Talk:Japan/Archive 12

Tokyo a city?

More like a country! EnsignLovel

Um, no. It's a prefecture, a large metropolitan area, far more akin to a state, province, departement, or county than a country. Japan's the country. LordAmeth 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

With its population and economic output, it really does share some characteristics with countries. Still, I definitely agree that politically and geographically it's a part (a small part) of Japan. Fg2 21:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There's some contradiction here:

Its capital and largest city is Tokyo.

Now, the article on Tokyo says that it is an administrative region, not a city. What was Tokyo City existed up to 1943. Please rewrite the sentence to make it clear. --Geopgeop 11:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe its like Washington DC where the city controls its own area. Washington DC is not considered to be part of a state its by itself. Maybe Tokyo is the same. Good friend100 13:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The analogy with Washington, D.C. is an interesting one. The difficulty is that Washington occupies all of D.C. (as the article says, they're "coextensive"). It doesn't illustrate the land that's outside the old city of Tokyo but still inside the present-day Tokyo-To.

For an analogy that shows this difference, look to New York, N.Y. The old Tokyo City was like the City of New York, and the old Tokyo-Fu and the present-day Tokyo-To are analogous to the State of New York. An address would have been in Tokyo City, Tokyo-Fu just as a present-day address is in New York City, NY. Tokyo City occupied only part of Tokyo-Fu, and the rest of Tokyo-Fu had separate cities, towns, and villages; in the same way, New York City occupies only part of New York State, and the rest of the state has its own separate cities and towns. Imagine that the City of New York disbanded, and its five boroughs (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island) were made into cities, each with an individual mayor, city council, and so forth. The five new cities would constitute the former city of New York, in much the same way that the 23 special wards constitute the former city of Tokyo.

An additional difficulty arises in that the word "city" means more than one thing. It could mean the land where a local government has jurisdiction, and it could mean the local government (the corporation headed by the mayor and city council, with authority to hire people, levy taxes, borrow money, enact and enforce ordinances etc.). It could also mean the more abstract pattern of dwelling, communication, transportation etc. that characterizes a city. Tokyo City, having been disbanded, is no longer a local government; there is no corporation headed by a mayor and so on. Rather, there are 23 city governments in the land where there was once one. Similarly, if New York City were dissolved and replaced by five city governments, it would cease to be a single corporation, and five would take its place. But would it cease to be a city as an abstract pattern of dwelling, communication, transportation and the like? No, those would persist; similarly, they persist in Tokyo. So Tokyo continues to be a city in this sense of the word. The difficulty is that the boundaries of such an abstract city are difficult to specify. They differ according to the phenomenon one is investigating, and they change as time passes. Corporate boundaries of cities, in contrast, are clearly laid out, and persist long enough to take a census, measure an area, and report population and density in an encyclopedia.

But the boundaries of the old city of Tokyo are still there. One can add the populations of the 23 special wards, and the result is what the city of Tokyo would have if it were still a corporate body. Many people do that, and report the figure of eight million. It's up to the Wikipedia community to decide if the word city should be used to report that as the population of one city or of 23.

--Fg2 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Technically Tokyo is a metropolis which is defined as a major city. Going by that I think the use of city is justified. Antisora 14:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tokyo's government calls itself a metropolis. What it is is quite different from a major city. It includes a major city, certainly. However, it also encompasses large tracts of forest, tall mountains, active volcanoes, national parks, uninhabited islands and more. If you want additional detail and discussion, you'll find it at Talk:Tokyo Fg2 09:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The 23 ku, or wards, are sometimes classified as individual cities themselves and sometimes together as a single entity under direct stewardship of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government:

Tokyo is a regional government encompassing 23 special wards, 26 cities, 5 towns and 8 villages, but it has certain characteristics that distinguish it from the other prefectures. In the ward area, the metropolitan government takes on part of the work usually assigned to the municipalities including waterworks, to keep their unity and cohesion as a single 'city'. A special administrative system therefore exists between the government and the special wards, which is not seen elsewhere in the country.

- Tokyo Metropolitan Government website article "Tokyo Metropolis and the 23 Special Wards"

Kaizendenki 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ainu - No mention?

I'm surprised there's no mention of the Ainu people in this article.

Population

Shibuya crossing is one of the largest pedestrian crossings and shopping areas.Japan's population is estimated at around 127,463,611. For the most part, Japanese society is linguistically and culturally homogeneous with only small populations of foreign workers, Zainichi Korean and others. Japan has indigenous minority groups such as the Ainu and Ryūkyūans, and social minority groups like the burakumin.

There is.--Jjok 04:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This should be expanded. Other nations in Wikipedia, such as the United States, discuss the indigenous people for at least a short paragraph. I have found that understanding the Ainu's experience in Japan is a key to understanding Japanese society. One can hardly brush aside the indigenous races by lumping them together in one paragraph about a shopping area!

Naomichanart 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the need to expand it, please go right ahead. I think it'll be a valuable addition to the article. However, just for clarity, it's not a paragraph about a shopping area - Shibuya is being used as something of an example to lead into discussion of the population and demographics of the country. It may be interesting/important to mention that official records only regard Ainu living in Hokkaido as being "Ainu", and that official sources therefore severely misrepresent or underrepresent the number of Ainu in the country, and their role in society. LordAmeth 14:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yayoi

Let me visit this again. My suggested text for mention about Yayoi is this:

• The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery. Replacing the Jomon culture, Yayoi society became more complex and developed distinct social classes. Yayoi people wove cloth, lived in permanent farming villages, constructed buildings of wood and stone.

Why I would like my suggested re-write to stay:

1. Yayoi is a significant part of Japanese history. It currently only has one sentence in the whole article.
2. Yayoi introduced farming practices to Japan and changed Japan into a farming society. And Japan was basically to remain a farming society until it industrialised in the 1800's.

I don't know how anybody would think it is not important to mention what period of time Japan turned into a farming society from that of a hunter-gatherer society. Now User:Endroit has presented a few justifications for his objection to my edit.

1. It's not important information.
2. It violates WP:POINT.
3. It invites revert warring. (and to prevent such, he repeatedly reverts my edit...)
4. "Hunter-gatherer" is just a theory. (original research right here)

None of these reasons address the very simple issue that - it's what our sources say.

• The new mode of living appeared first on the north coast of Japan's southwesternmost island, Kyushu, just across the Korea Strait from South Korea. There we find Japan's first metal tools, of iron, and Japan's first undisputed full-scale agriculture. That agriculture came in the form of irrigated rice fields, complete with canals, dams, banks, paddies, and rice residues revealed by archeological excavations. Archeologists term the new way of living Yayoi, after a district of Tokyo where in 1884 its characteristic pottery was first recognized. Unlike Jomon pottery, Yayoi pottery was very similar to contemporary South Korean pottery in shape. Many other elements of the new Yayoi culture were unmistakably Korean and previously foreign to Japan, including bronze objects, weaving, glass beads, and styles of tools and houses.[1]
• With all these developments going on for thousands of years just across the Korea Strait from Japan, it might seem astonishing that in 400 B.C. Japan was still occupied by people who had some trade with Korea but remained preliterate stone-tool-using hunter-gatherers. Throughout human history, centralized states with metal weapons and armies supported by dense agricultural populations have consistently swept away sparser populations of hunter-gatherers. How did Jomon Japan survive so long?[2]

Source from the Yayoi article:

• A class society began to emerge during the Yayoi period.[3]
• While some aspects of Yayoi society evolved from the Jomon, more important to its development was the technique of wet-rice cultivation, which is thought to have been introduced to Japan from Korea and southeastern China sometime between 1000 B.C. and the first century A.D. In keeping with an agrarian lifestyle, the people of the Yayoi culture lived in permanently settled communities, made up of thatched houses clustered into villages.[4]

So on and so forth. If anyone is not familiar with the Yayoi culture, please, I encourage you to read the sources quoted in this article and in the Yayoi article. They keep mentioning how Yayoi is an advanced culture compared to the Jomon, and that it introduced an agrarian or farming society to Japan. This is basic and important information about the Yayoi. It's what makes Yayoi worth mentioning. It's unimaginable to make mention of Yayoi without explaining why it's important. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 11:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yayoi vs. Jomon comparisons

Any comparison of Yayoi vs. Jomon becomes subjective because we are dealing with prehistoric times in Japanese history. I'm not denying that the "Yayoi people... lived in permanent farming villages". But the Jomon people also lived in villages and performed farming. See the following from pp. 120-121, Columbia chronologies of Asian history and culture, By John S. Bowman, Columbia University Press, ISBN 0231110049:

• 2500-1500 B.C.:...(omitting some text)...Most villages build very large communal structures (up to 2,153 square feet, or 200 square meters). Elevated houses are used for storage. Charred remains of breadlike food indicate use of grain....(omitting some text)...
• c. 1000 B.C.: By this millenium, Jomon people know how to cultivate dry land rice along with other plants but continue to rely mainly on hunting, gathering, and fishing.

