoodElf 06:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Having... what, 3 or 4 sentences about Japan's war crimes in the article is "speaking solely about the negative effects"? From what I'm seeing, better mention of Japan's war crimes actually brings more balance to this article. Those crimes are a big part of Japan's modern history, and it's something that's still snagging Japan's relationships with its neighbors today. Reducing its mention would be a disservice to the article. And hey, there are main articles for many of the sections in this article. Why not just say, "Japan allied with Germany and Italy, then the US dropped the atomic bombs, and Japan surrendered." I mean, I don't see anybody suggesting that any number of the non-controversial sections be cut down because they don't belong in a main country article. Under your logic, there's a bunch of stuff that can be cut out from, for example, the Economy section, or the Government section, or the Geography section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I support LordAmeth's latest edit [6], which doesn't include Unit 731. All the material we omitted can be moved to the Japanese war crimes article.--Endroit 08:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Unit 731 is an important, relevant, and interesting fact for the main Japan article. It ties together the other two sentences in the paragraph and it should not be omitted.--Sir Edgar 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of my edits to Ethnic issues section

Hopefully without getting involved in a whole new debate, I simply wished to describe the reasoning behind [Talk:Japan&oldid=108577364|these edits] to the Demographics section, as my explanation doesn't fit in the Edit Summary section, and since such things should probably go on the talk page anyway.

(1) I'm not positive if it's in the report, because I have not bothered to read it, but it is significant to mention foreigners from other Asian countries as a chief group that suffers from discrimination. Discrimination against Koreans and Chinese in Japan is of a different sort than discrimination against whites, blacks, or other minorities.

(2) The phenomenon of discrimination against Japanese who have traveled abroad and become more foreign or more Western or in some way less Japanese is a real one. I don't care if it's not in the report - this is not an article on the report, this is an article section on Demographics in Japan. If anyone knows the Japanese word used to refer to these people, it will help me dramatically towards finding a citation.

Thank you. LordAmeth 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Japanese word for these people, kikoku shijyo (帰国子女) comes to mind as likely to be discriminated in Japan. Alternately, there may be other situations which may be cause for discrimination in Japan. Try a few keywords by combining "Group 1" (on left) and "Group 2" (on right) from below:

• Group 1 (on left): kaigai (海外), (less often gaikoku (外国), kikoku (帰国))
• Group 2 (on right): shijyo (子女), kyōiku (教育), chūzai('in) (駐在(員)), tenkin (転勤), kyojyū(sha) (居住(者))

For example, "kaigai chūzai'in (海外駐在員)" is a valid keyword.

People who fit these categories (or situations) sometime in their lifetime are likely to be treated differently in Japan. Hope this helps.--Endroit 17:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hitec81

Is there an admin we can report this Hitec81 character to in order to stop him/her from repeatedly vandalising the article? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia:Vandalism. Fg2 05:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

He's blocked. If he does it once he gets off his block (24h), report him to WP:AIV, or WP:ANI if the AIV people don't think it counts as simple vandalism. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Unit 731 and UN Report

You do not have consensus on these two issues and I care not for a mini-consensus of THREE people.--Sir Edgar 23:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Edgar, we only need to tally the discussions above to see that you have even LESS consensus. are even FURTHER from consensus.

Moreover, repeatedly trying to add BBC's UNCHR "findings", which is premature and inaccurate, despite being warned, is a blatant attempt to feed misinformation into Wikipedia.

This edit by Sir Edgar claims that BBC reported Diène's findings early in 2005:

• In 2005, BBC News reported a United Nations Special Rapporteur's findings that racism in Japan is "deep and profound", and that the government does not recognise the depth of the problem [7]

The actual UNCHR report by Diène (see p.7)in 2006 says:

• Certain national and local authorities with whom the Special Rapporteur met recognized the discrimination against certains groups, while others minimized it. Overall, these authorities identified the following groups as being victims of discrimination: the Buraku, the Ainu, the Koreans, the Chinese and the other foreigners, and migrant workers..

So in fact, Diène's official position is NOT that "the government doesn't recognize the problem", but rather that "only certain authorities recognized the problem."

