Talk:Japan/Archive 15

The most prestigious universities in Japan

The most prestigious universities in Japan are the University of Tokyo, Keio University, and Waseda University. I think that this is an elite university of not the elite university in Japan but Tokyo. (Graduates at Kyoto University are famous because a lot of Nobel prize was won. ) If it is possible, will you delete this part? This has the possibility of making the graduate of other universities revolted.　--Azukimonaka 04:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Azukimonaka that this sentence is flat-out wrong. And the cited source [1] merely says:

• "The most prestigious national university is the University of Tokyo (founded in 1877); two well-known private universities are Keio University (1858) and Waseda University (1882)."

The source doesn't even say that Waseda and Keio are "prestigious", only that they're "famous".

Based on The Times Higher Education Supplement from 2004 [2], we have the following rankings for Japanese universities, among the world's top 200:

• 12 Tokyo University
• 29 Kyoto University
• 51 Tokyo Institute of Technology
• 69 Osaka University
• 153 Tohoku University
• 167 Nagoya University

So Tokyo University is obviously number 1 by any standard. Kyoto University appears to be number 2 by any standard also. Opinion usually varies as to who is number 3 (, 4, and 5) in Japan. For example, I've heard Hitotsubashi University being ranked number 3 before.--Endroit 10:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See also ja:名門大学 (meimon daigaku). Tokyo University and Kyoto University are listed there AT THE BEGINING of their short list of prestigious Japanese universities. I am declaring that Tokyo University & Kyoto University deserve mention in the "Japan" article, but Waseda University & Keio University do not.--Endroit 11:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Having a source makes this an easy fix. We can say that "According to The Times Higher Education Supplement (2004) the three top-ranking universities in Japan are ... ." This avoids attributing the prestige ranking to Wikipedia and attributes it to the source. I suggest three universities (but other numbers are possible). Fg2 10:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fg2, just in case there are any NPOV concerns, I don't think we should mention number 3 and beyond. Numbers 1 & 2 appear to be undisputed. And yes, we should use "The Times..." as the source.--Endroit 11:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem with just two. BTW, along with prestige, there are other viewpoints: public/private universities, old universities, universities from which prominent people graduate (elected politicians, elite bureaucrats, company presidents, innovators, researchers ... the list goes on ... ) so a short or very short list, especially if multiple sources agree, seems prudent. Fg2 11:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I made the change. Please feel free to correct me if I missed something.--Endroit 11:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's another ranking, from Asiaweek.com's "Asia's Best Universities" in the year 2000 [3]:

• (Tokyo University did not participate in the survey, and is NOT included)
• 1 Kyoto University
• 2 Tohoku University
• 11 Nagoya University
• 15 Kyushu University
• 19 Hokkaido University
• 22 Keio University
• 29 Waseda University
• 49 Ochanomizu University
• 66 Aoyama Gakuin University
• 67 Ritsumeikan University
• 69 Doshisha University
• (only the universities that participated in the survey are listed here)

--Endroit 11:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about info box

The info box has an entry "Capital (and conurbation (population)) Tokyo¹ 35°41′N 139°46′E"

The left column promises population but the right column delivers longitude and latitude. Anyone know how to remedy this? Fg2 08:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox Country/doc. The right column shows what it is supposed to show. The problem is that the text of left column is misleading. Change or remove the "largest_settlement_type" parameter. I suggest removing it; then the entry becomes "Capital (and largest city) Tokyo¹ 35°41′N 139°46′E". --Kusunose 09:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. If I've removed information that belongs in the box, please help us fix it. Thanks Fg2 09:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lower courts in the Japanese judicial system

HongQiKong re-introduced 3 red links in this edit as follows....

• Japan's court system is divided into four basic tiers: 438 Summary Courts, 50 District Courts, 9 High Courts, and the Supreme Court.

HongQiKong says in the edit comment: "The United States has these articles, so I'm wikilinking for future development as well. Please see Category:Judicial branch of the United States government."

I disagree. The lower courts within the Japanese judicial system are not nearly as important as for the United States. New articles for them are NOT warranted. How many FA status articles have links to LOWER COURTS of that nation? Please do not create red links for the lower courts again, because those lower courts are utterly unimportant with respect to Japan as a whole.--Endroit 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Endroit. Hong please do not start stuffing these red-links in while we're trying to resolve FAC blocking issues - no one other than you seems worried about a lack of these court links, so I can't see it as a priority right now. John Smith's 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

At the least, surely district courts and summary courts are notable. There are only 50 and 9 of them, respectively. If FA status articles do not have links to lower courts, then that's probably because they don't even make mention of them. So maybe we need to take out mention of the lower courts. How many FA status articles do that? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hong, please just leave it - let us deal with citations problems which are far more serious. This is something that can be discussed another time. John Smith's 16:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

From now on, please do not move pictures unless you can stop your "space" problems and it keeps them together. When people have said they've "fixed" that problem, it just creates another in that you get a couple of lines of text stuck between the pictures. It's better as it is, I believe. John Smith's 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hong, please stop. Take screenshots and identify where these "spaces" are - we can't see any. John Smith's 16:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What resolution does HongQiGong have anyways? I have 1152 x 864, and it's fine after we moved the buddha to the left. We should ask somebody like Kusunose for a third opinion regarding the white spaces. I think HongQiGong should lay off until we get more opinion on this.

Also, I'm troubled that HongQiGong appears to be resorting to [bad-faith edits such as this one]. If he couldn't introduce red links for the lower courts (see above), he just deletes any mention of them.--Endroit 16:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot - Image:Jpnscrnsht.JPG. My screen resolution is 1280x1024. Anything bigger than 800x600 gives me blank spaces. And I'm not exactly the only one that sees these blank spaces. User:Aaron Bowen has mentioned them in the FAC also.

