Talk:Japan/Archive 14

Educational data

International educational scores (1997) (13-year-old's average score, TIMSS Third International Math and Science Study, 1997)
Countries: (sample)	Global rank	Maths		Science
		Score	Rank	Score	Rank
Singapore	1	643	1	607	1
Japan	2	605	3	571	3
South Korea	3	607	2	565	4
Czech Republic	4	564	6	574	2
England	18	506	25	552	10
Thailand	20	522	20	525	21
Germany	22	509	23	531	19
France	23	538	13	498	28
United States	24	500	28	534	17
Source: 1997 TIMSS, in The Economist, March 29th 1997.

{{JapanEducationalScores2003}}
I uncluded the Internatinal Education comparisons of the TIMSS for 1997. A more recent study was made in 2003, which is broadly consistent, but to which most of the European countries did not participate, which limits its interest as an International comparison. The 2007 study should solve this issue however, so let's look forward to its results. In the meantime, 1997 is probably the most pertinent, and anyway educational achievements do not change so much in such a short amount of time. PHG 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The 1997 numbers are too outdated. It is misleading to use such information and damages the credibility of the article to have it up. You seem to be complaining that the 2003 study isn't "adequate". Sorry, if you want any figures you have to use the most recent ones. Alternatively you can just drop the matter completely and wait until the 2007 figures are out. Personally I wouldn't want to use even the 2003 numbers, as 4 years ago is a bit too long ago in my opinion. John Smith's 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This sounds to me quite intolerant and exagerated. 10 years is no big deal in educational matters, and yes, the 2003 study is less pertinent as an international comparison. This data is quite important as it goes a long way explaining Japan's (and a lot of Asia's) economical and technology successes.PHG 17:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt very much that people reading the article will think figures from 10 years ago are that credible, even if they haven't changed much. You said yourself new figures will be out this year - why not just wait for them? John Smith's 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I hate to see you people arguing. Can't we wait until the 2007 figures are available? Also, the same chart already appears in Education in Japan, and we have a link to that article already.--Endroit 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The data is valid, even if it is dated, and its pertinent to the overall trends of Asia vs. many western countries, esp. the US. The figures have not changed that much from the last that Ive heard. As long as the current date is there, there is no valid reason to remove it. I say update it, fine, but do not remove in the absense of nothing better, esp. given that these figures and trends remain relatively current.Giovanni33 19:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I put the 2003 figures in. If someone wants to crop that they can. John Smith's 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This 2003 template is wrong (it is based on data I only partially put in, when I realized most European countries had not participated). The numbers are inexact. Please keep the 1997 Template instead {{EducationalScoresJapan}}. PHG 06:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you just update the 2003 figures? I don't even know how you drew them up, so if you want it to be accurate it's better for you to address it personally. John Smith's 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Although John Smith's has a point that the 2003 TIMSS figures are more recent than the 1997 ones (a no-nonsense point indeed), the 2003 study is marred by the fact that almost no European coutries participated to it, lessening its value as an International comparison. I included the two template above so that anyone can compare. 2003, although more recent, is unfortunately much less comprehensive, and therefore less informative, than 1997. Opinions welcome.PHG 14:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Other European countries (apart from the ones I listed) did participate, such as Hungary. But the fact a few countries on the previous list did not participate is somewhat irrlevant, as they were (would be) all below Japan. This is supposed to show Japan's position in the rankings. So although I might accept on the main article on the standards it would be better to use the 1997 figures, I think it's fair to use the 2003 figures to show Japan's position compared to the top countries. John Smith's 14:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned the 1997 figures damage the credibility of the article too much. Although I can understand these projects are conducted over a long period of time, I don't think many readers will think figures from 10 years ago are terribly relevant, especially when more recent surveys have been carried out. If the abscence of a few countries had boosted Japan's position I would understand, but given that it has actually dropped down it rather suggests they are more reflective of the current situation. It's worth noting, too, that both Hong Kong and Taiwan are missing from the 1997 table. Given they did well in 2003, it seems unfair to leave them out just because 1997 had other countries in it. John Smith's 14:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rape of Nanking