See also the following from p. 69, Ancient Jomon of Japan By Junko Habu, 2004 Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521776708:

• From the perspective of the collector-forager model, nut storage implies collecting large quantities of nuts during the autumn for use during the winter through to early spring, thus often reducing overall residential mobility. In this regard, it is interesting to note that some scholars have suggested the possibiliby of artificial management of some nut trees during the Jomon period. As early as in the 1950s, Izawa (1951) and Sakatsume (1957) suggested that nut-bearing trees such as chestnut, oak, beech and buckeye might have been tended by the Jomon people and should, therefore, be considered as potential Jomon cultigens (see also K. Imamura 1996: 105-106). Furthermore, results of recent DNA analyses of Early and Middle Jomon chestnut remains from the Sannai Maruyama site (Y. Sato et al. 2003; Yamanaka et al. 1999) also indicate the possibility of chestnut cultivation or domestication (for details, see chapter 4, p. 117). If that was in fact the case, it has significant implications for our understanding of Jomon landscapes.

Wet rice farming is the only type of farming we can be certain, was introduced since Yayoi period. The statement that "Yayoi people... lived in permanent farming villages" is a terribly misleading statement if the Jomon people before them practiced farming and if they lived in villages. In any case, it appears that the Jomons appears to have relied on a complex hunter-gatherer-agriculture strategy. So it would be a biased POV statement to suggest that Yayoi introduced farming. As you can see, the Yayoi discussion gets complex, and really belongs in the Yayoi article (and maybe Jomon article also), not here.--Endroit 13:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Both your sources also say that the Jomon were mainly hunter-gatherers, and do not say specifically that the Jomon farmed. I don't see how it is a complex issue. It's rather simple and direct. Jomon were hunter-gatherers, and Yayoi was an agricultural society - that's the main point here. But fine, I'll modify the re-write. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: HongQiGong has been reported for WP:3RR violation. Please discuss changes to "Yayoi period" here AND GAIN CONSENSUS first before making changes. Thank you.--Endroit 21:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Replacing "rice farming" with "wet-field rice farming" is a good change, in the first sentence. However like I have said before, lesser important intermediary advancements don't belong in country articles. Compare it with Greece or any other country article. Give me one example where "weaving cloth" is mentioned in another country article. HongQiGong, I'd have to strike your 2nd and 3rd sentences and request you to move them to the Yayoi period article instead, because they are not important in this particular article.

Can other people comment here as well? Thanks.--Endroit 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added back important information about the Yayoi. All sources say that it replaced the mainly hunting-gathering Jomon, and brought on an agricultural society. This is what makes Yayoi important and even worth mentioning. Without that information, it's meaningless to mention the Yayoi. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jomon were most certainly NOT replaced. "Replaced" is a bad word. DNA evidences show that the Yayoi from mainland Asia and the local Jomon intermingled. And the Jomon culture survives to this day, as the Japanese people are still involved in fishing (ja:漁, ryō), gathering mushrooms (ja:キノコ/茸狩り, kinoko-gari), and other forms of hunting-gathering today. Anyways evidences are more likely to show that the Jomon coexisted and/or were absorbed into Yayoi, but NOT replaced. Stop mentioning the words "replaced" and "Jomon" in the Yayoi section.--Endroit 01:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I've revised the statement to say that the Jomon merged with the Yayoi. But all sources do say that Jomon was a mainly hunting-gathering society, whereas the Yayoi was an agricultural society. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong, just to let you know, I don't particularly object to your following (recent) version:

• The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as wet-land rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery. It merged with the mainly hunting-gathering Jomon society and introduced an agricultural farming society to Japan.

Perhaps a few grammatical fixes may be in order, though; but that's not my department. I'm still waiting to see if others have any comments.--Endroit 02:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok good. My edits are in good faith, despite what you or John Smith's probably think. I only wanted to reflect what the sources say. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, although I don't object, I notice a lot of redundancies. For example, "hunter-gatherer" is already mentioned in the "Jomon section" right before it. And I don't see why "Jomon" needs to be mentioned again in the "Yayoi section". Perhaps something like this will be simpler to read, and preferred:

• The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery. With the Yayoi culture, Japan became a predominantly agricultural society.

--Endroit 07:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that re-write is fine, too. Although I would actually prefer we give more information about Yayoi, as long as it is mentioned that Yayoi introduced an agricultural society to Japan, I am OK with it. Like I said, that's why Yayoi is even worth mentioning. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Discuss

If editors are going to revert my edit, at the very least, it would be helpful to join in the discussion. Worse yet, I was just told in an edit summary to discuss my edit, something I've been continually doing, and at the same time, that particular editor has not joined the discussion[5].

So please, comment on why you disagree with my edit, instead of just reverting for the sole reason that consensus has not been reached. And I can even respect that if reverting editors are actually participating in the discussion. But if you actually have no opinion to state, why are you reverting? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'm wondering - how do we actually reach concensus if editors revert without discussion, and revert because there is no concensus? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I left messages with John Smith's and ShinjukuXYZ. So HongQiGong, wait up to a couple of days or until they both respond (whichever occurs first).

I urge others to comment here as well. By the way, if somebody suggests to do a poll, then we should consider that also. Anyways, please be patient.--Endroit 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But polls are hardly useful without discussion. I think we already know how the contributing editors will vote. And concensus is not reached through voting. I would like to know how the current single-sentence statement is enough to explain the significance of the Yayoi period, a phase in Japanese history that turned Japan into an agricultural society. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong, I just got a response from John Smith's. I'm afraid that the other people who already voted above, don't follow our compromise here. We need to change our votes above, to support our compromise. That means, you need to convince LordAmeth, Jefu, John Smith's, and Hidvegi.gabor, or at least a mojority of the editors who voted already, to support our compromise. It's called "building consensus".--Endroit 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the discussion about here? Its been very active in the Japan article and I would like to join it. Good friend100 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been following all of the discussions, but I don't understand why mention of the influence from the mainland should be excluded, as it appears to be from the compromise struck between Endroit and HongQiGong. That influence was a key factor in the tranformation to the Yayoi period.-Jefu

Upon discussion with HongQiGong, I discovered that the following potential disputes exist within the "Yayoi section" of this article, the root causes of revert warring:

1. The word "Korea" shouldn't be used because Korea didn't exist back then.
2. The word "China" shouldn't be used either.
3. "Weaving cloth", "building wood & stone houses", etc. don't belong in any country articles (not just Japan).
4. The Yayoi did not introduce farming to Japan, because the Jomon had knowledge of rudimentary forms of farming.
5. Any mention of Yayoi living in villages and Jomon not doing so seems inaccurate.
6. Jomon (people & culture) was never "replaced" by the Yayoi, so the word "replaced" is inappropriate.