Please get your facts straight, and don't feed misinformation into Wikipedia. please.--Endroit 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you have concensus. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. There's no such thing as "less consensus". Consensus in the context of editing WP means unanimous support. Even a super majority support is not consensus, a super majority support is just that - a super majority support. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been following these debates for a while and it seems like issues like Unit 731 and racism would be more appropriate in the subarticles on Japan rather than the main page. These are important issues, but just as an example, I find it ironic that the article on the United States (of all countries) doesn't mention racism or racial tensions, yet in Japan "racial discrimination and xenophobia are major societal issues"? Something doesn't add up. CES 13:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that tells me is that racism should be mentioned in the United States article. But good luck trying to insert that in with all the neocons that are probably sitting there. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should racism be mentioned in the United States article? Has the United States been cited by the UN for "deep and profound" racial discrimination? Doesn't the United States have laws against racial discrimination? Hasn't the United States made great strides towards equality? So have other industrialized countries. Japan is the only major industrialized country with what I would call "passively institutionalized" racism today.

Certainly, racism exists in many places around the world. However, in Japan, it is, in some ways, accepted by the government, the judiciary, and the people. We can see that in laws and practices. I was just told by another friend living in Japan about a sign in front of a bar saying, "Foreigners not adbised to enter." And yet, only a complaint will have such a sign removed in Japan. There are no legal consequences. That is not to say everyone in Japan is racist. But with a history of de-humanizing others (other Asians, specifically) based on their race (despite the fact that the Japanese are also Asian), such as in the situation with Unit 731, and no substantial move away from this mentality today, I think these issues should be mentioned in the main article. The fact is, in some fundamental ways, Japan has changed very little in the past half century.--Sir Edgar 23:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

While the legal situation is interesting to a point, the implicit racism in the US strikes me as more of a "major societal issue" than the explicit racism in Japan. Ultimately what is considered important enough to include in a main article is subjective, but as someone who has lived in both countries, I find it hard to put racism as it is in modern Japan on par with racism or racial/ethnic tensions in the US or EU. CES 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

They are not comparable situations because they are different situations. It is debatable whether racism is more severe in Japan than in the US or Europe. However, we do know that the laws and practices are different in Japan and not seen in other industrialized countries. In addition, when we see Japan through the eyes of a Westerner (especially if you have blond hair and blue eyes), it is totally different from the perspective of someone who is Chinese or Korean. Racism against Asians is specifically mentioned over and over in the UN report. This is significant, especially in respect to the historical backdrop of Japan's "leaving Asia", its colonization of neighboring Asian countries, World War II, and foreign relations with China and Korea today.--Sir Edgar 06:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, it isn't just the US article that doesn't mention racism. Really I haven't been able to find any examples of country pages where sections are devoted to accusations of racism. Yes, Japan has a report, but that's only because the UN rep was invited to Japan. I could see him making similar reports about lots of other North American and European countries - that's only first-world countries. So the fact there was a report does not mean Japan has a unique problem. Indeed people I know that have lived in Japan often say they've found much worse in South Korea, which local girls routinely being spat on for holding hands with non-Koreans. Can't say I've ever seen that happen in a Japanese city. John Smith's 13:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's seems only concerned about racism towards Westerners and Japanese. He gets upset that a Westerner's girlfriend is spat on and that a Westerner is offended about it than historical facts about Chinese and Koreans being mutilated alive for biological experiments and that institutionalized racism is allowed against such people in Japan today. Do you care less about them because they're Chinese and Korean? I'm sure you'd be outraged if this happened to and is happening to a Westerner or Japanese. We are talking about important historical facts and current issues. Nobody cares about your self-serving anecdotal "evidence". These are far-reaching, relevant topics that are crucial to this article. Please, get your priorities straight. It's not all about you.--Sir Edgar 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John Smith's. Just because the UN representative was invited to Japan and reported on it doesn't mean that the problem is any more severe there than in all the countries where the rep did not travel, research, and write reports. I have no problem with a few lines being included on the problem, as it is now, but I cannot stress enough that it needs to just be left alone already and not emphasized or played with or tooled around with. Discrimination runs deep in many many societies, and the governments of many many countries arguably do not do enough to combat it. Just because there's a UN report doesn't make Japan's situation any more dire than anywhere else, and just because we have some editors here who are Chinese or Korean does not mean that they should feel the need to emphasize these elements of Japanese society. I don't make those kinds of edits, or those kinds of arguments on any other articles from France to Korea to Saudi Arabia to Germany regarding the kinds of discrimination & racial/ethnic problems they have in those countries. Please please please put it aside and leave it alone. LordAmeth 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, LordAmeth. racism exists all over the world. There is no country that is an exception. However, when a modern, industrialized country like Japan allows legal and customary racism, then this is relevant. It is the only developed country we know that does this. It is UNIQUE to Japan. If apartheid existed today in South Africa, it would definitely be mentioned in the Demographics section. Now, it's in the History section. The same people (Chinese and Koreans) that the Japanese decided to differentiate themselves from during the Meiji era are the same people that were tortured and experimented on during World War II and the same people that are discriminated against now. These are also the people whose countries that Japan has its primary foreign relations problems with today. It is all very relevant and intertwined. And should be mentioned in this article.--Sir Edgar 23:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone that the racism mention in this article is to bring balance back. I mentioned this a while ago. Remember that a sentence somehow got inserted about foreigners being responsible for increased crime, in a section about something totally different - the population problem in Japan? Does the US article mention that African Americans are disproportionally convicted of crimes, when talking about something totally different? Does the France article mention that Arabs are responsible for increased crime when talking about something totally different? etc etc. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hong, I believe that edit was removed - that or modified to show it reflected the views of SOME Japanese. If there is still the implication there that foreigners do cause increased crime, it should be changed. Responding with lengthy comments on racism is not necessary - it is better to elimate the problem at source. As far as I can see, comments about foreigners & crime is explanatory in reference to why some Japanese do not like the idea of increased immigration to deal with the demographic issue - it is not designed to be a random stab at foreigners. John Smith's 14:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The racism section, as well, would serve to explain why SOME Japanese might not like the idea of increased immigration, would it not? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That there is racism in Japan is not established as a major source of the hostility to more immigration, whereas fears over crime is. John Smith's 16:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What is that, your own personal opinion? The NY Times article that's sourced in the article about immigration in Japan doesn't even talk about crime.[8] In fact, I don't think we have one source on the article that specifically attribute resistance to immigration on crime. But that NY Times article talks about Japan being "insular" though, with notions of "ethnic purity". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal opinion doesn't cut any ice, does it? I was talking about what we do have as information. As to the NYT article, the same could be and is said about many other countries too. John Smith's 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... like I said, we actually don't have any sources to attribute resistance to immigration on crime... The only sourced we have that talks about resistance to immigration talks about how Japan is "insular" and with a notion of "ethnic purity".