Censorship to historic and current events sourced by major news outlets

On the page of People's Republic of China, there is a great picture of the tiananmen square massacre, however there is no mention of the Rape of Nanking in this article, I have included a source but my edit was reverted. I believe that if the German massacre of Jews in WII are included in the "Germany" article and other events in other countries are included in their respective wikipedia entries, but this article on the other hand is seems to have been swiped clean of any events deemed negative to the history of Japan. The Rape of Nanking was a historical event just like the Holocaust is it not? It is illegal to deny the Holocaust in some countries, but the Prime Minister of Japan in the articles that I have included, has to this day denied any events of forced rapage of so called "comfort women" and continue to visit the shrines of the soldiers that have done this and have erased these events from their textbooks. This is a current issue and on the news everyday and is partly the reason why diplomatic relations between China, Korea and Japan have been strained. I have included sources for these, now can someone please explain why this edit was reverted?

In fact I will include some right here, now you can't revert my opinion now can you?

http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/chinainstitute/news.cfm?story=49155 http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/china/china_japan_disputes.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/223038.stm

This article below talks about a possible make of a historical movie called "Rape of Nanking" possibly with Zhang Ziyi and Michelle Yeoh, so I'm not making up these facts I have cited sources.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/08/14/nanking-film.html

So for the person who would like to debate on why these historical and current events are not included, but are so in other countries please do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.15.129.18 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-07 02:32:59.

Forgot to mention

Please check-out the new FA nomination, via the link at the top of the page. If there are any minor things raised that can be corrected, please do so and make a note of it there. John Smith's 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I put a couple of citation tags in the Politics section:

1. "sovereignty is vested in the Japanese people". Is this specifically stated in the Constitution? It's not like Japan holds a national referendum on all laws that the government passes. So would this be far reaching unless it is actually stated in law somewhere?
2. The Emperor rubber-stamp approves of legislation. Is there a source for that proposed legislation actually passes through the Emperor, but that he is not allowed to veto it? Or do the laws not actually pass through the Emperor at all, because there's basically no point in it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the first part, as there is no relevant section in the Constitution. As to the second, it is actually in the Constitution he has no right of veto but has to still approve it. John Smith's 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You should put that first point back. It is explicitly stated in the opening paragraph of the constitution: "We, the Japanese people...do proclaim that sovereign power resides with the people...." (in Japanese 日本国民は・・・ここに主権が国民に存することを宣言し・・・。" This is the foundation stone of the entire system of democratic government, without which the whole thing would come tumbling down like a house of cards, so of course it is explicitly stated in the constitution. And you don't need to put every piece of legislation to a national referendum for sovereign power to reside in the people. They delegate their sovereign power to a legislative body that has the power to pass laws. That's how it works in every modern democracy.-Jefu 01:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that this article is still in B Class. Wouldn't it be a good idea to get it past Good article status before nominating it for FA? Or maybe a Wikipedia:Peer review? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It has already had a peer review. Also, as I said on the FA page, no one has bothered to actually re-grade it, despite the fact that the problems originally identified have been dealt with. So if it fails the FA nomination, it should be re-graded. But there's no point in asking for it to be re-graded until we know what the FAC result is. John Smith's 20:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A small question

I was just going through the History section and in one place it is mentioned:

The court stopped sending diplomatic missions to China in 838, and the Japanese began to turn increasingly inward.

Is there a specific int.link we could use instead of "began to turn increasingly inward"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WoodElf (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC). --WoodElf 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the exact problem? That the phrase sounds wrong, or it's unsourced? John Smith's 22:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

TIME ZONES

IS IT 9 OR 14? MY WATCH HAS TIME NOW 251 PM THERE74.195.5.83 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently, 2:54 PM. Neier 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Japan Standard Time (JST) is UTC+9. --Kusunose 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology and Statement

I want to apologize to Jefu for the inappropriate comments I made towards him on February 26. Ad hominem attacks are a sign of weakness and I simply did not have time to respond to his questions. Regardless of what I think about his approach towards the issue of racism in Japan or his asking questions before providing evidence to the contrary, it was wrong for me to do this and I was very ashamed about my behavior. It deeply bothered me during my trip to Japan... But I was relieved upon my return that Jefu was so gracious enough not to respond in turn and even acknowledge my contributions to this article in an edit comment. I have indeed worked very hard to improve this article and I would really like to see it become "A" quality.

