| Revision as of 23:37, 15 September 2007 editGimmeBot (talk | contribs)Bots75,273 editsm Removing {{FAOL}} from FA per User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Re:_FAOL← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:42, 17 September 2007 edit undo58.108.244.157 (talk) ←Replaced page with 'Japan rules because of manga and hot anime so yeah.'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Japan rules because of manga and hot anime so yeah. | |||
| {{ArticleHistory | |||
| |action1=FAC | |||
| |action1date= 14 Jan 2004 | |||
| |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2003 to January 2004#Japan | |||
| |action1result=failed | |||
| |action2=FAC | |||
| |action2date=18 Nov 2004 | |||
| |action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2004#Japan | |||
| |action2result=failed | |||
| |action3=FAC | |||
| |action3date=2006-08-10, 02:41:20 | |||
| |action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Japan/archive1 | |||
| |action3result=failed | |||
| |action3oldid=68735516 | |||
| |action4=PR | |||
| |action4date=28 August 2006 | |||
| |action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Japan | |||
| |action4result=Reviewed | |||
| |action5=FAC | |||
| |action5date=20:17, 9 January 2007 | |||
| |action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Japan/archive2 | |||
| |action5result=failed | |||
| |action5oldid=99606762 | |||
| |action6=FAC | |||
| |action6date=16:41, 26 March 2007 | |||
| |action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Japan/archive3 | |||
| |action6result=not promoted | |||
| |action6oldid=118031781 | |||
| |action7=FAC | |||
| |action7date=03:22, 12 April 2007 | |||
| |action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Japan | |||
| |action7result=promoted | |||
| |action7oldid=122108297 | |||
| |maindate=May 15, 2007 | |||
| |currentstatus=FA | |||
| }} | |||
| {{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|category=Geography|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|coresup=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Japan|class=FA|importance=Top}} | |||
| {{WP:Countries|FA|small=yes}} | |||
| {{archives|small=yes|auto=}} | |||
| == "Japan" v. "Nippon" == | |||
| Would be useful/interesting in the article to mention when the term ''Nippon'' as opposed to ''Japan'' would typically be used. ] 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Japan is English name, Nihon/Nippon is Japanese name. More interesting perhaps would be when ''Nippon'' is used rather than ''Nihon''. ] 02:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :For that see ]. -- ] 06:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Pacific war == | |||
| Is there any problem to describe the Kota Bharu landing in addition to the Pearl Harbor attack? Since the main purpose is occupying Southeast Asia for the resources and the Pearl Harbor attach is just strategic purpose, it is appropriate to add the Kota Bharu landing. ] 03:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, there is. This is not a history page - it is a general page on Japanese history. The page is already long, so I do not see why we need to add a point on this. There is a link to the Japanese history article. ] 07:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Civilization vs Human Occupation == | |||
| It got a revert back from human occupation back to civilization? ] doesn't just mean 'People lived there.' As defined, a pastoral or otherwise semi-agricultural hunter-gatherer society is not a civilization. Civilization is a specific way of life unknown to the people of japan in 10,000 BC. Also, the word was linked to the civilization article that defined it contrary to the meaning it was given. | |||
| "The first signs of civilization on the Japanese archipelago appeared around 10,000 BC with a culture, characterized by a Mesolithic to Neolithic semi-sedentary hunter-gatherer lifestyle of pit dwelling and a rudimentary form of agriculture." was linked to - "..Most often it is used to refer to "complex" societies: those that practice intensive agriculture; have a significant division of labour; and have population densities sufficient to form cities... Beginning a mere 10-12 thousand years ago in the Middle East..." etc. | |||
| If a word is going to be mis-used, or used in the vernacular, it probably shouldn't be linked to the real definition. Maybe put in quotes or something. | |||
| ] 02:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It seems the date for occupation was farther back than 10,000 BC, however hunter-gatherers still did not live in "civilizations". They have a ] or a ]. ] would also be an accurate word. {{unsigned|Matkuna|23:09, 11 July 2007}} | |||
| ::I agree completely. For anyone who thinks otherwise, I invite them to take a look at ]; Chinese civilization begins around 2200 BC - Japanese not until long after that. Yayoi period maybe, or Kofun period. Though I would personally argue that "Japanese" civilization, as in something with definitive connections to later medieval, early modern, and modern Japanese society, did not emerge until after the Kofun period, around the 6th century CE at the earliest. ] 05:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Japan as official language == | |||
| I read, that Japan is not the official language of Japan, only the language speaken by most of the people. Does anyone have more information to this? ] 13:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Japanese is the ''de facto'' official language, but it is indeed not lawfully accepted as the official language. The Japanese just never seemed to see any particular reason to accept a law that states the obvious - i.e. Japanese has always been so prevalent and unchalenged in its role as official language that there never really was a need to do this. Thus, there is no ''actual'' official language in Japan. This is just one of history's quirks, it doesn't have a deeper meaning or anything. ] 16:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == BC or BCE? == | |||