I should point out that currently there are about 14 words on fears over foreigner-crime, compared to over 80 for the racism issue. So really the current version is rather disproportionate if it is there to balance out foreigner-crime comments. John Smith's 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That should not be the only purpose. Plus, the section doesn't even attribute resistance to immigration to racism in the first place, when it probably should. The issue is worth mentioning in and of itself. The fact that the article about the US or other countries do not mention racism - if it is indeed a notable issue for that country - just means that the information ought to be inserted. Just don't ask me to do it personally. If there's already such resistance to mentioning racism in Japan on the Japan article, I'll never get an insertion about racism in the US to stick in the US article. I've never even edited the US article once. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You said "The racism section, as well, would serve to explain why SOME Japanese might not like the idea of increased immigration, would it not?". If you didn't think that, why say it? You also said it was necessary to have this bit because of a short comment on foreigner-crime. In that case, please tell me why 80 words is needed to balance out 14.

Why should it attribute resistance to immigration as being caused by racism? What do you have to say that is the case?

As has been said, racism is everywhere. It is a huge issue in every corner of the world. The issue is whether or not it needs to be discussed here on this particular article. And due to the lack of discussion of it on other country pages I do not see why it needs lots of discussion. There are much better places to discuss it. Throwing a paragraph in because of a single report seems to be rather daft. John Smith's 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And as has been said, the fact that it doesn't exist on other articles only tells me that it should exist on other articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is that? Why does it need to be discussed on country pages? John Smith's 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's important information. Sort of like how the Japanese defended against Mongol invasion with the help of "kamakaze", or how traditional woodblock printing and western art led to the creation of manga. Neither of which, interestingly enough, are actually discussed in the Japan article on Japanese WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that discrimination in Japan is an important issue in the Japan article. Apparently, HongQiGong is outnumbered 6 to 2 regarding the importance of this particular topic within this article.--Endroit 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hahhah, you can always count on User:Endroit to do a head count. Anyway, I'm willing to compromise. If we get rid of the statement about how immigration is not "popular" due to increased crime, then I don't mind if we get rid of the whole 3 sentences on racism. It is unsupported anyway that immigration is not popular due to increase crime. Furthermore, let's elaborate more on how the government is handling the declining birth rate. We already have one source[9] about how immigration is a solution. I also found this[10] about how the government is offering more child-care facilities and other benefits to working women. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement about immigration does not say it is unpopular due to rising crime - it is that immigration is unpopular because foreigners have been blamed for it. If you think it can be worded better, please have a go - or bring in a source that questions that supposition. John Smith's 18:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant to say. And I'm suggesting we get rid of that because it's unsupported. We know that there is increased crime attributed to foreigners, but we don't know that immigration is unpopular because of that. The one source we have on how immigration might be unpopular explains that Japan is "insular", not because Japanese people blame foreigners for increased crime. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John Smith's. The statement about rising crime being attributed to immigration should stay. It should be worded carefully though because I think it was proven that there is no strong correlation and that this could just be the media and the general population's perception.--Sir Edgar 23:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are also two other sources that discuss solutions to Japan's declining birthrate[11][12]. It doesn't seem like many sources even talk about immigration as a solution. And the one source we have to support that is from a "Japan Immigration Policy Institute" in the first place, which I don't think is a government group. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A point on trying to make it easier for women to work and have kids might be interesting. However if anything is added (regardless of what it's on), please, please, please use one of the reference templates - throwing a URL link in just means someone like myself has to come along and format it later. Thanks. John Smith's 19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unit 731 and racism in Japan are both issues that are inherently important to this article. Unit 731 is a prime example of atrocities committed by the Japanese during WWII. It belongs in that section. Legal and customary racism still exists in Japan. The only countries that I have heard of having signs not allowing certain ethnicities into public establishments are apartheid South Africa, pre-civil rights America, and modern day Japan. This kind of discrimination issue has been mentioned over and over in regards to Japan. And thus it is an issue that is unique to Japan.