And please, Endroit. That's not a bad faith edit. You made a good point that FA status country articles may not necessary name the lower courts. So I got rid of their mention. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at a higher resolution, and I can see them. But I'm fine on 1024x800 with IE7 and my current browser. I think we should ask Raul654 what to do. John Smith's 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The most recent version at the time of my writing this comment has gotten rid of one of the blank spaces, but another one remains below the Yayoi section and above the Book of Han section. Look, since I can see the blank spaces and you can't, just let me know if you want me to fix them instead of reverting my changes without question. I can't be taking a screen shot for you every time you make a blind stab at fixing these things. And If I can see them, I'm sure others can also. This is a major violation of WP:MOS and an obstacle to FA status. Despite what you and Endroit may think, I'm trying to help. A little good faith might be nice. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I had another look and I can confirm it's only IE that has the gaps. I know what you're saying, it's just a shame if we have to separate the pictures just because Microsoft can't string a decent piece of code together. Can you try something other than separating the pictures - like moving them down or something? John Smith's 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was up to me, I'd get rid of some of the pictures. There are too many in the history section. (And I did see your comment about IE before you edited it. Don't worry, it's not like I have some misguided pride in being an IE user.) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if comes down to having sandwiched text and one less picture, I say get rid of the picture. As I said why don't you try to see whether you can get rid of the gaps by moving the pictures down together or realigning the Buddha. If you can't make it work, delete the Buddha. Ok?

As to IE, well can't you migrate? We can solve this problem, but it's better in the long-run in my opinion. By the way I edited because I didn't want to give the impression I was saying "we're not changing - you get new software". :)John Smith's 16:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to leave a note here to make sure I'm not ignoring you, but I need to get offline for now. I'll be back in a few hours. Yeah, IE is not the best browser, but like it or not, it being used by the majority of the web browsing population, it's used (or should be used) as the litmus test for browser experience. And I'm not talking about WP, I'm talking about web development in general. If your site does not work well on IE, expect to lose a lot of readers. Anyway, I'll be back. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

On HongQiGong's screen shot (Image:Jpnscrnsht.JPG), the upper gap still remains. (The lower gap was eliminated). The Buddha being on the right had a huger gap, and that's what everybody was complaining about before. We're better off now with the buddha being on the left, as shown on this screen shot. I'd be curious to see if that small gap is acceptable enough for FA purposes, since it's less noticeable now.--Endroit 17:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to come back online. I made a minor change to the image positioning. See how it looks on your own individual browsers. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine on both IE 6.0 and Firefox 1.0.7 at 1024×768. Many thanks for this ray of hope! Fg2 07:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine, thanks. John Smith's 12:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine at 1152 x 864, as well.--Endroit 23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Science and Technology

I know the article is quite big already, but do you think a short mention of the HII A spy satellites in the science and tech section could work? --WoodElf 12:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean H-IIA --WoodElf 12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If they are properly referenced, of course. I do mean that - please don't add anything in without appropriately formatted citations - I have enough to find right now. Thanks, John Smith's 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Right-facing Daibutsu

The move of the photo of the Daibutsu to the left results in the statue facing the margin instead of the text. If you want a right-facing photo I suggest Image:NaraTodaijiDaibutsu0212.jpg. Fg2 10:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Population

There exists an estimate for 2007 in following the link next to the old 2005 estimate. If someone would update it.24.77.65.236 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Request

For in Foreign policy and military

Japan has several territorial disputes with its neighbors: with Russia over the Kuril Islands, with South Korea over Dokdo (Takeshima), with China and Taiwan over the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyutai Islands), and with China over the status of Okinotorishima. These disputes are in part about the control of marine and natural resources, such as possible reserves of crude oil and natural gas.

Senkaku Islands has subterranean resources. However, Kuril islands amd Takeshima do not have subterranean resources. I request this part to be deleted.

　 These disputes are in part about the control of marine and natural resources, such as possible reserves of crude oil and natural gas.

--Azukimonaka 11:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-read it. It says marine and natural resources such as... - with the other islands fishing rights comes into it (fishing = marine resources). So I am reinserting it. John Smith's 09:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a sentence that induces the misunderstanding. Senkaku Islands has subterranean resources. Please explain the reason why you enhance a part of problem to all problems. --Azukimonaka 10:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for John Smith's or anyone else, but I see this as simply a matter of this being a broad overview article which should take the stance of discussing issues in general, not in minute detail. The point here is not to single out Okinotorishima (which I've never even heard of) and to go into detail about that particular issue, but to summarize territorial disputes in general. Most if not all of the territorial disputes Japan is involved in involve some kind of marine or natural resources - we're not talking about only subterranean resources, or only about oil and natural gas, but rather resources in general - land, fishing, maybe lumber, I don't know, whatever it is that these various islands have. The use of the term "such as", provides an example, and does not share these problems around all the different disputes. LordAmeth 09:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose such a negligent description.

• As for the administrative power of Kuril islands, Japan was stopped by Treaty of San Francisco. However, Russia is not participating in this agreement.
• Japan doesn't agree to this declaration at all though Takeshima declared Syngman Rhee line in 1956 to be a Korean territory.

I think that I should not lack the incorrect information. Please let me hear your opinion.

I request this part to be deleted again.

　 These disputes are in part about the control of marine and natural resources, such as possible reserves of crude oil and natural gas.

--Azukimonaka 19:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Botched declarations and unclear wording in treaties are nothing unusual. What is unusual is for nations to claim territories based on the value of the seas surrounding them. Anyways, therefore, I reworded the text in question into the following:

• These disputes are in part about the control of natural resources, which include possible reserves of crude oil and natural gas, or fishery/marine resources within the surounding waters.

--Endroit 19:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am Japanese. Therefore, I regret the misunderstanding of the territorial issue. I take a rest before it gets excited. thank you --Azukimonaka 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

New or no picture for government

Is there not a better picture to represent the government? I find it odd and almost disturbing having two photos of President Bush in both sections of Japanese politics, side by side. Some people might enjoy GW photo-ops, but that's one too many photos for an article not about the US. falsedef 10:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Falsedef, I think what we're seeing is that it's easy to find photos from US government sources, and if they're official works of the government they're in the public domain. So some editors were able to locate those two photos and they posted them. Do you know of any sources for photos, with appropriate licenses, of leaders of the government of Japan? They'd be valuable additions, and might well replace one or both of the pictures presently in the article. Fg2 10:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've guessed as much that the pictures were posted due to US government archives accessibility. I'd really only like to see one photo replaced. Specifically, the first one seems less descriptive. Both photos are good alone, but in the context of the article itself, two photos of the same foreign president doesn't seem appropriate. diet photos, offices, sdf, diet building falsedef 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

As you can see, Japan has reached FA status. Thanks for those who supported it through the nomination process.