In my opinion, any attempt to include these materials will be cause for revert-warring. My compromise with HongQiGong merely verified this problem, and accepted an alternate wording which avoid these problematic areas.--Endroit 15:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Correct.
2. Also correct. 1 and 2 are exactly why I proposed my option 3 in the poll above. The countries didn't exist, but the geographical regions did.
3. I'll buy that. Probably more appropriate for a history article.
4. Well, they didn't introduce farming, per se, but they did introduce wet rice culture, which later became the foundation of Japanese society.
5. True. The Jomon at least lived in settlements. If you mean that they did not roam the woods like nomads, you are right, although they also didn't live in settlements as sophisticated as what developed later in the Yayoi period either.
6. True.

In any event, like I said, glossing over the influence from the continent will be doing a disservice to our understanding about this period in Japanese history.-Jefu 16:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jefu, I don't particularly mind your wording either. Can we combine both versions and design a Jefu/HongQiGong/Endroit compromise, such as the following?....

• The Yayoi period, starting around the 3rd century BC, marked the influx of new practices such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery, brought by migrants from the Chinese mainland and the Korean Peninsula. With the Yayoi culture, Japan became a predominantly agricultural society.

--Endroit 16:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say "with the development of Yayoi culture, Japan became...", but otherwise I could get onboard with that statement. One thing I haven't raised at all is that the beginning of Yayoi has been pushed back somewhat. Japanese are currently taught (and Japanese dictionaries all confirm) that it began around the 5th century B.C.-Jefu 16:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to discuss the 5th Century vs. 3th Century issue some other time, but I'm sure that info belongs in the "Yayoi period" article.--Endroit 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So Jefu and myself agree on the following wording:

• The Yayoi period, starting around the 3rd century BC, marked the influx of new practices such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery, brought by migrants from the Chinese mainland and the Korean Peninsula. With the development of Yayoi culture, Japan became a predominantly agricultural society.

HongQiGong, is that OK?--Endroit 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, on your points:

1. All due respect, but without reputable sources to say "Korea didn't exist", this would be original research. It's a conjecture made by editors.
2. Same as above. And I had assumed that we've reached concensus to simply exclude information about the origin of Yayoi influences. If we are to add that back in, I insist that "China" and "Korea" be named in some form or another, not "East Asia", and not "Chinese mainland" and "Korean peninsula" unless we liberally use "Japanese archipelago" also. To use the same logic - "Japan" did not exist either, only the state of Wa existed.
3. I disagree, but am not absolutely adamant on having that information added. And this logic would essentially take out a number of other parts of the article as well.
4. This I can agree with. What they introduced was wet-land rice farming, something that is still practiced in Japan to this day.
5. The specifc wording here was "permanent farming villages" - that's a direct quote from one of our sources.
6. This is semantics in my opinion. Given that Yayoi culture is composed of influences from China and Korea that are combined with the existing Jomon culture, "merged" and "replaced" hardly makes a difference in my opinion. Jomon period ended, and the Yayoi period began. That's what happened, and all sources recognise that Yayoi culture is more advanced and distinct from Jomon culture.

Anyway, I strongly suggest we leave out the origins of Yayoi influences. I do not understand why other editors do not want to specificly name "China" and "Korea" in some form or other when that's exactly what our sources do, but whatever. What's more important here is that we mention that Yayoi period was the beginning of an agricultural society in Japan. This is what I would prefer:

• The Yayoi period, starting around the 3rd century BC, marked the influx of new practices such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery. With the development of Yayoi culture, Japan became a predominantly agricultural society.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that there is no compromise between HongQiGong and Jefu. What do other people think? Please comment here.--Endroit 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong, what if we change the wording as follows?....

• The Yayoi period, starting around the 3rd century BC, marked the influx of new practices such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery, brought by migrants from the Chinese mainland and the Korean Peninsula. With the development of Yayoi culture, the Japanese archipelago became a predominantly agricultural society.

Would you be willing to accept that?--Endroit 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, are we so sure Jefu disagrees with my most recent suggestion? Maybe we can wait for him to respond to the idea of just excluding information about where Yayoi influences came from. That was not an option on the most recent poll he participated in.

That aside, I'm OK with your suggestion here except for a small grammatical problem. The Japanese archipelago is a geographical location, so:

• The Yayoi period, starting around the 3rd century BC, marked the influx of new practices such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery, brought by migrants from the Chinese mainland and the Korean peninsula. With the development of Yayoi culture, a predominantly agricultural society emerged on the Japanese archipelago.

But again, I would much prefer we exclude information about where Yayoi influences came from altogether. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jefu did say this above: "In any event, like I said, glossing over the influence from the continent will be doing a disservice to our understanding about this period in Japanese history."

HongQiGong, I am fine with your last 2 suggestions above.

Jefu, please comment if any of our last few suggestions are acceptable to you.--Endroit 20:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to know why Hong Qi Gong wants to exclude mention of where the influence came from. How does that make any sense at all, when the source of the influence is one of its most important characteristics. It is noted in virtually every Japanese source, including something as short and concise as an ordinary dictionary definition of Yayoi jidai. What I want to know is why Hong Qi Gong cannot distinguish between political entities and geographical regions. The Korean peninsula wasn't even unified until Silla unified it in the late seventh century. You cannot use anachronisms like Korea or China, because those refer to political entities that did not exist at the time. You can only note the geographic region they were from, or make reference to the political entities as they existed at the time (which is difficult to do over a several centuries long period like in our sentence in dispute). And of course I agree that, similarly, you cannot talk about Japan (i.e. Nihon), until that term was established under Emperor Temmu, and even then it should be made clear that it doesn't include the northern regions, Hokkaido, Okinawa and some of the more remote areas of Kyushu until later.-Jefu 03:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's simple, and I keep repeating this - it's what the sources say. They specifically name "China" and "Korea", whether that be "China and Korea" or "China via Korea", etc etc. It's editors' conjectures to conclude from their own logic that, for example, "Korea did not exist". I understand the logic, but that would be original research, considering how many reputable academic sources still use "Korea" and "China" for those ancient times. Even through the times when different rulers and factions were fighting within Korea, China, and Japan, academics used "Korea", "China", and "Japan" to refer to those civilisations. What do you think "ancient China", "ancient Korea", and "ancient Japan" refer to, if not the old political identities that are to eventually become the modern day China, Korea, and Japan? Should academics use some awkward term like "ancient nations that are part of Chinese civilisation" everytime they want to refer to ancient China?

And really, China was unified at the time the Yayoi arose. It was during the Han dynasty. Korea was also unified at the time under Gojoseon. But moving on - now at this point, I think it's wiser to just exclude information about the origins of Yayoi influences because we can't seem to agree on exactly what terms to use. I'm willing to bet money that even if we are to refer to all three countries as geographical locations, someone will come and change it at one point or another. The most neutral thing to do is to just exclude it altogether and let people read about it on the Yayoi article. In my opinion, the more important thing about the Yayoi period was that an agricultural society emerged out of it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I just checked the Oxford History of Japan, probably the best comprehensive English source on Japanese history, and it seems they refer to China and Korea as well. I still think it is an anachronism (it's like talking about people crossing the Bering Strait 12,000 years ago and entering the United States of America, rather than the North American continent), and one that is not typically seen in Japanese sources, which I am more accustomed to reading. However, I completely disagree that the best answer is to refer to the origin of these influences should be removed. Therefore, I will agree to refer to it as China and Korea.-Jefu 04:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On your comment about using "United States of America" for a time 12,000 years ago - I would think it would be strange if a source actually uses China and Korea to refer to a culture 12,000 years ago as well. But we're talking about a period of time from about 300 BC to 250 AD. It's commonly accepted that the Chinese and Korean civilisations are at least that old. Academics probably wouldn't refer to neolithic cultures by saying it was China or Chinese people.