However, I believe that if important issues of the past and current issues now facing Japan are not addressed in this article appropriately, it will never achieve that status. Trying to discreetly sweep them under the rug does not help. The skeletons in the closet always come back to haunt you. We can see this now with the comfort women controversy re-emerging yet again, as an even bigger issue than ever before. To deny responsibility is dishonorable to others and to deny the facts is a crime to your own. I hope that you will agree with me on this and see why we must address these issues before talking about judo or manga.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to help for the time being as real life is catching up to me. I leave that burden upon your shoulders. One day, maybe sooner than you think, I may return. And if I do, I hope to see something brilliant and true to us all.--Sir Edgar 06:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Edgar, none of the objections to a promotion of the article status have been due to lack of discussion of comfort-women or the ilk. It has always been about basic things like a lack of summarising or insufficient referencing. If you helped out with that we would have a platform to move forward from. The underlying problems are actually what is already in the article, not what is "missing". John Smith's 11:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. You shouldn't have brought it up, because I think I just left that particular discussion early and missed your response. Anyway, no hard feelings, and thank you for the apology. I have surely said things about you that I shouldn't have as well. BTW, I see the run-on sentence in the post above it, but is my writing really that bad? In my (belated) defense, you don't get accepted to law review at one of the country's top law schools by having bad writing skills. And I came to work as a lawyer in Japan because of my Japanese skills, not because of my lack of English skills. In any event, I am probably a little sloppier than I should be when editing Wikipedia (particularly when contributing to the talk section), so your comments probably aren't completely unjustified, but I blame it on a lack of time, rather than a lack of ability.

Regarding the statement portion of your post above, I agree completely that these issues must be addressed, both here in Japan and in the Wikipedia articles about Japan. My only concern is with presenting them in a way that suggests they are much deeper than they really are. For example, take the well-known history textbook issue that surfaces every now and then. First, here is a very good background explanation: [1]. Because of the way this controversy has been reported in the press, there are probably a lot of people out there (particularly in China and Korea) who are under the impression that Japanese schoolchildren throughout the country sit down everyday and obediently recite the right-wing anesthetized version of history that is presented in The New History Textbook. I know that when I first started picking up Japanese history textbooks and study guides for high school students here, I was a bit surprised to find mention of a number of events and episodes that I expected to be completely missing from them. What people don't understand is that protests against The New History Textbook were held here in Japan too. And, as the last paragraph of the section entitled "Current Situation" states, the book was almost completely shunned by Japanese schools when the time came to make a choice from among the eight textbooks presented to them. So, although right-wing elements certainly exist here in Japan (the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform being one shameful example), and irresponsible comments by mainstream politicians are heard far too often, I think it is unfair to present these issues in a way that casts the entire population in a light that doesn't quite reflect reality. I'm certainly no apologist. My only concern is fairness.-Jefu 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's: Not entirely true. One of the problems is that there are constant edit wars and this often involves issues of Chinese/Korean influence, World War II, and war crimes. The fact that this text is more sanitized than most conservative textbooks in Japan should come as shameful to those who are currently editing it. And it is most likely partly a reason why it is under attack by vandals so much. I would rather see a progressive Japan article that sheds light on the truth and faces hard-hitting facts than one that is timid and old guard, even backward, in its content. This is no better than an Encyclopedia Britannica edition-- relying on outdated, otrthodox viewpoints that we know today are inaccurate and putting to the side more current, controversial issues.

In fact, I think I have an idea for the 90's section. One part of it should be about the controversy surrounding the Japanese history textbooks (comfort women, etc.) It seems about almost half the time we see mention of Japan in the news these days it's about these issues.

Jefu: I agree that most of the younger generation in Japan do not harbour these anti-Chinese/Korean feelings and know a little bit about the controversies aurrouding World War II/war crimes, but the same cannot be said for the older generation who are now in power. Most Japanese people are quite complacent about politics/history. In my opinion, this complacency can be quite dangerous.