There is always room for improvement, such as ensuring data is the most recent available. However please always remember to update information with new, properly formatted citations from reliable sources.

Thanks again, John Smith's 11:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry, when i gave my reasons why i didn't actively support it, it had been fixed but i forgot to change it to support. Anyways congrats to everyone's hard work. -ScotchMB 23:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for featuring Japan as a Featured Article...this is one of my favorite articles on Wikipedia! -Surferman32

WOOOOO-HOOOOOOOO!!!! YES! YES! I've always wanted this!! Brutannica 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I'm so glad this article was featured on the Wikipedia. This is one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The pictures go along very well with the text...I hope this article will be up on the homepage again soon. -Surferman32

Complaint

I would like to know what the language in japan is. But it never stated it. I just thought that that was important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.241.105.45 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

You will notice that language is listed in the infobox on the right side at the top of the article. Unlike some countries with much more complex political/cultural/ethnic and therefore linguistic histories, Japan has always enjoyed a relative stability and unity of language under the umbrella of dialects, slang, etc know as the Japanese language. LordAmeth 22:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Japan has not "always enjoyed unity". There's Ainu, several Ryukyuan languages, languages brought to Japan by immigrants like Chinese and English, as well as special developments like Bamboo English, and of course Japanese Sign Language. --Ptcamn 07:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's throw in all the Trekies who speak Klingon too, while we're at it...-Jefu 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The >1 million speakers of Ryukyuan languages, 670,000 speakers of Korean in Japan, and 320,000 signers of JSL can't really be compared to the handful of people who speak Klingon. Ainu is nearly extinct today, but it was not always so. --Ptcamn 10:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Although for a featured article you'd think someone would have fixed the grammar error at the beginning. "Japan comprises over three thousand islands" is wrong. It should be "Over three thousand islands comprise Japan." The many always comprise the collective and never the other way around. 65.209.165.170 14:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mount Fuji as an island?

"Most of the islands are mountainous, many volcanic, including Japan’s highest peak, Mount Fuji."

this is in the intro. Not sure if it's ambiguous or misleading? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.161.46.25 (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

"Second-Largest Economy"

Thought it might be prudent to mention, in the introductory paragraph to the "Japan" article, that Japan is the world's third-largest if using purchasing-power parity (see IMF website, CIA World Factbook). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iso2204 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Japan has moved from second to third in recent months and I think this article should now be updated to reflect this. Whats up skip 06:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Statistics are never a simple - "Japan become the second largest economy in the world,[46] after the United States, at around US$4.5 trillion in terms of nominal GDP[46] and third after the United States and China in terms of purchasing power parity.[47]". Thus at the moment it is a definition issue, so I have not changed this. Whats up skip 22:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is of course assuming that we do not include the EU as one economic unit. 86.143.95.189 12:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Name

There needs to be a ==Name of Japan== section, explaining where Japan and Nihon come from, and other names that were/are used (Yamato, Wagakuni, etc). I'd do it myself but I don't have sources to cite. --Ptcamn 07:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole article on it. Click the link in the lead paragraph. Fg2 11:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! Missed that.

Still, it would be clearer if there was a summary on this page, with {{main}} linking to Names of Japan. --Ptcamn 11:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How many islands?

Someone insists that it is 6,000, whereas wikipedia articles generally say 3,000. I have found search results for both, so can someone supply a definitive source on this issue? John Smith's 11:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Over 3,000" would be the correct description, per this major Japanese dictionary definition of "Japanese archipelago".

If you wish to cite it, you can do it as follows....

{{cite web |

| title = ''Nihon Rettō'' (にほんれっとう［―れつたう］ 【日本列島】)

| url = http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%AB%E3%81%BB%E3%82%93%E3%82%8C%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A8%E3%81%86&dtype=0&stype=1&dname=0ss

| publisher = [[Daijirin]] / Yahoo Japan dictionary

| accessdate = 2007-05-07 }}

--Endroit 21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation - added to the article. John Smith's 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia article says 6,852, and it's not a recent addition to the article. I'm sure I once saw something on a Japanese government web site. I might have listed it on this talk page -- if so, it would be in the archives. Fg2 21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have searched Japanese government web sites with Google (6852 islands site:go.jp and 6852 島 site:go.jp). According to them, 6,852 is a number of islands with a length of coastline of 0.1 km and over. --Kusunose 06:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Any idea how the 3000 figure defined the size of those islands? Also does wikipedia have any "guidance" on the "minimum" size of an island? John Smith's 22:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Need Some Help?

Hi! I'm a newcomer. Feeling like a stranger in a strange land or should I say I'm helpless as a kitten up a tree? I'm not sure I could be a helper. But just try and ask me. I'm a native Japanese, working as a translator. Oda Mari 16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Foreign policy&Military

• The following things does not Fair
• 1)Image Manupulation
• Japan have border probrem but 1945-1952 SK& Russia Military Occupy Japanese Islands because at that time she could not defend herself, and Japan proposed SK Peaceful solution at court but SK rejected it. And regarding senkaku After 1971 Oil reserve found China/Taiwan suddenly decleare that the island belongs to them.
• Even all these case Japan is a VICTIM, but the article Just Indicate "HEY JAPAN IS A TROUBLE MAKER SHE DESPUTE WITH ALL NEIGHBORS" it is Not fair and it is NOT American way.
• 2)Hiding Truth
• NK Aiming 200 Rodong Missile to Japan. And US analyst comented that 3 of it Loaded Nuke Warhead=NK can Nuke TOKYO. Why hide the truth is this the way of Democrats?
• Total amount of Omoiyari Yosan donation is equivalant Value of 22 Nuke Aircraft carriers, why hide this truth and Propaganda Free Rider? --202.239.229.7 00:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.239.229.7 (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Hey, I want to know what the national flower for Japan is? But I cant find it :( Also what is the most important food?

There is no official flower of Japan, just of the emperor. Samatarou 02:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I think we need to add some additional links to better maps. The Wikimedia Atlas of Japan is good, but if you are trying to find anything other than large cities then it will not help. I suggest that we need a link to either the Yahoo! maps site or the mashup version found at http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/travel/japan_map.html as this map allows the user to zoom into a good level of detail.