But anyway, I doubt we can get concensus on using "China" and "Korea". Don't ask me why though because I disagree with and/or don't understand the objection. And I'm suggesting we leave that information out simply because I don't think we can reach concensus for it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I may have mentioned before, Korea was a colony of China since 108 BC. The Britannica article on Yayoi credits Chinese colonies in Korea for the introduction of Chinese culture into Korea and Japan. It says:

• These colonies served as a base for a strong influx of Chinese culture into Korea, whence, in turn, it spread to Japan.

Lelang commandery (Lelang, also called Lo-lang, Luolang or Nangnang) was the most successful of these Chinese colonies. Read more on "Chinese commanderies" here, in Gina Lee Barnes' book.

Before that was perhaps Gojoseon (or Old Choson)in Manchuria and Northern Korea. But they didn't rule Southern Korea. There was no unified Korea back then.--Endroit 05:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

New Consensus Version

That's really only one source out of all our sources that worded it like that. I actually thought it was OK to word it as "Chinese colonies in Korea". But maybe we should try to move forward to come to something we can agree with. I am OK with the version that says "mainland China", "Korean peninsula", and "Japanese archipalego". How about you and Jefu? If the three of us can agree on that, and no other editors want to participate on the discussion, we can put that in the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

According to pp. 194-195, Columbia chronologies of Asian history and culture, By John S. Bowman, Columbia University Press, ISBN 0231110049, Korea only had Tribal Federations, such as Old Choson (Gojoseon) and others at around 4th Century B.C.:

• "c 4th Century B.C.: Tribal federations such as Puyo, Yemaek, Old Choson, Imdun, and Chinbon emerge on the model of the Bronze Age's walled town state. Old Choson, the most powerful of these federations, traces its lineage to Tangun, the mythical ruler of 2333B.C. The federation of Chin develops south of the Han River. Iron rapidly replaces bronze in the making of weapons and tools, particularly among the members of the emergent ruling class. A unique heating system, called ondol, is also developed around this time: It consists of flues running under the floor bearing heat from a fire on one side of a house to a chimney on the other."

Again, there was NO united Korea back then. The only "Korea" there was was the Korean peninsula back then. When Oxford (and other references) use the word "Korea" during the "Yayoi period", they mean "Korean peninsula". Please look up your dictionary for the word "Korea". Here's one definition of Korea (American Heritage Dictionary). Anything before 7th century seems to be defined as "Korean peninsula".

Getting back to HongQiGong's proposal, I am for the following version, and hope that Jefu and others accept it too....

• The Yayoi period, starting around the 3rd century BC, marked the influx of new practices such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery, brought by migrants from the Chinese mainland and the Korean peninsula. With the development of Yayoi culture, a predominantly agricultural society emerged on the Japanese archipelago.

--Endroit 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I support this version.-Jefu 08:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. LordAmeth 10:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I support it too. John Smith's 18:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright I've changed the text to this latest agreed-upon version. Anyway, regarding whether or not Korea existed - I understand the logic. But there's a reason most academics just say "Korea" even to refer to ancient times when the word "Korea" was not used, or when different factions and rulers were fighting amongst themselves. It's a lot less awkward and bulky than using terms like "old nations that eventually unified to become Korea". All our sources on Yayoi specifically name Korea, even if it's "Chinese colonies in Korea". There doesn't need to be a unified Korea for academics to use the term Korea, it's commonly accepted that the Korean civilisation is at least older than 300 BC. Look at your own source, even on the same page you cited:

pp. 194-195, Columbia chronologies of Asian history and culture, By John S. Bowman

• 1122 B.C.: According to ancient Chinese texts, Kija (Viscount Chi) leads a band of Shang dynasty loyalists into Korea, and establishes a kingdom with its capital at Pyongyang.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be much controversy surrounding Kija Choson (Gija Joseon). We know that Kija (Jizi) was a Chinese person. So in fact Kija Choson seems to be a Chinese kingdom in Korea. Also, isn't it Chaoxian/Choson (朝鮮) in Chinese texts, which gets translated as "Korea"? Even if Chaoxian/Choson (Joseon) is perceived to be an equivalent of "Korea" today, part of it was in Manchuria before the 4th century BC. And if Kija reported to King Wu of Zhou, doesn't that make Kija Choson a Chinese colony or a tributary? Anyways, these were the formative years of Korea, regardless of what it's called. And calling it "Korean peninsula" appears to be more NPOV, regardless of whether it was Chinese controlled or not.--Endroit 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, I'm OK with the current version we have now. Having said that - again, I understand all that you're saying, but considering the fact that sources just use "Korea", it's all original research to conjecture that "Korea didn't exist", and then to reason that we shouldn't use the word. Our sources liberally use "Korea" despite whatever political state it was in at the time. We should really do the same, we're supposed to reflect what our sources say, not write in our own conjectures. To use your logic, the History of Japan article shouldn't even start until the word "Japan" is commonly used, because "Japan" didn't exist until then. However, that's not what sources do. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, I've never said that I completely believe in this POV. But I needed to illustrate this point, to show why people were revert-warring. I'm also trying to come up with the most stable wording for this article, just like you are. Wikipedia-wise, if your wording has a high consensus, an admin is likely to support you. If too many people challenge you, that will be taken as a valid "content dispute" and you lose that support. I'm comfortable with the current version, and hopeful that the it can withstand many challenges.--Endroit 17:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose your mini-consensus.--Sir Edgar 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Who said we cared about what you think? John Smith's 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't care about your opinion. So, it matters not, doesn't it?--Sir Edgar 04:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems just getting closer to my version:[6]

The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as wet rice farming with cold-resistant species, iron and bronze-making brought by migrants of Southeast Asians from southern China region through the Korean Peninsula which caused the explosive population growth. Japan first appears in written history in 57 AD, in China's Book of Later Han, as "the people of Wa, formed from more than one hundred tribes." In the 3rd century, according to China's Book of Wei, the most powerful kingdom in Japan was called Yamataikoku, and was ruled by the legendary Queen Himiko.

I do not know who removed Hammer's paper. Jjok 18:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A few points on this article.

1. Members of the Japanese-American-British Alliance (JABA)-- you know who you are -- are intent on minimizing a negative portrayal of Japan and maximizing the positives. This leads to an unbalanced article. One of the sticking points for me is an attempt to neutralize or negate early influence from Korea, while maximizing mention of Japanese power in Korea (sending "military aid" and colonization). In some cases, this leads to violation of Wikipedia basic principles: NPOV, no weasel words, no original research, etc.

2. Do not rely on Encyclopedia Britannica for information if you are less than 80 years old. It is outdated, extremely conservative, and often simply wrong in facts. Because it is (falsely) perceived as a reliable source, I sometimes refer to it for convenience. But only when I know it's absolutely right about something. I have found many of the statements made in Encyclopedia Britannica sources to be horribly inaccurate and horrifying to even mention.

3. This article remains "B" quality. It should not be recommended for GA or FA status until it is raised to "A" quality. Some of you just need to stop touching the article. You're not only biased, but bad at editing. If you can't even fix grammatical errors and awkward sentences, don't delve into more complicated issues you don't even understand or are knowledgeable about. Do any of you even have an advanced degree in East Asian Studies or Japanese Civilizaton?--Sir Edgar 06:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On 1 and 2, I agree with you completely (although I suspect you might be including me as one of the JABAs). I really do hope that nobody is relying on the Encylopedia Britannica for information. Much of what I have read in it has been laughable. On 3, I agree that it remains of poor quality (and likely will for the foreseeable future, which is why I decided to add a disclaimer specifically aimed at readers). But the point about having an advanced degrees is a ridiculous one. First, it is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. The site does not impose, or even imply, the need for such credentials, and neither should you. Second, there are plenty of people out there who do have advanced degrees in East Asian studies who don't know diddly squat about Japanese history. I could claim, for example, that one who doesn't read Japanese (or Chinese or Korean), which would give them access to mountains of very good scholarly resources, don't have the proper qualifications to be editing this article. But that would be an equally proposterous claim to make.-Jefu 06:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Having a degree doesn't make you qualified to edit wikipedia - not having a degree doesn't make you unqualified to edit wikipedia. John Smith's 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify the definition of Korea. And, please write a concrete description here. --211.3.121.108 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what we, as editors, think Korea is. What matters is what our sources say, and they liberally use the word "Korea" even in the context of ancient times. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Many of you seem to project from statements I make. Did I ever say, "People who don't even have an advanced degree in East Asian Studies or Japanese Civilization should not edit the Japan article." No, I merely asked a question. Feel free to answer or ignore.