Anyhow, I think you are looking too much at individual people and not the society. I didn't vote for George W. Bush, but does that make him less representative of a very large conservative voice in America today? His policies are influencing America's future and making history. The same goes for Koizumi and Abe in Japan. Don't confuse this with an article about "everyday people in Japan". This is about Japan the nation.--Sir Edgar 23:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The generational difference is a fair point, but your comparison with Bush would carry much more weight if Abe were elected by popular vote, rather than being selected by backroom kingmaking among the only political party in the game. And, although I have no confusion about what this article is, the reality is that many people will draw conclusions about the Japanese people from an article about Japan (i.e. the predominantly young people who read these articles will form opinions about their young Japanese peers, for example). But I suppose there isn't much that can be done about that, and of course the perfectly legitimate counterpoint can be made that if the Japanese people don't like the stuff being said and done by their idiot politicians, they should work to have them replaced. Anyway, I'm really getting burned out by this whole process. And seeing that 90% of the changes to the articles in my watchlist have to do with the never ending Japan/Korea/China bickering, I think I'm going to seriously back off on my editing efforts, and just focus on adding new content.-Jefu 03:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jefu, this is not an issue of Japan/Korea/China bickering. Often times, people tend to dismiss Chinese criticism of Japan's policies and education by pointing the finger back at China, asking, "What about Tibet or Tiananmen Square?" Some also say this is just Beijing trying to drum up nationalism and vent out growing domestic discontent to an external scapegoat. This is most very inaccurate. We should recognize that these complaints are completely valid. Let's look at the facts and try to be students of history, rather than amateur political scientists. And this centuries-old mentality of suppressing any kind of early influence from Korea is ridiculous. I can't believe this is still going on and we still have people editing out the Korean introduction of Buddhism to Japan. It's quite backward and colonialistic. So, in my opinion, it is not simply a regional rivalry matter and we should not dismiss it as such.

The fact of the matter is, Japan has taken a different path from Germany after World War II on some controversial issues. We can talk about cultural differences and Japanese discretion in approach to sensitive matters like these, but all people should be judged the same. And Japan, in some ways, has not changed since the 19th century in its treatment of early history and its attitude towards its neighbors. This will eventually cause problems and some even dare say that Japan is more likely to cause problems in stability in the region than China. This should be of grave concern to the United States which has vested security and economic interests in the region. Doesn't trans-Pacific trade exceed trans-Atlantic trade now? I know England's importance has diminished much in the eyes of Washington these days (though Blair remains a faithful lapdog of Bush.)

Anyhow, I don't think this article can be informative or current the way it is right now.--Sir Edgar 00:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Modern history

I want to comment on my recent edits on modern history. I really think they are minor corrections and improvements, but I might be missing something. I added the (very brief) mention of Soviet's invasion and Treaty of San Francisco because they are, well, important events. I don't know why there were not here in the first place. On the other hand, I replaced the link to Japanese Instrument of Surrender by Surrender of Japan, for the former, as I understand, is just a legal document. Finally, I made a grammatical change to stress (just a bit) that the new constitution was adopted under the occupation authority. I don't necessarily follow discussions at this talk page, so please enlighten me if I am missing something. -- Taku 09:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, your edits weren't that great - I reverted them because they seemed problematic or unnecessary. At this point were're trying to cut the amount of stuff in the history section, not expand it and/or add new material, because it has caused in part FA nominations to fail. If you want to help please make suggestions as to what we could remove or say more simply on the talk page.

By the way the US was not at war with Germany until after the Japanese attack and Germany's subsequent declaration of war. John Smith's 11:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you at least keep some of changes? I corrected some of errors like V-J day. I also don't think the edit added much (I mean I even deleted some). I understand in general we want to reduce the article size but we still have to include some important points (like Soviet's invasion) as concisely as possible, right? As you can see I made several changes and I think you can still revert some of them you think problematic not the whole thing. -- Taku 08:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, about the sentence "This act brought the United States into World War II." You are right, the US was not at war yet. But I still prefer to delete it. It's true but so what? I don't see the significance, given the sentence just before this says Japan declares war. Since this article is about Japan, the sentence looks a bit US-centric. -- Taku 08:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being too inflexible if you can't mention a very important point like that briefly. But I have kept some of the changes. If you're still unhappy please discuss them here before you put them in. John Smith's 09:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping changes, in particular corrections of obvious errors. I still think mentioning when Japan was granted UN membership (big deal?) and the sentence I pointed out above are unnecessary, but I am basically ok. -- Taku 11:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Actually, if you are fine with deleting the part about the UN membership, we can use the sentence I introduced "Official American occupation ..., during which time" or something like it. Like I said above, I want to rewrite this part to convey an impression that the constitution was somehow imposed. I think the term "impose", while used widely, is maybe too specific. To be honest, I am not so sure. My point is that saying "Japan adopted ..." feels too simplistic. Maybe I can come up with the better language later. -- Taku 12:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Gini figures

Ok, R U Bn, if you want to talk, please do so. You want to add this reference so you should say why it should be used.