I don't think that Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Guardian Unlimited links should be included. They are not specialist sites on Japan and they are just as commercial as many other sites that have far more detailed information and probably just as accurate. Whats up skip 06:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous justification. The Guardian is a respected broadsheet newspaper, so unless you can show its information is wrong then I strongly disagree. John Smith's 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see now you've been spamming links from the same website around. That is not a good link to put in. I certainly hope you are not from that website - your Australian-esque alias doesn't help. I suggest you stop putting in to Japan-related articles. John Smith's 23:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Request Article Protection

This article keeps getting vandalized every few seconds or so and starts up again after a protection period expires. Maybe someone should add a PERNAMENT one to prevent randon people completely wasting the time of others and throwing off anybody reading the article. Discuss. --Eiyuu Kou 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I will protect it for now--let's say, for a week--but you might want to go to WP:RFPP to request something more permanent. I'm not sure how many articles have a "permanent" semi-protected status (George W. Bush comes to mind) but I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Have any anons made good edits recently? Antandrus (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Sean--you read my mind. LOL. I was just about to do it. Antandrus (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've beaten you to it, Antandrus :). I have semi-protected the page for one week, per a request at WP:RFPP Sean William 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"great power"?

Is it correct to call Japan a "great power"? The article cites Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Skimming this book, it seems that Japan isn't a great power according to Kennedy's definition ("a state capable of holding its own against any other nation", p.539) in the military sense. Wikipedia defines it as "a nation or state that, through its great economic, political and military strength, is able to exert power over world diplomacy." Japan definitely is a great economic power, but not a political nor military one. In any event, "great power" is a highly subjective term and Japan's inclusion seems iffy at best. I think "great power" should be removed from the article or at least should be explicitly be attributed to Paul Kennedy as in "According to Paul Kennedy, Japan is a 'great power'", although I don't think he ever says anything of the sort about modern Japan. --dm ^(talk) 21:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is correct to call Japan a "great power". Quite apart from its economic strength, it has built a significant military capability and has political clout too. John Smith's 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

On military power, it is known that Japan's military is larger then Great Britain, and is also signifcantly advanced.

Well, according to the relevant articles, Japan's military is about half the size & 2/3rds the spending of Britain. So, no, it's not larger than the U.K. Still, it's much larger than I had thought, so I stand corrected. --dm ^(talk) 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What to call association football

I have just changed the following sentence.

“ Since the establishment of a professional soccer league in Japan in 1992, football has also gained a wide following. ”

I have changed the football to soccer. I believe that such a change is justified for the following reasons.

1. It's bad style & potentially confusing to use two different names refer to the one thing (except in special cases) - particularly in the one sentence.
2. The article obviously uses American English. This is true for both the current version and the original version (or at least the earliest version I can find). In American English the sport is called soccer.
3. Football is an ambiguous term (it could mean soccer, rugby, Aussie rules, American football, etc.). Such a term would require qualification.

Although it should not really qualify as a reason it might also be noted that the Japanese name for the sport is "サッカー" which is a transliteration of "soccer". Jimp 05:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I changed both back to football, so that gets rid of the problem of using two terms.

As to the J. League, look at their official website. They use the term "Japan Professional Football League" - the word soccer isn't there.

Also football is about, well, football. If you're talking about something else, you're talking about something else. What is the more commonly used word around the world - football or soccer? I think it's the first. John Smith's 11:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"both back to football"? One had been soccer. "that gets rid of the problem of using two terms", no, technically the problem had already been got rid of. As to the J. League, let them use whichever term they like, we're under no obligation to follow their lead here.

Yeah, football is about, football. It's an ambiguous term: what one person means by it can differ from what the next person means by it. We don't all speak the same dialect. A person from New York will think American football when you say "football" but a person from Sydney will think rugby league. Go on, prove us wrong.

"What is the more commonly used word around the world ..." what does this matter? But since you ask, do you mean in English or do you include cognates in other languages? If it's the latter, keep in mind that the Japanese name for the sport is "サッカー" (sakkaa). But, no, this is the English Wikipedia so other languages don't matter ... not even Japanese. So what is the more commonly used word in English around the world? I think it's the second ... not that this matters.

Nor have you addresses my second point that the article uses American English - just check through the spelling. Calling soccer football in this context is not consistant.

P.S. re: your edit summary: "both articles use the word 'football', not soccer" - This is an irrelevant point. The MOS: calls for consistancy within but not across articles.

Jimp 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimp's right. Japan prefers American English forms, and the Japanese term for the sport is a katakanazation of the word soccer, not football. The best idea is to probably list both terms to avoid ambiguity, though, and this is what I have done. — Brian (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not accepted Jimp's arguments about the J. League. They know better than us what term they want to use. And if they use the word football then I think we should respect that.

Yes, Japan does use the word "sakkaa", but that doesn't mean the word "soccer" must be used either. As I have said above, if the J. League refers to itself with the word "football" then that is the word that should be used to describe the league. As to mentioning the sport, then of course the most common term should be used first. The article is primarily for the benefit of English-speaking users, not Japanese.

Also, Brian, just because Japan might prefer American-English does not mean it should be used all the time especially if the association or whatever uses a specific term. John Smith's 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be confusion about our English guideline. Generally if an article is about one location, we use the form of English used locally. English in Japan may be more similar to American English then Commonwealth English. But this doesn't mean it's the same as American English. If the Japanese generally refer to it as football locally, then that's what we use. Besides that, the term soccer is (sadly) sometimes preferred in Commonwealth countries anyway e.g. New Zealand and Australia. Nil Einne 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as an English teacher in the place, I can tell you that all of the text books (the ones I'm asked to use anyway) are written in American English and refer to the sport as soccer. :) — Brian (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If the same term has to be used in the article, I changed "soccer (football)" to "football (soccer)". That way the same term is used, the league uses the correct word and the sport itself has mention of both. John Smith's 11:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The J. League "know better than us what term they want to use." It's hard to refute that, however, aren't we discussing what term we want to use? We are not obliged to use the term someone else has chosen. Note that the current wording is "a professional Japanese football league" not "the Japan Professional Football League" ... this makes all the difference since we're not free to change someone else's proper noun.