As for "Korea", it is not my job to come up with a definition. Wikipedia is a reflection of reality, not of our own making. That is why terms like "continental East Asia" are ridiculous. Also, one must apply equal scrutinization (i.e. use of "Japan" prior to 19th century).--Sir Edgar 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Then, to avoid confusing, let's avoid the name of Korea. Begja is an ancient country that has not been succeeded to to present Korea. And, it is being written that Begja had received the support of Japan in a lot of history records. (Even the record of the history of South Korea admits it. ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.131.245.227 (talk • contribs).

Actually, Baekje became part of Unified Silla. And it's just kind of ridiculous to think that Baekje is not part of Korean civilisation and history. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's part of Korean civilisation and history; doesn't mean it's part of "Korea". Just like the Kingdom of Hawaii is not (was not) part of the United States. When it became a territory or state, it ceased to be a kingdom. LordAmeth 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly the right comparison. Baekje was absorbed into Unified Silla, which was to eventually become present-day Korea. However, the Hawaiian kingdom existed when the US was created. Your example only shows that Baekje was not part of Silla. But anyway, the wording in question, I think refers to whether or not Baekje is "Korean". And that it definitely is, for being part of Korean civilisation and history. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

True, it's not quite the right comparsion. I really should have used something like East Anglia or Wessex, and said that these kingdoms were never part of The United Kingdom. It's a historical terminology thing. But, of course you're right that the adjective form "Korean" does apply perfectly well to Baekje. LordAmeth 19:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand this issue over whos Korean. You might as well call it the Two Kingdoms of Korea or simply Kingdom of Korea since Silla was the "only" "true" "Korean" kingdom that "actually" founded "Korea" today. Good friend100 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's a false statement you made there. Whether we on Wikipedia agree or not of what consitutes as "Korean" for the kingdoms that were located in the Korean peninsula, cannot and does not change what our sources (and the majority of the world's historians) refer the kingdoms in the Korean peninsula as. The correct term is the "Three Kingdoms of Korea" which were Goguryeo, Silla, and Baekjae. They were the predecessors to what modern Korea is and are part of the Korean heritage and legacy. To say that Silla is the only "true" Korean kingdom can be agreed, from a certain angle. Goguryeo (majority of the northern Korean peninsula, further Northern Goguryeo was absorbed by the Tang) and all of Baekjae were absorbed by the Silla kingdom and as a result, a unified Korea appears. But other than that, if your meaning was that Silla is the ONLY ancestor of modern Korea, you are mistaken. As a student at USC (for your information in case "anti-korean" sentiment starts, I am a Jewish American) who is majoring in East Asian Studies, I feel that it would be extremely historically innacurate for you to state that opinion as fact. Kindahypertonic 06:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me. I do agree that there was a Three Kingdoms of Korea. I mentioned about "Two kingdoms of Korea" because of the repeated Chinese claims that Goguryeo was Chinese and not Korean (which then makes the remaining two "real" Korean kingdoms Baekje and Silla a "Two kingdoms of Korea). I dunno about this topic, its not relevent to anything on the Japan article, my fault. Good friend100 03:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To editor at IP 211.3.121.108

Please participate in the discussion instead of blindly reverting. To other editors, please prevent editors like 211.3.121.108 from deleting important information that ought to be in the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is historical true that Taiwan has not been amalgamated in 1910. What does Chinese's user want to insert in the article on Japan?　--211.3.121.108 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm more concerned with your deletion of information regarding the Yayoi. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not modify the text regarding "Yayoi", because we have consensus for it. It's supposed to be:

• The Yayoi period, starting around the 3rd century BC, marked the influx of new practices such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery, brought by migrants from the Chinese mainland and the Korean peninsula. With the development of Yayoi culture, a predominantly agricultural society emerged on the Japanese archipelago.

Thank you.--Endroit 18:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

::Information on Yayoi was returned based on the insertion of Edger. --211.3.121.108 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I panicked at the revival of Edger. And, your discussions were overlooked. --211.3.121.108 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you oppose it please state your reason. Otherwise, I ask you to support it, please. Thank you for your support.--Endroit 18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To Sir Edgar

You know, I agree using "China" and "Korea" is better, too. But it would be great if you did not edit just to make a point. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I give up. With people like Sir Edgar around, making ridiculous claims like there not being influence from China on Yayoi culture, etc., it is impossible for this article to ever be a good one. I just took a look at Sir Edgar's talk page, and it says it all. It is a rather long list of complaints about making personal attacks against other users, undoing edits, making changes without consensus, etc., particularly to this article. I will just insist that that the reader warning I added be left there.-Jefu 01:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir Edgar, I reported you for WP:3RR violation. So what's the problem? You need to slow down a little. Why make so many sweeping edits without any input from others?--Endroit 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about your opinion because I know you are wrong. I will stick to the facts.--Sir Edgar 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

About what, China having an influence on Yayoi culture? Then you disagree with the editors of the Daijirin, the editors of the Kōjien, the editors of the Nihonshi Jiten, the editors of the Nihonshi Kōjien, Professor Kōmei Sasaki, former head of the National History and Culture Museum in Japan and Professor Kaoru Terasawa, to name just a few.-Jefu 06:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to include at least one source that you are actually capable of reading: The Cambridge History of Japan: Volume I, Ancient Japan, p. 81. Let me quote it for you, in case you aren't in possession of it: "Virtually all cultural features of the [Yayoi] period were introduced from China and Korea through North Kyushu, and arrived at irregular intervals over hundres of years." That was written by J. Edward Kidder, Jr., Faculty of Literature and Culture, International Christian University, Tokyo; presumably with the approval of his many distinguished co-authors and editors. Do you know that they are wrong as well?-Jefu 06:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said there was no Chinese influence on Yayoi. The fact of the matter is, most came from the Korean Peninsula (the nature of whether they were "Chinese", "Korean", or other is still debated).

Anyhow, I was talking to Endroit. And are you assuming I can't read Japanese?

Also, I wouldn't rely on primarily Japanese sources. The article quotes Diamond and Hammer. You must use the phrases they use: "China and Korea" or "Korean Peninsula" or "South Korea". Most internationally-accepted research has pointed to either a "Korea" connection or possibly a "China and Korea" connection. Some of this is because artifacts found in Japan were found to be of Chinese origin. But one must realize that many Chinese artifacts were being used in Korea at the time. More importantly, much of what has been deemed "Yayoi" was distinctly Korean in nature.

So, in the end, we are certain the Yayoi came from Korea. They may have also come from China, too.

By the way, the Diamond article that is sourced mentions "Chinese" exactly four times. How many times does it say "Korean"? 55 times. Count for yourself.--Sir Edgar 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Edgar, Please explain the reason why you do not rely on a Japanese source. --211.131.245.227 10:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir Edgar, yes I am assuming that you can't read Japanese. If you can, do tell. We can correct many of your misunderstandings very quickly. But based on about six months of observing you in action, you either can't read Japanese, or you can and you don't, but the result is the same. And the amount of English language literature regarding Japanese history is paltry compared to the Japanese language literature about Japanese history (or even compared to the amount of English language literature about Chinese history, for example). Can you imagine writing the article on U.S. history, for example, and saying we are only allowed to rely on Japanese language sources? It would be the height of absurdity. Frankly, I do not care whether you can or cannot read Japanese, but you do not have the right to insist on English language sources merely because you personally cannot (or can but won't) rely on Japanese language sources yourself.