--Sir Edgar 23:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Legal and customary racism": This is at least the second time you have used this phrase. Support please. You seem to imply that the law actually supports racism, and I wonder if can elaborate a bit. And what is customary racism? Do you mean that racism is a custom in which the majority of Japanese engage?-Jefu 02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't open your eyes, you will never see. If you refuse to listen, you will never hear. It's clear what your choice is because I'm sure you've at least read the Ethnic issues in Japan article right here at Wikipedia. Sometimes, I really wonder about you, Jefu. You seem to like this tactic I've seen used by many Japanese people that asks others to bear the burden of providing loads of evidence only to reject it in the end.--Sir Edgar 04:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Edgar, perhaps as long as you don't open YOUR eyes, you wouldn't see that there are other articles worth your attention, such as Ethnic issues in Japan and Japanese war crimes. Please don't put all your efforts into just the Japan article. Put some of these information into those other articles instead.--Endroit 17:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not leaving until I bring this article to GA or FA status. And to do that, I think a couple of issues need to be resolved first. I'm not going to work on other parts of Japan until these get settled. So, if you keep fighting me, expect me to be here for a long time. In fact, I don't want to work on any other articles until I'm done here.--Sir Edgar 23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a one-man-show, Sir Edgar. You need to follow the discussions, just like everybody else here. And if you have a dispute, you need to pursue WP:DR properly.--Endroit 01:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no agreement on what form the article should remain in. The version that I propose was accepted for a while. So, you cannot say that the version you propose is the default one.--Sir Edgar 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Edgar seems to be intent on pursuing his own agenda ... perhaps this dispute needs to be taken to a higher level of dispute resolution? CES 03:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a threat to me. Please be careful in your comments or you may just get into bigger trouble yourself.--Sir Edgar 04:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an honest suggestion ... but if you view the suggestion of third-party arbitration as a threat, then so be it. To me it seems like the only logical conclusion when a single editor continues to push his POV about what is notable for inclusion in this article despite overwhelming opposition. Regardless of how much time you've spent on this article, your actions amount to little more than vandalism. CES 12:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Honest, but not honorable, in its intention. It's obvious you've already tried and judged me. But just because I am outnumbered does not mean that I am wrong. This is a valid disagreement about content and there are two versions at debate.--Sir Edgar 01:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice weasle out of answering my question, Sir Edgar. If you have a basis for making the statement, let’s hear it, if not, you probably shouldn’t be making it in the first place. I am a little bit knowledgeable about Japanese law in this area, and have access to lots of additional resources, but I’m interested in hearing what you have to say on this. I’m particularly curious about your claim of “legal racism”. I’m not even sure what that means, frankly. Look, I’m certainly not denying that Japan has a problem with racism. I’ve been victimized by it on more than one occasion. But anyone who makes a comparison between Japan and Apartheid South Africa with a straight face either 1) is terribly unknowledgeable, or 2) has an agenda. I suspect it is a little bit of both. However passionate you may be about this article, you certainly have not demonstrated the kind of familiarity and knowledge of Japan that should be expected of someone who has appointed himself editor-in-chief of this article.-Jefu 03:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Okay, so now it's time for you brag that you're a lawyer, have lived in Japan for 20 years, been to every nook and cranny of the country, and have a Japanese wife. Isn't it? And how much have you contributed to the article's development...?--Sir Edgar 04:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You're really pathetic, Sir Edgar. And you are still avoiding a very reasonable question. I think we can all safely conclude now that you have no basis for your claims, only the agenda that keeps you here.-Jefu 14:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, Edgar won't be reasoned with and won't change his attitude until he gets his way. Like a child throwing a temper-tantrum on the supermarket floor, the only way to get through it is to ignore him. Don't let him waste any more of your precious time. John Smith's 14:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, hey, why don't you all take it somewhere else, ok? If you're really concerned about giving this article a balance, then let's save this Talk page for discussion about the editing, and not for personal comments and bad faith assumptions about each other. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're more pathetic, Jefu. You say you're a lawyer, but can't seem to construct a decent sentence. Look at your running sentences in your earlier post. Terrible. You seem to just focus on proofreading the article, rather than actually contributing. And yet, I notice you constantly spelling incorrectly. Is the reason why you're in Japan is because you can't cut it as a lawyer at home? Being a high-paid proofreader must have its merits, if you are always the center of attention in your new country.