"The article is primarily for the benefit of English-speaking users, not Japanese. ... just because Japan might prefer American-English does not mean it should be used all the time" you also write. Yes, I agree here. The facts that most Japanese tend to prefer American English and that the sport is called "sakkaa" are side-points. This is the English Wikipedia. Japan is not an English-speaking country.

So let's, then get our perspective right: we are writing an article about a topic with no particular connexion to any English dialect. However, do note that most English speakers call the sport "soccer" and would find the term football (without qualification) either ambiguous or misleading. This includes a good number of people from Commonwealth countries and being one of them myself I don't feel sad about it in least. "As to mentioning the sport," you write, John, "then of course the most common term should be used first." In that case soccer should come first.

Then, what dialect should we be using here? Let's have a look at the policy. Okay, I had claimed that the article used American English. The version I edited did. As did the oldest version I could find. At the moment we just have inconsistancy - this, of course, should be fixed as per WP:MOS but that's another issue. Jɪmp 16:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when do most English-speakers use "soccer"? You mean Americans. Maybe you could tell me what the full title of FIFA is, or indeed why the main wikipedia entry is "football" and not soccer. John Smith's 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when? I don't know off the top of my head but I guess it's been a while. Yes, I mean Americans ... and Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, ... Maybe I could tell you what FIFA's full title is. That'd be easy. As for the other thing ... I'm not about to dig into the archives regarding that. I do wonder why it matters. Jɪmp 17:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You've forgotten other English-speakers, such as those from other Commonwealth countries as well as other people who speak English. Football is easily the most common term used around the world. John Smith's 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Have I? But the question at hand is what dialect this article is written in ... and hodge-podge is not a viable option. Jɪmp 17:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you have, unless you want to claim the Commonwealth is only made up of the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ when it comes to English-speaking states.....

Currently it looks like it's written in International/British English to me. John Smith's 17:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to native English speakers ... with neighbours & neighbouring alongside modeled & practiced it currently looks like a hodge-podge to me. Jɪmp 18:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the overwhelming grammar style, but never mind - that's been rectified. Got anything else? John Smith's 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the article still uses American dollars. Jɪmp 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because the figures supplied (from citations) are in US dollars, apart from those converted from Yen. Also the US dollar is a standard when it comes to expressing budgets, size of economies, etc. That has nothing to do with spelling or grammar. For example this article uses US dollars, as do similar ones on the global economy. John Smith's 18:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Behold, now the article is in British English, looks like I've got no argument any more and we can all go away happy. Jɪmp 18:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC) - P.S. I was just having a go with the USD comment, though yen values would be worth including. Jɪmp 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent..................... 19:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, until somebody [reverts back to the original dialect i.e. American English & justifiably so according to WP:ENGVAR. Jɪmp 23:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He didn't "revert it back," he undid John Smith's spelling vandalism, which itself was a continuation of John Smith's reversions of a sincere editor's attempts to follow policy by making the article consistent. (It was ~98% American English, someone made it 100%, and John Smith mindlessly, orthographically imperialistically, reverted the edits.) --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-29 17:43 17:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

First, a dispute is not vandalism. Second, the article was already consistent when he reverted. John Smith's 18:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that's about spelling, not the actual words to be used. I think it would be more productive if we simply moved on and found other things to do. Though that page isn't binding, only offering suggestions. John Smith's 06:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's about spelling and not the actual words being used is debateable. In fact it really isn't clear. There is an emphasis on spelling but the section does refer to usage, punctuation and grammar as well as differing versions, forms and varieties of English. I think I'll bring the point up on the talk page. No, it's not absolutely binding and is only offering suggestions but the note at the top of the page does say "Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines." Consider, also, the spirit in which those suggestions were written. It is jarring to the reader to have a haphazard mix of different dialects - this is true whether we be talking only of spelling or whether we be also referring to vocabulary. I don't feel that any good reason has been put forth to go against this. As for moving on, I had, I haven't touched the page since I made my original edit. I do wonder, John, whether you'd be suggesting we move on if the page had soccer rather than football. Jɪmp 07:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it jarring, which is why I originally didn't mind the American English spelling - I only changed it after you made your earlier point.

The very reason I suggested we "move on" was because you weren't editing the phrase back. However if you aren't satisfied you can always start a RFC/straw poll. John Smith's 08:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it had been edited back but that didn't last and I wasn't about to get involved in a war over it. Okay, how about the following as a kind of compromise?

Since the establishment of the [[J. League|Japan Professional Football League]] in 1992, [[Football in Japan|association football (soccer)]] has also gained a wide following.

This way the first instance refers to the name of the organisation, we are no longer mentioning the sport directly so gone is the question of what to call it here. In the second instance we use the full name of the sport which is unambiguous and should not be too strange regardless of what dialect you speak (it does take somewhat a formal register but this is not inappropriate for an encyclopædia). The common short form of the sport's name is included for those unfamiliar with the full name and we have the word football appearing twice. Jɪmp 09:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that at all. John Smith's 09:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's add it. It's been a pleasure debating with you, John. Jɪmp 23:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong flag!

Hey, it's the Canadian flag! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.22.4.101 (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

This page seems to be very active. The whole first paragraph was edited to "Japan is ( *stuf* ) bullshit" this morning when a friend noticed. I was going to undo but I think someone beat me to it. Going through the history is kinda amusing too :) 81.215.13.145 12:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WRONG INFORMATION!!!!!

I have just realized this, but Tokyo as a 'city' does not exist in Japan. Tokyo is a prefecture. not a city. Dark Angel-REX 23:12, May 15, 2007 (JPN time)

The article on Tokyo calls it a "unique prefecture-level government entity" after the prefecture and city were merged. --Wafulz 14:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The correct Japanese word for "city" in this case is toshi (都市), when Tokyo is compared to other cities. It is absolutely correct to say that Tokyo is the largest city (都市, toshi) in Japan.--Endroit 15:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

yea but do you think the people who dont know this would know these stuff? besides, you dont call 東京都市...