| ''Moved from ]'' | |||
| I am not a Misplaced Pages master, and therefore couldn't find the appropriate avenue to register this comment. That being said, I have a simple question: I edited the article on | |||
| Japan, in an extremely minor way (under an anonymous profile), in that I | |||
| changed one usage of BC to BCE. Now, not only do I think BCE and CE are more scholarly terms than BC and AD, the crux of the issue is that BCE is used a handful of times right before the BC that I changed. Therefore, it screams of inconsistency. Again, I also feel that as many people reading about Japan (including myself) might not be Christians, it is undesirable to list the dates that way. So, when my change was reverted, I merely wanted to point this out to the administrator who barred my revision (John Smith's), but I was unable to find a link to contact this person. Now, I am usually only a reader on Misplaced Pages, but occasionally I see things like that, and I feel compelled to alter them. Regardless, I just don't feel the deletion of my change is justified, in terms of the consistency of the article without it. | |||
| Thank you, | |||
| Billshattner@yahoo.com | |||
| :Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style deals with this subject at ]. Essentially, either is acceptable, and usage should be consistent within the article. However, one format should '''not''' be replaced with another unless there is a substantial reason for the change. I would further note that both the AD/BC and CE/BCE conventions are commonly used by scholars in academic/professional journals, law reviews, and books - one is not more "scholarly" than another. Thanks for voicing your concern - I hope I addressed it adequately. --] <sup>[[User | |||
| talk:Tim4christ17|talk]]</sup> 04:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::From a non-Christian perspective, I prefer the BCE/CE as I do not like the "year of our lord" designation. While it does not bother me that much, it is slightly offensive. I'd rather not have to define time by someone else's god. ] 06:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As the change was for consistency, I'd support it. We're inconsistent in several places and I've (arbitrarily) chosen to change them all to BCE. ] 01:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The policy says not to change without a substantial reason. To the best of my knowledge, has the first use of BC (by which I mean no prior use of BCE) and the article should continue to use that style, absent a substantial reason. So I've reinstated the AD/BC system and made the article consistent within that system. Of course, both systems have supporters and opponents; the policy though is separate from the article on Japan and the right place to discuss it is on the talk page of the policy. | |||
| ::Finally, to Billshattner, you're welcome to participate in editing, policymaking discussions, and other aspects of Misplaced Pages, either with a user name or anonymously. We arrive at policies by consensus of the community, and when you find a matter you want to establish as policy, or a policy you want to change, Misplaced Pages has talk pages where you can voice your opinions freely. For established policies, you can also peruse the discussions that led to them. These are often in archive pages, accessible from the talk pages. You'll find links to policies at ]. Whether you're a casual reader, an occasional editor, or a frequent participant, Misplaced Pages welcomes you. ] 11:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with Fg2 - keep BC. ] 11:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Works for me. ] 21:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think BCE/CE is better and I don't find the "someone happened to use BC first so he wins" reason very compelling at all. If you are talking about changing an already consistent use of BC/AD to BCE/CE, which is what I think the policy really addresses, I might feel differently. Here, however, a mixture of both happened to crop up over time, and the inconsistency needed to be resolved. The BC/AD moniker is a very Western/Christian-oriented one, and its use in an article about a clearly non-Christian nation seems all the more odd to me. I don't feel that strongly about this, but thought I'd throw in my two cents.-] 04:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with Jefu here. Likewise, I don't feel too strongly about this, but if we're gonna be consistent, BCE/CE would make more sense, in terms of neutrality. ] 14:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It doesn't matter whether you find it "compelling" or not. It is wikipedia guidelines to go by the spelling, etc first used after a stub, unless there is a specific reason to use something else (e.g. American English in American articles, British English in UK articles, etc). Consistency is required inside articles, not between them, for spelling, etc. "Neutrality" is also not a reason to change it, especially as BCE is not neutral to those what want BC or BCE. ] 14:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As always, it is important to actually think about a rule, rather than simply applying it blindly. First, I doubt that the rule contemplated the need to go back through three years of editing history in a given article to determine which convention to use, which is just another way of saying what I said above -- that the intention was to prohibit the unilateral substitution of one consistent use with another. And the unilateral substitution of one consistent use for the other is not what happened at all when billshattner@yahoo.com first edited the article to make it consistent. It is, however, precisely what Fg2 did when he changed