And you edited out "Chinese mainland" and replaced it with "Southeastern China", despite the fact that I provided a direct quote above from a very reputable English language source that refers to influence from "China and Korea" (someone has since sensibly reverted that edit). Perhaps you missed the fact that the reference to Southeastern China in your source (which is a weak one, by the way) is with reference only to the source of wet rice farming (which, when limited to that context, is correct, along with Korea). However, the other influences on Yayoi culture are not limited to Southeastern China, as is suggested later in the same text when it talks about metallurgy being introduced from the "Asian mainland". For a broad statement about influences and migrants during the Yayoi period, like the one that appears in this article, it is not appropriate to limit the origin to Southeastern China only.-Jefu 10:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, let me ask you all this - how many editors would actually want the Yayoi text to refer to "China and Korea", or some other version that specifically names "China" and "Korea", instead of the current "Chinese mainland and Korean peninsula". I'll just state right now, I am OK with "Chinese mainland and Korean peninsula", and have been maintaining the article state at that version because it was a concensus I agreed to, but I definitely prefer "China and Korea". Or alternatively, I would prefer we leave out the origins of Yayoi influence altogether. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care anymore. It just shouldn't exclude China, and it shouldn't be limited to just one region of China.-Jefu 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be written something like "influenced heavily by Korea and China" Good friend100 21:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this English language Wikipedia? So why should he need to know Japanese? Also, does Japanese literature cover ancient history? Sounds like a petty attack for the earlier advanced degree comment.

Just keep it simple like "influenced by Korea and China" I don't understand why you have to go into so much discussion about it. Good friend100 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Concretely, could you teach the difference between Korea and China?　I think that a Chinese culture arrived at Japan by way of a Korean peninsula. (A lot of Chinese cultures appear in present Japan. )　--Sir Joestar 20:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Its both Korea and China that influenced Japan. Some might think Korea influenced more but it was the way for Korean, Chinese, Indian, etc culture to reach Japan. For example, Chinese calligraphy went to Japan via Korea (now its Kanji in Japan) and Korean potterywork influenced Japan. Good friend100 20:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The culture of China reached Japan by way of a Korean peninsula. It is a conclusion. --Sir Joestar 19:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The above person is using clearly outdated terminology. We all know now, though same may not want to, that Korea was not merely a "bridge" for Chinese culture to arrive in Japan. There were many important distinctly Korean cultural transmissions to Japan during the early period. Even the Chinese culture arriving in Japan had very Korean characteristics to it. This cannot be denied.

Anyhow, anyone who refers to "Korean peninsula" in the same breath as "China" and "Japan" is obviously biased.

To Jefu, I once respected your opinion, but I don't so much any more. Calm yourself down and re-read what you've posted. You yourself have said "China and Korea" can be used. Then do it.

The evidence shows, however, that it is mostly from Korea, not China, that the Yayoi came from. We see primarily tangential and weak evidence of direct links to China, much originating from Japanese researchers. However, we do see that South Koreans and a large portion of the Japanese population are genetically linked. Only a small population in China has shown potential genetic links to modern-day Japanese. So, I think the old phrase we used before--- "from Korea, and possibly China" ---could be most appropriate. Remember this one, my dear friend Endroit?

By the way, the article mentions "Japanese Archipelago" first and then says "Japanese archipelago". I'd edit it, but then there'd be all these crazies coming down my throat about touching this damn article.--Sir Edgar 07:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding the word "possibly" is highly POV, and is a weasel word. And I think it would be a lie if you deny that the Korean peninsula acted as a bridge, transferring substantial amount of Chinese culture and population to the Japanese archipelago. The Chinese influence to both Korea and Japan was substantial, and Sir Edgar's wording would hide that fact, making it a disservice to our readers.--Endroit 08:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To Sir Edgar, I did originally object to China and Korea as anachronisms, but have since changed that position, because technical accuracy in this case (which I agree must be applied to Japan as well, if it is applied at all) would result in clumbsy text. So yes, I agreed that "China and Korea" are fine and have not changed that position. What I have objected to are your attempts at 1. removing the reference to China as a source of influence altogether, and 2. limiting the reference to Southeastern China only (which applies especially to wet rice cultivation, but certainly not to all cultural influences over the several centuries that comprise the Yayoi period). And I still believe both of those edits are incorrect, as do many of the sources I have quoted in support of this position. I also agree with Endroit that "possibly" is a weasel word and shouldn't be used here. This isn't the place to get into a detailed quantification of which influences came from where and to what extent. It should be a simple statement that influence came from both China and Korea.

In addition, I have taken you to task for implying that you seem to be the only person around here qualified to edit this article, because (I assume) you have an advanced degree in the subject. No, you didn't say that explicitly, but it was certainly implied. Otherwise I don't see the point in having mentioned it at all. I also disagree that we should not rely on Japanese sources. After searching far and wide for nearly two decades, I believe the closest thing to a respectable and up-to-date treatment of Japanese history can really only be found in The Cambridge History of Japan. Otherwise there is a smattering of more limited books and scholarly articles that usually deal with much more limited subjects (and usually post-Meiji restoration and esp. WWII). In contrast there is an absolute wealth of material in Japanese (as would be expected, of course). There have been at least 4 very good 25-30 volume series published in the last 5 to 10 years that cover Jomon through modern times, as well as countless smaller series of books on, for example, ancient history, modern history, WWII, etc. And contrary to what you may believe, most of the books here by serious scholars do not downplay things like Korean influence at all. You can find those who do, but I don't believe they are taken very seriously, at least not by the publishing community.

You have often complained about the Japanese and the American/British Japanese apologists out there. However, I actually perceive some of your efforts as being a little bit anti-Japanese/pro-Korean. I'm sure it is not intentional, but perhaps you are just motivated by some subconscious feeling that you need to balance the injustices that you perceive to exist. You have stated before that you think it is acceptable in Japan to engage in racial discrimination, for example, which is an outrageous claim for anyone who has spent any time here at all (it happens, but it certainly isn't acceptable). I agree that there is way too much politically motivated editing going on with these articles, but it might be worth reflecting on some of your own potential biases as well.-Jefu 10:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If the Yayoi came from China, why don't the Chinese and Japanese today share critical DNA relationships? The Hammer article points to evidence that the Japanese are far more closely related to Koreans than to Chinese or even Okinawans and Ainu.

I'm just concerned with the facts. This article is doing exactly what you're saying most Japanese scholars are not. That is ignoring widely-accepted, important issues.

Any government or people that allows systematic racism is showing that it is "acceptable" in their country. Maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say. But no, not outrageous at all, in my opinion.

I appreciate your comments though.--Sir Edgar 02:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir Edgar is right about the genetically linked thing between Korea and Japan which can imply that Japanese people migrated to Japan from Korea but I think it is not very important. As I said before like two times, why can't you just keep it simple and do something like "influenced by Korea and China" or something like "Korea was a bridge for Asian culture to reach Japan" Good friend100 03:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Hammer's research only concluded that the modern Japanese is descended from a hybridisation of both the Jomon gene and the Yayoi gene, and not so much where the Yayoi gene came from? At any rate, a lack of similarity between the modern-day Han Chinese genes and the modern-day Japanese genes is really not evidence that the Yayoi gene did not come from China. Both modern-day Han Chinese genes and modern-day Japanese genes are known to have gone through a lot of changes since two thousand years ago.