Lock the page

I think we should lock the page ASAP. Its a featured article, and hence lot many people try to vandalize it! Abhask 19:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article is a high visibility article that is a standard of brilliant prose and how open Wikipedia is. Many editors are monitoring the page for vandalism. It should not be protected; regardless, please help monitor the article for vandalism. We certainly welcome more help!  :-) --Iamunknown 19:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; articles on the main page should be protected. Sometimes there are things that most editors just don't see. For example, the flag of Japan was changed to the Confederate flag for nearly ten minutes before someone finally noticed it, and this was a pretty obvious error, especially since the picture on the front page is the real flag of Japan. It would not be good for Wikipedia's reputation if someone looking for the flag of Japan to come here and paste the wrong one into their report, thinking that there was no way there would be an error on a featured article on the main page. --730628 21:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Also, Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source of information, as Wikipedia content has no guarantee of its validity. --Slowking Man 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information :) I was really helpful! Abhask 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents--I agree, I think it should remain protected; this article is very well-written, and lots of good work has been put into making it. I feel that (almost) every article deserves to be edited--but in this case, I think it's worthwhile to protect it. Tolerant666 01:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Culture and recreation

I was looking for a place to insert some mention of karaoke, Japan's most popular leisure activity, but it was unclear whether to put it under "Culture" or "Sport and recreation", since it's arguably both (though not a sport, of course). And then I saw that the "Culture" section mentioned things like tea ceremony and flower arranging, which are done as hobbies for recreation in modern Japan. I've therefore made a go at merging these two sections into "Culture and recreation". Sports are arguably culture, and other country articles treat them in that section (see Cameroon, for example). — Brian (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence on anime implied that this term means manga-influenced or Japanese animation, this is incorrect, ALL cartoons/animation regardless of origin are called anime in Japan (it simply means 'animation': [4] ). I have edited the sentence (not very well) to try and clarify rather that the distinctive style of Japanese animation has led to it becoming known outside Japan by the Japanese word anime. I think the same probably holds true for manga (i.e. it just means comics) but I'm not 100% sure on that point. Samatarou 03:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The main article on anime discusses each of your issues thoroughly, therefore any major explanation belongs over there, not here. The links to specific topics on the main Japan article are merely meant to be a guide to other Japan-related articles, which expand on a particular topic much more thoroughly, as is the case with anime. The wording on the main article should be kept as simple as possible; thorough explanations on the etymology and history of anime belongs on the main anime article. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 05:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone foolish enough to know the edit process tampered with the article. I will hopefully revert it back to normal. Salmans801

Official Name

Is the official name of Japan "State of Japan" or "Empire of Japan"? I couldn't find a reference to the official name. Inkan1969 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically, its neither. When you talk about the Empire of Japan, you're usually talking about pre-1947 Japan. --WoodElf 05:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the CIA World Factbook, it's just "Japan", not "Republic of..." or "State of..." or anything like that. Shortest country name in the Factbook ^_^ LordAmeth 07:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wildlife

Why no one mention this? It's a great point.

Japanese Buddhism

Some people's edits in the Japan article is a little odd. You guys do realize that Japan doesn't have much of an interaction with China until the 8th cent. and even then the interaction for Japan to the outside world is a mix between Korea and China. In the 16th cent. Japan still considered Korea a good source of technology and ideas of the bigger world cause of Korea's proximity to Japan. It seems odd to keep excluding or negating Korea from existence when it comes to Japan's ancient history. Some people seem to be obsessed with eliminating or negating any mention of Korea from Japan's ancient history. It happened with the Yayoi section, it happened with rice cultivation and it keeps happening with every other instance when Korea is an intregal part Japan's ancient history. I'm going to delete that entire sentence cause we can't seem to agree on whether Korea and China contributed to Japan's buddhism or ONLY China contributed to Japan's buddhism. Or I will add that both Korea and China contributed to Japanese buddhism. Thanks --Tyler 08:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to do better than citations of the International Journal of Because I Said So. You DO have sources, right? Reliable sources? --Calton | Talk 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a start: "Relations with Korean Kingdoms: Domestic politics in Japan in the fifth and sixth centuries were closely related to the position of Japan in [its relations with] the Korean peninsula ... The King of Paikche... in the year 552... sent to the Court of Japan a bronze image of the Buddha, some volumes of Buddhist scriptures, and other presents... This is generally regarded as the occasion of the introduction of Buddhism to Japan." Sansom, George (1958). 'A History of Japan to 1334'. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. pp45-47.

In the early 15th century, "relations between Japan and Korea were ... in comparative harmony and trade flourished. ... Japan was relatively late among the countries of eastern Asia in cultivating and using cotton ... The Koreans learned the use of cotton from China and were growing and weaving it before 1400." Sansom, George (1961). "A History of Japan: 1334-1615." Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. pp179-180.

Of course, it is always better to cite one's sources. But to attack someone for putting forth ideas which are generally known to be true, i.e. Korean influence on Japan, is just uncalled for. LordAmeth 22:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has said there was no Korean influence. The issue is whether after initial influences from Korea, the subsequent development of Japanese Buddhism and Buddhist sculptures were primarily influenced by China or not. John Smith's 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of progress has been made in our understanding of Japanese history, particularly ancient Japanese history, since the 1950s, when Sansom was writing. I don't dispute Tyler's original point, but he would do well to find better, more recent sources (The Cambridge History of Japan is a good one, if you are limited to English).-Jefu 23:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Some people's edits in the Japan article is a little odd. You guys do realize that Japan doesn't have much of an interaction with China until the 8th cent"

Not exactly, migrants from China and Korea during the Yaoi period brought early culture and technology to Japan that greatly influenced the indigenous populations. Intranetusa 04:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No Gini value

The Gini coefficient for Japan is missing. It measures income inequality and most other country pages have it. Fed0ra 23:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"South Korea seized Takeshima in 1952."

First of all the islets are called "Dokdo" (or at least "the Liancourt Rocks" at Wikipedia now) and second, this sentence makes it seem like South Korea took something that was Japanese territory. This is very misleading. It's not "Takeshima" and it's not Japanese territory. I can't believe how biased this section reads especially making it seem like Japan is a peaceful country that has no unjustified claims on neighbors' territory. None of these territories belong to Japan. They were taken back by their original owners. It seems like the Japanese forgot they lost World War II and simply can't move on... Anyhow, please NPOV this section.--165.244.20.220 02:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made some slight changes, as "laid claim to" is more accurate, and less militaristic-sounding than "seized". However, as your view is far from a neutral one, being apparently completely pro-Korean and anti-Japanese, I'm afraid your suggestions cannot be implemented. LordAmeth 05:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Japan is the 5th most peaceful country in the world, according to Global Peace Index. South Korea placed 32. -- Mackan ^{talk | c} 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And the United Kingdom ranked 49 and the United States ranked 96... This index has military budget as proportion of GDP, army size, etc weighted heavily. South Korea is still technically at war with North Korea, so naturally it's going to rank lower. Therefore that link is not relevant.