billshattner@yahoo.com's conflict-resolving consistent choice of BCE/CE to an equally consistent BC/AD). Second, I'll bet dimes to dollars that the intent behind the rule was really about avoiding edit wars. But is one going really going to flare up here? The article likely remained peacefully inconsistent for several years (I haven't checked the history in detail). Is there anyone out there who feels so strongly about using BC/AD (for some compelling reason other than the fact that someone three years ago happened to type "BC" into the article) that they are willing to begin an edit war over it? The point here is that Fg2's changes to what billshattner@yahoo.com did (which I think was a perfectly reasonable thing to do) were quite likely unnecessary and arguably as much in violation of a reasonable interpretation of Misplaced Pages's policy as what billshattner@yahoo.com did, if not more so.-] 03:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well I'm not convinced about your point. ] 09:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Let's not forget MOS promotes coherence between topic and style (like British-English for a British Topic). In that case, it is only natural for a non-Christian topic to use a non-Christian datation method. Imposing an "overtly Christian BC/AD" (per MOS) on non-Christian topics fundamentally goes against MOS policy. ] 02:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Please stop misinterpreting MOS. We've been over this before. It does not say anywhere that BC/AD cannot be used for "non-Christian" articles. ] 11:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| For those interested, there is a discussion and vote going on at ] page on the appropriateness of BC/AD or BCE/CE for Japan-related subjects. ] 06:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==403 error== | |||
| This link http://www.indiana.edu/~japan/iguides/disputes.htm, supposably about Japanese territorial disupes, is broken. ] 06:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| he he <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==Japan second economy of the world?== | |||
| People, Japan is the THIRD '''economy''' in the world, after the EU and the US. I've changed it, but somebody changed it back. This inormation is NOT correct, the list used as a reference is clear enough, I would say, so I am changing it back again. --] 14:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| JAPAN IS ON AN ISLAND GO PACKERS. And half of japan is dead because of an attack of rabbid babies. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) {{{Time|21:50, August 24, 2007 (UTC)}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| I also added the sentence that Japan is the second '''country''' by nominal GDP, after the United States. The information in the article is now correct. --] 14:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :When articles talk about economies, it means countries. The European Union is not counted as a unified economy - it is more an "illustrative" example. ] 14:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)\ | |||
| ::First of all: I was already on this talkpage trying to discuss about this, before you were. So the warning is been given, in my opinion, too hasty. Second: in order to keep things straight, than change the name of economy into country. That is correct. Economy is not 'just' a country, furthermore, the EU is, in first place, 'an economical entity', so it sure as hell can be called the first economy of the world. However, I stand corrected if the article states that Japan is the second '''country''' by GDP nominal. Would you agree with that? --] 14:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Furthermore, where does it say that an economy automatically means country? Not even the article on Misplaced Pages says that economy=country. :-s --] 14:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I withdrew the warning because you hadn't reverted three times. | |||
| :::I can see from your profile that you are "proud" to be European, so may I suggest that is somewhat colouring your attitude towards this? It's important to put aside personal preferences. | |||
| :::The European Union is a co-operative body that makes many decisions on various issues, including economic. However it is not a unified economy so should not be given that status through implication. | |||
| :::Whether or not the wording is modified, the European Union should not be mentioned. Also do not put the word country in inverted commas. ] 14:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, now you're not making any sense. "Second largest country by GDP". That sounds horrible. If you can't come up with something better than that I will revert it back. ] 14:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just take a look at the list of '''countries by GDP nominal''', it only refers to countries! And the EU is on that list, although not ranked (which I think is the correct thing, for, indeed, the EU is not a country). And why sounds country so horrible, if, according to you, it means the same thing? It is the truth, it is the second country by GDP nominal. But if talked about economy, the EU's economy is larger. Even Newsweek calls the EU an economy ( see ). And why are the people pro-EU always have 'colouring attitudes', but the (British) Eurosceptics have not? On continental Europe economy most of the times stands for the EU economy, for that IS our economy. However, for now I will leave this discussion, but I am going to get to the bottom of this, because at this moment I can't say that you're wrong, but I can't say that you're right either. But one other thing: I still do not appreciate the warning, ] were way too hasty with that one. Before warning someone, and threat that person, and saying that that person should visit the talkpage, it would be a very wise decision to visit the talkpage '''yourself''', and, if necessary, engage yourself into the discussion. I wanted to resolve this on the talkpage, but it was you who came with a warning. --] 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I suggest you calm down. It's regular to give a 3RR warning - I removed it once I saw you had only reverted twice. I'm not sure why you are unable to accept that point. | |||