Going back to the section in dispute. I suggest we just concentrate on where the cultural influences came from instead of where the migrants came from. For one thing, most of the conclusions that academics have drawn as to where the migrants came from, they seemed to have drew those conclusions based on where the cultural influences came from. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we change the sentence so that it refers to cultural influences from Korea and the mainland, which is the real point here, rather than debate endlessly about where the migrants actually came from?-Jefu 03:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Hammer study says that the "Yayoi migration" is part of the larger migration from "Southeast Asia" (including Southern China) related to the spread of agriculture in that region. According to Hammer, Haplogroup O3 (Y-DNA) (M122 in the Hammer study), often related to the spread of rice farming, makes up 20.1% of the Japanese genes. Not only that, Hammer also concludes that the entire Yayoi genes (including Haplogroup O2b (Y-DNA)/SRY465 from Korea) originated in "Southeast Asia" (including Southern China).

A 2003 study by Han-Jun Jin supports this, saying "there is convincing evidence for recent male migration, originally from China, into Japan moving through Korea."

So the current wording about the Yayoi migration is accurate, indeed. However, it is OK to change the "brought by migrators" part, to "cultural influences", if we agree on the wording.--Endroit 09:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the Horai study, not the Hammer article. Though the Japan Times story itself does not say it, the text in the picture says "Mainland Japanese and Koreans genetically seem to have a very close relationship". This is by having 8 shared base-order types in DNA as opposed to 4, 3, or even 2 with other groups.--Sir Edgar 00:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be in reference to modern-day Japanese and Koreans, and not so much in terms of where Yayoi people came from. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That particular Horai study is old and severely limited, because it used a sample of only 293 people from Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan, and Korea. Data from mainland China was completely missing in that study.

In contrast, the 2005 Hammer study used a sample of more than 2500 people from Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan, Korea, southern China, northeastern China, Tibet, Uygur, Altai, Mongolia, Russian far east, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Australian aboriginees, Melanasia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. Plus, the 2005 Hammer study was "dedicated to the memory of Satoshi Horai" (see page 1), and Satoshi Horai's name is listed as one of its authors. We can safely say that the 2005 Hammer study builds upon, replaces, and supercedes the older Horai study. Not only that, the older Horai study is largely obsolete now.--Endroit 16:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not just quote the damn articles? It is not for us to decide how to phrase this, but to rely on what the sources used instead.--Sir Edgar 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Via Korean peninsula

I hope nobody's on drugs are all of you smell coffee in the morning??? Is this historical debate or historical discussion???

Via Korean peninsula) Look at the map or GLOBE. You will see closest nation to japan is Korean peninsula. So whats the argument. So all of you argue about " GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION". The history, Human Migration, Culture, War is based on Geographical location of the country. Yes, Japanese history, Japanese population racial migration, Japanese culture, Japanese nationalism and War was based on Korean Peninsula. Japan closest geographical location country is Korean peninsula.

There is a hypothesis that nomad's culture was imported by way of a Korean peninsula. Should I introduce this hypothesis?　--Sir Joestar 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds too specific for this general article on all of Japan (not just history, and not just the routes of flow of culture). Can you identify a more appropriate article and add it there? Fg2 02:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This theory (騎馬王朝征服説) is not general. However, the explanation from which the culture is given to Japan by the Korea route will be able to be helped. --Sir Joestar 01:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What time frame are you talking about? Korean influence in Japanese history is controversial, so please don't insert anything like that until you're presented here in the talk page. Also, I know a lot of Chinese-language sources about can be found, and I can help verify them. But not many of the interested editors here can also verify those sources especially if it's something written in classical Chinese. It would be a lot more helpful if you used English sources instead so all the editors here can help verify those sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This hypothesis is not related to China. This hypothesis was announced in 1970's. If this hypothesis is used, it can explain the root of the Japanese sentence discernment is not China but Korea. --Sir Joestar 14:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The culture of ancient Japan can have been done by the culture of China and the culture of a Korean peninsula being mixed. --Sir Joestar 00:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the way this fellow keeps referring to "Japan", "China", and "Korean peninsula". This kind of unequal application of terms is often promoted by many Japanese historians. A lot of traditional Western sources rely on sources written by them and thus, this is repeated in what we read in the West. This is all very political and some of you just fail to realize this or are knowingly playing along. I think it is very unfair and, at the same time, anyone who falls for this type of thing is a total dupe.--Sir Edgar 07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

Liancourt Rocks is a topic that South Korea and Japan are controverting. I think that I should not use the name of South Korea and Japan. (DOKUTO is not a name of Japan. )　--Sir Joestar 01:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly acceptable to link to Dokdo and have Takeshima in brackets - few people know what LIancourt Rocks are, so they wouldn't recognise it in the article. John Smith's 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

However, the Japanese doesn't use the name of Dokuto. Moreover, dokuto is called Tokuto. Will you think that Liancourt Rocks is a name that the Japanese and the Korean can share?　--Sir Joestar 14:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But the Koreans don't want to "share" the name - they want to use their own name. So just have both. John Smith's 18:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Should the Korean compose the article on Japan?　--Sir Joestar 00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles are not composed based on the nationality of the editors. Otherwise you are telling me to "get lost" as well. How many Japanese wikipedians do you know of that can edit with a perfect understanding of English? This is the English version of wikipedia, so if you want to play the nationality game, I can play the language game - why should people who do not have English as a first language compose articles on the English wikipedia? John Smith's 00:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I questioned whether the name of a place of Japan had to be called in Korean. Please explain the reason to reject Liancour Rocks(Dokuto/Takeshima). --Sir Joestar 03:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The article on South Korea was seen. The Sea of Japan is being written East Sea. In a word, it is necessary to return Takeshima Dokuto. --211.131.247.102 19:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe your argument might be more effective at the Dokdo article talk page. Good friend100 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Should I make the article on South Korea the Sea of Japan?　Should I make the article on Japan Takeshima?　(Though Liancourt Rocks is the safest name)　--Sir Joestar 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say, thanks for clarifying. Good friend100 23:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sea of Japan/East Sea (Nihonkai (日本海)/Tōkai (東海)/Ilbonhae (일본해)/Tonghae (동해)/whatever) is listed as "Sea of Japan" in Japanese articles, and as "East Sea" in Korean articles. Wouldn't it be a good idea to list the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima (竹島)/Dokutō (独島)/Tokuto (トクト)/Tokto (독도)/Tak'esima (다케시마)/whatever) as "Takeshima" in Japanese articles and as "Tokto" in Korean articles? (58.188.97.134 16:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

Japan invaded China again

The war of the first Japan and China was done in a Korean peninsula. What does "Again" mean?　--Sir Joestar 14:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the editor who put that in meant. Japan invaded China in this period when it occupied Manchuria. It couldn't have invaded China "again" in 1937, because the invasion had already taken place and there hadn't been a withdrawl. I tried to make this a little clearer by making a small change, so that it says "invaded the rest of China", to show that it was already sitting on Chinese territory. John Smith's 18:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In short, is the expression named Again lost?　--Sir Joestar 00:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Did a slight re-wording of the section. Most importantly, Japan didn't invade "the rest of" China. I re-wrote that part to say it invaded "other parts" of China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you --Sir Joestar 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sub-headings

Ok, there's something non-controversial. A fair few number of editors have repeatedly reinstated the sub-headings, despite my attempts to keep them out. I did this because of a complaint raised in the FA nomination. Although the number was cut down, I wondered whether the article needed a subheading when a bold heading would do instead.

