Talk:Japan

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Japan has the oldest continuous monarchy in the world? Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/japanese-monarchy
  • Reviewed:

Created by Letizia Ferhati (talk). Self-nominated at 21:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Japan; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Question - @Letizia Ferhati: Are you sure you nominated the correct article? Japan does not appear eligible for DYK; it was not created by you but by User:Alan D in 2001, and has neither been 5x expanded nor made into a GA recently, and indeed has been a Featured Article since 2007. Japan does not meet the "New" criteria of WP:DYKCRIT, did you mean to nominate a different article? - Aoidh (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Closing. As noted in the above comment by Aoidh this doesn't meet requirements, although it is understandable that the DYK process name causes confusion in this regard. CMD (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

First of all, point out what is wrong

I am Japanese. This is my first time seeing the English version of the article, and there are quite a few mistakes. First, the Yayoi period dates back to the 3rd century BC, and the Japanese language existed even before that. Second, Emperor Jinmu was not a grandchild of Amaterasu Omikami, but a further grandchild of Amaterasu Omikami. I think it would be a good idea to include information on the Japanese people and their ecology that appeared in ancient history books of neighboring countries. Kou83949588383 (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

postscript

Amaterasu's grandson is Ninigi. Emperor Jinmu is Ninigi's grandson Kou83949588383 (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It appears that dating of the Yayoi period is contested among historians; I've changed the labeling of Jimmu. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the Yayoi period is undisputedly from the 3rd century BC to the 3rd century AD. This is a common understanding among scientists from all walks of life, but who claims that it began in the 7th century BC? Kou83949588383 (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Shoda, Shin'ya (2010). "Radiocarbon and Archaeology in Japan and Korea: What has Changed Because of the Yayoi Dating Controversy?". Radiocarbon. 52 (2). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 421–427. doi:10.1017/s0033822200045471. ISSN 0033-8222. Moxy🍁 21:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2024

I would like to edit a few words with spelling mistakes 51.155.184.206 (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. It's unclear what you mean. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 13:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

established_event3 = First Developed Adytiaramdani67 (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding human rights issues in Japan

Whenever I make edits related to issues of discrimination against women, they are deleted. The fact that abortion can only be performed with the consent of the man and the fact that the gender gap index is poor are always deleted. This is true, and all sources have been disclosed. The gender gap was also included in the Japanese version.I don't understand why they were removed even though these are true.流山隆一 (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please consult the edit summaries explaining why your edits were removed. Remsense ‥ 论 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The section should b removed all together...... human rights are not a concern here. Moxy🍁 22:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but the reliable sources disagree. OP has already pointed out some of these human rights issues. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense your edit summary stated that i think these are worth including but the prose needs considerable work, as this is a featured article. Unfortunately, there is no policy that states that sourced changes to an article can be removed or contested solely because they might threaten its rating. If the prose needs rework, then rework it! Reverts should only be used instead of improvements when you are totally unable to improve the text yourself, but we are talking about three sentences here. What's more, @流山隆一 did rework the grammar in subsequent edits, yet you reverted them anyways, perhaps failing to read them and therefore failing to note that the grammar had been improved. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

There is such a policy, it's called WP:ONUS. We're reworking it here: I think maintaining the consistent quality of articles as such is important for readers as a balance/potential WP:NPOV issue, and this will likely result in a better article for the extra attention and collaboration. Remsense ‥ 论 05:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a high-level summary article, meaning that not every fact that is true should be included. Claims that a specific private individual committed offenses is definitely not something that should be included here. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that in the previous edit, I quoted part of the notation from the title of the article because my English was insufficient, and it was pointed out that it was a violation of copyright law, and it was deleted. However, this time I am posting an overview, so I am not quoting the article's expression. Also, if it is inappropriate to post a specific person's crime, it is clearly abnormal that the gender gap index is also deleted. It's not fair. 流山隆一 (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Johnny Kitagawa's crimes were systematic, involving the entire company and media. The United Nations Human Rights and Business Commission has pointed out that Japan needs an organization that protects human rights independent of the government. 流山隆一 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

If the involvement of the entire company can be sourced, that could be something to discuss in the company's article - but still not here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The topic here is human rights.And while LGBT is described as a problem, descriptions of discrimination against women are not allowed. Japan has been famous for its gender discrimination since ancient times. In fact, many women were discriminated against in medical school entrance exams. It is also not acceptable for a woman to have an abortion without her partner's consent. Please tell me why you can't even describe the gender gap index even though you can write about LGBT. 流山隆一 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim that "Japan has been famous for its gender discrimination since ancient times"? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The part about Kitigawa was only a portion of what was removed. The text stating Japan's 2024 gender equality ranked 118th among 146 countries and the fact that A woman cannot have an abortion without her partner's consent is exactly the sort of information you would expect from a high-level summary article, and yet some folks are pushing back on that too. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear: my position is simply that the material required some level of preliminary editing and attention before it was added to the article. I hope that comes off in good faith. Remsense ‥ 论 05:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you actually read 流山隆一's edits that did exactly that before reverting them again? The most recent version they tried to include in the article has none of the prose issues earlier versions did. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, their most recent addition had Johnny Kitagawa, a prominent J-pop agent, committed child sexual abuse. More than 300 people are demanding compensation from their agency. How on earth would this be an acceptable addition to this article? Remsense ‥ 论 05:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It would have been fine to delete that sentence instead of reverting the entire edit. That sentence was also not in their original edit, and is problematic on other grounds that have been raised above. Regardless, would you support a version of their edit without the mention of Kitigawa? Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I likewise think that the material on gender equality as most recently articulated would be fine to re-add by itself: apologies for not being immediately forthcoming about that. Remsense ‥ 论 05:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It should be explained that this ranking comes from the World Economic Forum, but that's an easy fix. The article already cites other WEF rankings, so I support re-adding this paragraph. More broadly, Japan#Human rights seems conspicuously undersized in proportion to its significance to the topic, and in proportion to Human rights in Japan. This is an overview article, so we do expect some redundancy with sub-topic articles. Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Have redone the section to summarize the main article with new sources.....best keep random stats to a minimum in the article and simply state the facts to sources that explain over general index stats.Moxy🍁 08:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Mentions of WWII atrocities in lead

I recently introduced a line mentioning the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Japanese Empire to the lead. This is a significant event in Japanese history and failing to mention it here would be like failing to mention the Holocaust in the lead for Germany. @Moxy apparently wishes to challenge these changes, but provided no policy-based explanation for their challenge. Moxy, do you care to say more? Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Simply WP:Undue .....as its not something that is covered in quick summarizes of the country like Germany and the holocaust. Every major power has crimes attached to them but only a few are defining in nature. Moxy🍁 06:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

So, I checked Britannica, and it's a bit complicated since the lead for Germany's is significantly longer than Japan's or either of ours'. However, it seems to roughly equivocate to the present proportion. Are there any other tertiary sources we can be looking at to evaluate lead dueness here?Remsense ‥ 论 06:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I suspect having it in the lead of the History of Japan article (it isn't) might be the bigger priority. As for defining, I note that what happened then is still very much present in many people's minds in nearby countries (see Controversies surrounding Yasukuni Shrine) so it affects current regional politics. Erp (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

References