Really, it makes me sick to my stomach when you claim that you are some kind of grand Voice of Reason when you're just as biased as any of the other JABA here. Anyhow, I'm not going to engage in a debate with you about something you clearly refuse to acknowledge. And I have no basis for "my claims"? These are not MY claims. It's all cited information with credible sources. You just object to the fact that it's included in this article. Is there anything incorrect about the edits that we're talking about? You tell me. Don't make others do all the work. I'm not going to waste my time with you when you will never want to understand.

And I think it's even more childish that you guys decide to gang-up on me a la bullying Japonais like this. Just because you can't take me one-on-one...

I will be in Nara, Japan to do some research this week and next. So, I won't be able to post for a while. But I hope someday soon we can all work together to make a better, balanced article. The Unit 731 and UN Report issues, I believe, are the last sticking controversial points in this article. Then other parts of the article can be worked on and improved.--Sir Edgar 01:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the investigation of the newspaper of South Korea, The South Korean insists that Japan should have four original sins in Korea. Unit731 is one of the Japanese original sins. Japan succeeded by the sacrifice of Korea. However, the Japanese starts forgetting the history of afflicting Korea. Therefore, a lot of Koreans are angry. [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.212.99.131 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please sign your posts. Secondly, if you read the article, you'd see that original sin is a Christian biblical concept relating to Eve and the Garden of Eden, and has nothing to do with this at all. Thirdly, I ask that you please put your nationalistic attitude and pointlessly long memory behind you. The world cannot become a better place if people refuse to forgive and forget. I was not there when all of this happened, neither were you, and neither were the vast majority of Japanese living today. It's a new generation - times have changed. Get over it. Defining your entire culture and identity by a sense of victimization is not a healthy thing. LordAmeth 11:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

LordAmeth, that was a post from Japan. See here: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=220.212.99.131 The only people posting about the Korean this and the Korean that are Japanese posters. And racism doesn't exist in Japan, does it?--Sir Edgar 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There's racism everywhere - so what? John Smith's 09:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And under the South Africa-like apartheid regime that currently prevails here in Japan, Korean nationals are all kept in slums without any access to computers, the Internet or any other modern amenities whatsoever, so <painfully faulty logic>having originated from a Japanese IP address, that post could only have come from an ethnic Japanese</painfully faulty logic>...-Jefu 10:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Emperor Godaigo