But why does have Japan have territorial disputes with all of its neighbors?

Japan took possession of Taiwan and South Korea in 1895 and 1905 respectively. It then SEIZED the Diaoyutai Islands from Taiwan and Dokdo from South Korea using legal terms like "terra nullius". So the wording in this paragraph is very biased and does not reflect reality. It makes seem like Japan is the peaceful country and its neighbors are seizing this and that or being obstinate about this or that. Please reread it.

No, I'm not neutral and very few if any people are. I wonder how "neutral" the people who are editing this article are though... I would say they are overwhelmingly pro-Japan by reading this page.--222.233.205.82 04:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Shortening of Foreign Policy and Military section of article

The current foreign policy and military section seems overly long, and slightly POV. I suggest the following trimmed version. Please Support or Object as you see fit:

Sailors aboard the JMSDF training vessel JDS Kashima

Main articles: Foreign relations of Japan, Japan Self-Defense Forces, and Ministry of Defense (Japan)

Japan maintains close economic and military relations with its key ally the United States, with the US-Japan security alliance serving as the cornerstone of its foreign policy. A member state of the United Nations since 1956, Japan has served as a non-permanent Security Council member for a total of 18 years, most recently in 2005–2006. It is also one of the G4 nations seeking permanent membership in the Security Council. As a member of the G8, the APEC, the "ASEAN Plus Three" and a participant in the East Asia Summit, Japan actively participates in international affairs. It is also the world's second-largest donor of official development assistance, donating 0.19% of its GNP in 2004. Japan contributed non-combatant troops to the Iraq War but subsequently withdrew its forces from Iraq.

Japan is engaged in several territorial disputes with its neighbors: with Russia over the South Kuril Islands, with South Korea over the Liancourt Rocks, with China and Taiwan over the Senkaku Islands and with China over the status of Okinotorishima. Japan also faces an ongoing dispute with North Korea over its abduction of Japanese citizens and its nuclear weapons and missile program.

Japan's military is restricted by Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, which renounces Japan's right to declare war or use military force as a means of settling international disputes, although the current government is seeking to amend the Constitution via a referendum. Japan's military is governed by the Ministry of Defense, and primarily consists of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (JGSDF), the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF). The forces have been recently used in peacekeeping operations and the deployment of Japanese troops to Iraq marked the first overseas use of its military since World War II.

--WoodElf 09:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph needs citations/a citation. John Smith's 10:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a citation for territorial disputes from the article. --Kusunose 10:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, should I go ahead with it and change the section? I want to be extra careful since this is a featured artcle. --WoodElf 04:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is better and less controversial. The previous "content" was borderline propoganda.--222.233.205.82 04:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, went ahead with it.--WoodElf 09:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Great power"?

My own feeling is that the Japan of today does not qualify for historical great power status. I understand there can be disagreement on this, but I feel that it is inappropriate to simply state in the intro of the article that it is a great power. I have no problem with a statement to the effect, as my recent edit goes, that it is often regarded as a great power.

My own feeling is that there is more to great power status than a dominant economy. Russia is clearly a great power, while Italy clearly is not, despite the fact that Italy's economy today is larger than Russia's. Japan is only starting to come out of is pacifistic shell, and may soon, if depopulation does not take its toll, become a major player in the world, and we may be seeing foreshadowings of that in its deployments of soldiers to Iraq. I view Japan as potentially rising again to great power status in the near future, but today being an economic and cultural power but by no means any sort of actual great military power in its current international presence.

I see here[5] a university course in Uppsala actually concerning Japan's non-great power status. And this book online[6] (page 55-6) includes text that actually closely echoes my own sentiments on the matter: "Japan is not a great power today, even though it has a large and wealthy economy, because it has a small and relatively weak military, and it is heavily dependent on the United States for its security." The book is from 2001 and I disagree somewhat with the strength of its case against Japan. I think that Japan, after having economically peaked sometime in the 1980s (in relative terms regarding its share of wealth in the world), then having a slow decade in the 1990s, has seen something of a major comeback, and even is beginning to show some slight signs of flexing military muscle (I disagree with the book's assertion that Japan's military is "small and relatively weak" given the huge size of its budget). But a "great power"? It doesn't make the cut, not yet.

If Japan scraps the constraining clauses of its constitution, is successful in its quest to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, displays further power projection in managing international crises with its military, or even does something like develop nuclear weapons (this last one is a bit far-fetched), it will be easy to make the case that Japan has regained great power status. But I think that today the case is at best debatable, which is why I feel some qualification is necessary. Adlerschloß 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the book is not online at all. Do you have an electronic source?

In any case, the extract you mention is grossly inaccurate. Japan has nothing like a weak military. Up until recently it had the largest defence budget of all the Asian powers and is widely regarded as having the best navy and airforce - the US isn't an Asian power - whilst also having tough ground forces.

I also think it is ridiculous to say one needs to be on the UNSC to be a great power. Clearly Japan should be on it, but it has been blocked by political opposition from China rather than because it doesn't "deserve it".

Qualification? Seems more like weasel words to me. John Smith's 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The book is available through google. Take a look here:

[7]

The title is The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, and the author is one John Mearsheimer. I noticed that The Economist favorably reviewed the book. You may disagree with this source just as I may disagree with CFR's analysis, but there is clearly debate in academic circles over whether Japan should be considered a great power. It's necessary that we reflect this reality in the article rather than favoring one side's argument. Adlerschloß 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not available, it is just a summary.

If you agree that the relevant statement in it is incorrect, you can't rely on it to support your position. Equally you have failed to address my other points. And a positive review in the Economist does not mean they support every little comment made - books are reviewed on the whole, not tiny little bits. John Smith's 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

By terms of the traditional definition of great power, it seems rather clear to me that the Japan of 2007 is not a great power. Economic and cultural power, yes, but its constitution prevents it from becoming a full-fledged military power. This could change.