| :::::Whatever your thoughts about Eurosceptics, that is not relevant to the discussion given that no one here has identified themselves as one. If someone had a tag or something on their userpage showing their hostility to the European Union, I would have made a similar comment. | |||
| :::::As to the article, I have changed the wording to something much more crisp, yet is still correct. Trust me, your last edit was awkward, even if it sounded fine to you. ] 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I saw the change, which I think is indeed everything you say: much more crisp, yet still correct. So thnx for that one. I still, however, must try to find out in what perspective the EU-economy can be placed, but that is not relevant to this discussion :-) What I didn't like about the 3RR Warning, is that I left a message on this talkpage, to start the discussion, but no one responded to that, yet I got that warning. So I felt attacked by that, for I wanted to do this by the rules of Misplaced Pages. Whether or not I reverted three times, assume good faith, talk about it on the talkpage, let me know what is upsetting you, what you think about it, and try to resolve it before warning me like that, for I always try to play by the rules of Misplaced Pages. I can understand your point of view, but at first, you didn't let me know, so I couldn't understand either. :-( --] 16:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Unfortunately Europe is NOT considered as a single economy for the purpose of economic computations or rankings. Europe is more or less a united market with a single currency now, but with its multiple governments and policies apparently falls short of the "single economy" definition. As far as I know, official comparisons do rank Japan as No2 (at least nominally) and list European countries individually, although some un-official comparisons (newspapers etc...) do mention Europe as a block. ] 06:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==change of references== | |||
| can we please only use english references? I mean, this link 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 is useless to me ] 11:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Self-sufficiency in rice production == | |||
| I remember reading that Japan is self-sufficient in ]. This makes cultural sense; might this not also make sense for inclusion in the article? Perhaps after one of us finds a citation. --] 10:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :While I lived in Japan, I read several times in the Yomiuri Shimbun that Japan imported a very large percentage of its rice, with the largest amount coming from the United States. Rice grown in Japan tends to be more expensive, though some people also think it "tastes better". ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 07:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protection == | |||
| Could anybody please explain why this article is semi-protected? I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but I am used to seeing a reason given for the semi-protection given on the talk page. This makes it easier to determine whether an article ''still'' needs protection. I feel this would be useful, as it is wiki policy that the default condition of an article not be protected (i.e. You should unprotect an article if you can.) | |||
| -- ] 13:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Because IPs keep vandalising the article. ] 14:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I requested it. The reason is the continuous vandalisms by anons. The semi-protection started on July 29, and was previously from June 24 to July 8. --] 16:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Is this article still semi-protected? It should be unprotected. There is no reason why this article should be semi-protected, as other countries are not. ] 04:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Azntokki | |||
| == Jōmon period == | |||
| I think it fairly takes air that the first Jomon ware extends back over 16500 years. See this book, Habu Jinko, "Ancient Jomon of Japan", Cambridge Press, 2004, as well as these pages and . So it should be rewrited as I wrote, shouldn't it? ] 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm uncomfortable with removing the other citations as if they were proven false just because of another viewpoint. ] 00:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The other citations were not proven false, but they ware proven that their digs were not oldest. ] 08:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What does "it fairly takes air" mean? ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 06:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::This research is fairly published, so I think we can rewrite the section by now. ] 08:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == olivia dane age 7 == | |||
| jampan is a good plase 2 go 2 it is sun ever day <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==what is it like to live in Japan? daily life, moods, aspirations, social life...== | |||
| In particular, what's it like for women; what's their economic, educational and social situation? Thanks, Rich Peterson <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::] seems a fair summary of the major gender issues facing Japanese society today. ] 07:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:42, 17 September 2007
Japan rules because of manga and hot anime so yeah.