At this time, Takauji was a partial commander. Ashikaga Takauji attacked Rokuhara Tanndai by the Emperor Godaigo's instruction. (Nitta Yoshisada attacked Kamakura.) 1333年、鎌倉幕府は後醍醐天皇によって滅ぼされました。このとき、足利尊氏は後醍醐天皇の指揮官の中の1人でした。 （厳密に言えば、足利尊氏は京都の六波羅探題を攻撃しましたが、鎌倉幕府の本拠地を攻撃したのは新田義貞でした。）

After Takauji had moved to the Kanto region, Godaigo did the declaration of war to Takauji. As a result, Godaigo was defeated at Takauji. And, Takauji started the shogunate. 足利尊氏が北条氏の残党を討伐するため関東に向かうと、後醍醐天皇は新田義貞に足利尊氏を討つように命令しました。その結果、尊氏は後醍醐天皇に反逆し、後醍醐天皇を捕虜にしました。その後、尊氏は足利幕府を開きました。

Please point out the part where this information is wrong. 私のこの情報の間違っている部分を指摘してください。--ShinjukuXYZ 17:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page) Thank you for illuminating this. The part that is wrong is where you wrote that Go-Daigo overthrew the Kamakura shogunate in order to suppress Takauji. As you explain here, Takauji served the Emperor, not the Kamakura shogunate, and thus his "suppression", which never succeeded, was not connected directly to the fall of the Kamakura shogunate. LordAmeth 17:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--ShinjukuXYZ 18:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

To Edger

Edgerさん。あなたはLordAmethがCleanupした文章を削除しました。
Edger, You deleted sentences to which LordAmeth had done Cleanup. [14]
Edgerの削除理由は「基本のバージョンに戻す」でした。Edgerさん、基本のバージョンは誰が決定したのですか？
Your deletion reason was "Revert from biased version. " Who decided a basic version?
私はEdgerが日本歴史の素人ではないと信じています。Edgerは鎌倉幕府の滅亡を正確に説明してくれるでしょう。
I believe that Edger is not an amateur of a Japanese history. Edger will accurately explain the ruin of the Kamakura Shogunate.
Edgerさん、それでは説明をお願いします。 Edger, Please start explaining.　--ShinjukuXYZ 18:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern Japan

In response to a request for additional information about Japan since 1995, I added the following:

Japan's reputation for quality, reliability, and safety has been rocked by a number of recent developments. One was an incident at a uranium-enrichment plant in Tōkai, Ibaraki in 1999. Failing to follow established procedures, workers placed seven times the allowable limit of uranium-containing chemicals in a bucket, resulting in a release of radiation leading to two deaths. The 1996 Great Hanshin earthquake revealed that on major construction projects, companies had ignored important safety regulations. The Construction Accounting Statement Forgery Problem cast similar doubts on the safety of some high-rise buildings when it was learned that architects had falsified documents on earthquake resistance. Maintenance problems have plagued Japan Air Lines. The food industry, too, has been hit by scandals at famous companies such as Snow Brand Milk Company (2000) and Fujiya (2006).

If anyone wants to do anything with it, please feel free.

Fg2 11:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What about comments about the economy? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just a completely one-sided account of bad things that have happened in Japan. Accidents and the like occur in every country in the world - I'm not sure why that needs to be discussed. Plus the article has more than enough content already. It needs the citations to be formatted more than anything else. John Smith's 15:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest should be mentioned about Japan in the past 10 or so years? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As to the economy? Don't know that anything special has to be said at all. Maybe a slight expansion of the crash/recovery bit. But only if it's going to be properly referenced. John Smith's 17:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, not just the economy. Aside from the economy, which probably deserves mention, there must be something that's worth mentioning in the past 10 years. As for the economy, I know that a news article basically gets published everytime the stock exchange had a great day or inflation hit a record low, but I don't know of any sources that cover the economy of Japan in the past 10 or so years in a more general context. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should work on formatting the current citations before we move onto new information. John Smith's 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Economist has a great archive of articles by country that goes back quite a bit, but you have to have a subscription to access them online. Let me know specifically what kind of stuff you want to source, and I'll see if I can find it.-Jefu 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)