As I've said the figures are 14 years out of date. Saying "it's ok" because the date is put there is not sufficient. The country template is supposed to give current information. You obviously really believe in gini, but that doesn't mean every article must have a reference to it if there have ever been any numbers for it. Also you can't rank countries if the figures were taken as much as a decade apart - Japan has changed a lot since 1993 (the income gap growing much more), which is why I have insisted on it not going in. If you can get updated numbers for the top-ranked countries I might change my mind, depending on when they come from. John Smith's 15:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that one can see how unreliable the figures are, because if the CIA sort is used on the Gini-rank page Japan comes a lot further down the table. John Smith's 15:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand, John, but it's the latest figure available. So, why not give at least the last one available so people can form an idea at least with what was available at that time ? The year is mentioned, so people cán take this into account. Additionally, this makes people wonder why there isn't a newer number and that's in a whole what I call usefull information.
About the fact that I shouldn't put ranks, I completely agree. I only did it because someone asked on the talk pages of infobox country, but it makes no sense indeed to rank with so many years apart,if at all. Something to change once on the infobox (or mention st. like only rank the last and first ten when the years of their measurement is not further apart than 3 years)...
Please leave a ring or link on my talk page for further iscussion, I seem to run out of time to browse all my interests...R U Bn (Talk • contrib) 18:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comfort woman in World War II

In the comfort place on the Semarang island in Indonesia, a Japanese army made the prostitute compulsorily do 25 Dutch captives. three Japanese got to the chair by trying Batavia in 1948. However, is this an event of the same scale as Nanking Massacre?　--Azukimonaka 08:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say; are you asking if we should incorporate the above info into the article? Or what? --WoodElf 06:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. This part doesn't exist now. --Azukimonaka 03:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

• Tezuka Osamu - He is Mangaka that had the strongest influence on Anime and Manga of Japan. (It means it had a strong influence on the popular culture in Japan. And, Disney influenced him. )
• NES - NES was a commodity of Japan that succeeds worldwide.

--Azukimonaka 09:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but:

• Company names and products, such as NES, don't belong here in a country article. Take a look at the United States article. There are no company names there, like Boeing, Ford Motor Company, RCA, Bell Labs, etc.
• Including Tezuka Osamu here is debatable; however he is not very known outside of Japan. So he can go into the Culture of Japan article instead, and/or the Manga article as well.

--Endroit 09:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Tezuka influences the science of Japan. (I think that the influence of Tezuka is larger than that of Suzuki Ichiro. )And, Famicon is a toy of Japan known internationally. I want you to introduce these information though it is not urgent. (I think that I am useful for the understanding of these information of Japan. ) --Azukimonaka 09:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my misunderstanding. I see now that you are referring to Famicon (ファミリーコンピューター, Famikon) in the generic sense, and not NES (Nintendo Entertainment System). However, since we don't use the word Famicon commonly in English, we had to call it Video game console instead. Video game console is already mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the "Culture" section. (As a side-note, perhaps we should redo the interwiki link from ja:ファミリーコンピュータ to Video game console instead, and not Nintendo Entertainment System.)

Famicon (Family Computer) is not a general term for a gaming console but a registered trademark for a specific console. Therefore, ja:ファミリーコンピュータ should not interwiki-link Video game console. Japanese equivalent of video game console is ja:ゲーム機 (game machine), and they interwiki-link each other. --Kusunose 15:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK then, the interwiki should remain as is, like Kusunose says.

However, this dictionary entry translates ファミリーコンピューター into "a home computer" or "video games", so it IS also used as a generic term (in Japanese).

In fact Famicom is a Genericized trademark in the Japanese language. Other genericized trademarks that may be known in Japan include Klaxon (ja:クラクション) and Kleenex (ja:クリネックス).

Please note that Azukimonaka uses it in the generic sense here, and not for the Nintendo game.--Endroit 15:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Azukimonaka, please don't be discouraged. I strongly urge you to make those additions to the Culture of Japan article instead, under the "Popular culture" section. I'm sure you will make a great contribution to that article. Thank you very much.--Endroit 14:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I understood. ^^　--Azukimonaka 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)