As another source, I found this China Worker article[8] criticizing Japan's prime minister simply for harboring ambitions that Japan become a great power. It's clear that Japan is not presently considered a great power by the author, but that there is real fear in China that there may be negative consequences if Japan attains such status once more.

It's our duty here to not sheepishly follow any side of an argument, or let our own opinions cause us to ignore reputable sources whose arguments we happen to disagree with. You may disagree with Mearsheimer's line of reasoning, but that is entirely beside the point; he's a well-known, distinguished figure at a prestigious university who has written a well-reviewed recent book on great power politics.

It's counterproductive to spend significant time "arguing" on the talk page over whether or not Japan is a great power, and over whose arguments we agree with more. It's very clear that serious discussion among credible sources exists on this topic, and we should not ignore that. Adlerschloß 17:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources referring to Japan as a "middle power": [9], [10], [11]. I'll note that the Wikipedia article on great power notes that some view Japan as a great power, others as a middle power.Adlerschloß 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The China Worker article doesn't really discuss the use of the term, rather merely using it as a headline. Articles like this exaggerate the changes Japan is going through because it suits their prejudices.

As I said before, if you quote someone as evidence and then admit the thoughts in that extract are seriously flawed that rather undermines you position.

The first link isn't really an article, even if it refers to Japan becoming a great power in the future. The second article does not say Japan is only a middle power now, only that it has been called that in the past. The third article quotes someone rather than asserts it is the case Japan is a "middle power".

One issue, though - academics will often dispute everything. Some say America is not a democracy - does that mean the article on the US should be qualified accordingly? I certainly don't. John Smith's 18:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, in that case the best thing to do is to have a straw poll on the two previous edits we made. Otherwise this will just keeping going on. John Smith's 06:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The main point of contention seems to be the country's inability to use it's military (which is not weak in any way) in a offensive mannerShowers 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Arguing about whether a country is a "great power" or a "middle power" makes no sense to me, as the criteria are subjective and unclear, and from what I can tell the term has no backing or usage by any official institution such as the UN (in fact, these citations are downright weak). I could see where one could make an argument that there are a dozen "great powers" in the world, or just one. To me this sounds like a debate for the political scientists to have amongst themselves ... if this designation is based on "economic, political, military, and diplomatic strength" why don't we just talk about those attributes on their own merits, rather than try to aggregate them onto some kind of Almighty Scale of Greatness. Adding the word "great power" adds little--if anything--to the article, and is only going to invite controversy. Let's remove it. CES 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a fair solution and would favor this action being taken. If we're going to make note of Japan's ambiguous world power status in this article regarding which "rank" it does/should achieve in the eyes of international relations experts, employing their particular academic vocabulary, which may not be particularly helpful here anyway, it should certainly not be in the intro. Adlerschloß 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What international relations experts? I pointed out that most of the sources you used didn't actually say Japan was only a middle power or if they did the source you used was rather questionable. John Smith's 06:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok... *Deep breath*...... I already pointed out the well-reviewed book by John Mearsheimer, clearly a prominent source. The fact that you disagree with him doesn't mean your opinion trumps his credentials. Remember, we're not arguing here on the Talk page over whether Japan is a great power or a middle power, as it is not our place to make such judgments, but rather over whether there exists a common consensus or debate about this among credible sources. I think it's 100% clear that there is disagreement over this, and not just on Wiki Talk pages. Prominent published sources by experts are in disagreement, and it's a topic serious sources consider worthy of major discussion, regardless of which side of the debate they ultimately come down on.

A couple other links you may want to read:

Here's the Asahi Shimbun Asia Network: " New Role as a 'Middle Power' " [12]

"One such attempt tries to define Japan as a middle power. Based on the U.S.-Japan alignment, postwar Japan has consistently renounced military power as a tool of political diplomacy, and has avoided taking unilateral action typical of other great powers. In that sense, it can be described as a middle power, rather than a great power.

"As a middle power, Japanese diplomacy in the area of power politics, including regional security, would be based on the U.S.-Japan security alliance, but also place emphasis on playing a leading role in multilateral cooperative diplomacy."

Periscope (the on-line journal of the International Relations School of the International University of Japan)[13]

"This theory therefore offers little guidance for those countries which lack sufficient military strength to make them great powers, but have enough resources to place them above minor powers. Such a definition refers to countries like Canada, Sweden, Norway, Australia and arguably, Japan."

Adlerschloß 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As I commented earlier, there are people that say the US is not a democracy, yet it says it is one on its wikipedia entry. Should we change that too because there is a dispute? By your logic we should. I would disagree. John Smith's 15:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that your analogy here is a particularly good one. If there were serious debate in the field of political science as to whether the United States is a democracy, you'd have a case, but it seems like only an activist fringe would actually make the case that the U.S. is not a democracy. I think a better analogy would be Russia, a country with all the mechanics of a democratic process but with enough ambiguity to how its system runs that experts are not in agreement whether it should be truly called democratic today. And, in fact, the Wikipedia article on Russia does make note of this controversy. Because even the most basic definitions of "great power" and "middle power" (and look at those Wikipedia articles, please) leave some doubt over whether Japan should fall into the one category or the other, with my own analysis being that it should fall into the latter, and many in the field of international relations, including within Japan itself, agreeing, it's clear that to simply call Japan a "great power" and leave it at that, especially in the article's intro, is misleading and a disservice to the ideals of Wikipedia. "Japan is a great power" is clearly a controversial statement that enjoys no consensus among academics.

As I stated above, I favor CES's solution to this problem. No mention of Japan's power "ranking" should be made in the article's intro, but perhaps somewhere in the article we can note the country's relative strengths and weaknesses, and, just as in the actual Wikipedia articles for great power and middle power, note that how one defines such terms will determine which side Japan may come down on. Adlerschloß 23:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong - academics will claim the US is not a democracy, not just activists. John Smith's 08:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John Smith's ... You don't have to be a lover of Japan or a student of Japan or even a student of Asian matters to recognize the incredible economic influence, and thus political and cultural influence, of Japan in the world, even if it does not have a military. This argument, this debate, is so petty and ridiculous, can we please just let it go? LordAmeth 08:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)