What are your views? Does the article need sub-headings? If so, how many and in which sections - can we have even less than the latest page layouts? Or are they completely unnecessary and a distraction to reading the page? John Smith's 23:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way, but I usually prefer being able to navigate to a section on the left menu, which means having the sub-headings. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. the subheadings should exist if the the heading material is too vast, as in ther history section. And i dont understand how having subheadings detract from the article's inherent qualities. If anything, the subhgeadings improve the article as far as coherence and presentation are concerned.--WoodElf 11:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So what is your response to the FA reviewer that said it was one cause to fail the article's nomination? What if it is a problem again - will you change your attitude? John Smith's 17:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely having subheadings is not against Wikipedia policy??? I would suggest the one who thinks otherwise to go soak his head. --WoodElf 09:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Puffy

Please add Puffy to J-Pop. Perhaps, they are the most famous in the J-pop singer. --Sir Joestar 20:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nanban

Please do not translate Nanban with the Southern Barbarian. (It is inaccurate.)　A correct explanation of Nanban is Nanman of China. --Sir Joestar 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC

I'm not sure what your point is, but you are incorrect. Southern barbarian is a literal translation of the word. And nanban in Japan took on a different meaning from the original Chinese. It referred to the Europeans (Spanish and Portugese) who arrived in Japan from the South.-Jefu 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Making reference to a Chinese term is not the "correct" explanation; explaining or translating into English, for our readers unfamiliar with Chinese concepts, is the purpose here. LordAmeth 08:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Intuitively, I felt this word a discriminatory expression. And, Nabnan was a name of Southeast Asia.　I considered misunderstanding. --Sir Joestar 19:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A Discussion

A fourfold discussion:

I The administrative heading needs an interactive map. The cities table should be moved to the demographics head.

II The "culture" subheadings needs to be truncated, and should, if possible, be merged into a single heading.

III The article needs a thorough spellcheck.

IV Since the "Japan topics" template is used in this article only, I propose the template be merged with the article itself.

--WoodElf 09:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo

South Korea is using not the Sea of Japan but East sea. Please explain the reason why the use of Takeshima is prohibited to Japan. Dokto is one of the names used in South Korea. (I think that you may delete Liancourt Rocks.) --Sir Joestar 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Takeshima is an official name of Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.66.40.34 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-17 10:39:09

Factual Issues

"This brought the United States into the Pacific Theatre of World War II, having entered the European Theatre when Germany declared war."

I was under the impression that the USA didn't enter WW2 at all untill Pearl Harbour? Is this view incorrect? If so can this be changed to better take into account the true situation with regards American actions in the European Theatre Pre-Pearl Harbour?

TH 14/01/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.253.161.14 (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

The US was not directly involved, militarily, on either front until Pearl Harbor. That is, we didn't send any troops prior to Dec 1941. But we may have declared war on Germany quite some time earlier, and we were definitely supplying Britain with food, equipment, etc., and organizing embargoes. (see Lend-Lease for one part of this int'l Allied supply system.) LordAmeth 01:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The declaration against both Germany and Italy was December 11, 1941.-Jefu 01:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Maps of Pre-Modern Japan

Does anyone know of any good sites that have maps of pre-modern Japan for linking purposes? I'm looking for maps showing territory of the various states, tribes covering the islands of Japan over the course of pre-history/history until unification (not in the 16th century, but in the 19th century). This includes Nara, etc. Also, any maps of the conquest of Hokkaido would be great, too. Thank you in advance.--Sir Edgar 09:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Provinces of Japan article used to cover this topic until somebody split it up into two articles, the other one being List of Provinces of Japan. The Gokishichidō article covers the older divisions.

However such old maps don't belong in this article, because the most important aspect of this article is "Modern Japan", and NOT "Pre-Modern Japan." Old maps are quite unnecessary here.--Endroit 15:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I still need to see a lot more maps before making any conclusions. But clearly without a unified state until at least the 16th century (or even as late as the 19th century, if you include Hokkaido), using the term "Japan" is dubious at best. Of course, it is not for me to decide what to use, but to reflect reality. However, there seems to be an awful lot of early use of "Japan" when it's not even unified.--Sir Edgar 11:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If anybody can proclaim whether a nation (or region) was united by looking at a bunch of maps, I'd call that original research. That's like proclaiming United Kingdom is not unified today, because it's split into England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, etc. How bogus that would be, Sir Edgar.--Endroit 17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think his point is not so much the unification of Japan, but the notion that "Japan did not exist", in the same spirit as the notion that "China did not exist" and "Korea did not exist". My response to that issue is the same as before - if notable sources use the word "Japan" to describe the country in historical periods before the word became common usage, then this article should also use the word in such a manner. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure we can discuss the wording: "Japan" vs. "Japanese archipelago". However, looking at maps don't help that discussion one way or the other.--Endroit 18:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Political maps should show whether a country is divided or not. In reference to unequal application of terminology, this is relevant.

The article's use of "the Chinese mainland and the Korean peninsula" is indeed original research (more like consensus of a few users).--Sir Edgar 08:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The maps don't mean a thing without any comprehensive analysis by a reputable source. (An analysis by Sir Edgar don't count).

Also, we DO have sources which use the words "Chinese mainland", "Korean peninsula", and "Japanese archipelago". For example:

• William Theodore De Bary, Sources of Japanese Tradition, Columbia University Press (2005), p. 1304, ISBN 023112984X .

That's just correct usage of the terms. There's also a consensus around that wording as well.

Sir Edgar, where are your sources and what are your arguments?--Endroit 09:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your source has no link. That is not helpful for users. Also, the other sources cited (the ORIGINAL ones) do not principally use the terms "Chinese mainland", "Korean peninsula", and "Japanese archipelago". Stop trying to blur the facts.--Sir Edgar 00:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And the biggest problem with this whole line of reasoning is that the word Nihon (from which Japan is derived) came into usage during the reign of Emperor Temmu. And it was also around this time and succeeding generations that the court began extending its control well into the Tōhoku region as well. Sure Hokkaidō was effectively outside of "Japan" proper until after Meiji (a well known and often cited fact), but the fact that effective control of the country first shifted to a warrior class, and then broke down and went through a period in which various clans battled for control of regional territories (but never without nominal central control in the figure of the emperor, with a brief period of dual courts), does not change the fact that Japan has been Japan since the Nara period.-Jefu 14:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I found a website that has a downloadable browser-based shifting map of Japan with a slider that you can use to slide through the various years. The author has also released all of the images into the public domain, so I have uploaded several of them. There are two views, prefecture and clan. I have not included every minor change (name changes, minor border changes, ec.), but just the main shifts from each view. I have uploaded six maps under the prefecture view that correspond to the years: 647, 680 and 794, 1872, 1883, 1886. The last 3 of these will give you a sense of how and when Hokkaidō was brought into the fold. Then I have uploaded nine maps under the clan view that correspond to the years: 500, 527, 647, 700, 811, 1180, 1183, 1186 and 1189. The clans view seems to stop at the time the Kamakura Bakufu was established. Anyway, for those who are so inclinded and who can read the Japanese, I would recommend downloading and installing the whole series of maps. It's pretty interesting.-Jefu 15:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the maps. I think they can possibly be good resources for reference. I will need to take a look at them and compare with my own sources.--Sir Edgar 00:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for the record, I prefer using "China", "Korea", and "Japan" instead of the current wording of "Chinese mainland", "Korean peninsula", and "Japanese archipalego". I am only not changing this wording as a compromise. It's only acceptable to me because there are sources that use either wording, or even both. But the whole motivation for some editors to push for the current wording in the first place is original research - that China and Korea "did not exist". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And also for the record, I'm not against peninsula and mainland, because they are not incorrect (and I'm not sure how it is original research to merely designate a geographical region, rather than a political entity), but neither do I think saying China and Korea is wrong in this kind of context. When discussing China and Korea themselves during this time period, it is probably more important to accurately convey the specific political entities involved, but in this context, the meaning is clear.-Jefu 16:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The largest objection we saw in previous edits was "whether Korea existed". And this is very well cited. Before the Chinese arrived in the Korean peninsula, Korea was largely divided. For example, see:

• James Huntley Grayson, Korea: A Religious History, Routledge (UK) (2002), p. 17, ISBN 070071605X .

With the Three Kingdoms of Korea coexisting with Lelang Commandery (Lolang or Nangnang Commandery), we start to see state formation in the Korean peninsula. However, the "Lelang Commandery" is a Chinese colony, overseeing the Korean peninsula. Not until Goguryeo (Koguryo) defeat Lelang Commandery in 313AD does Korea become independent of the Chinese. And not until Silla conquers Goguryeo (Koguryo) and Baekje (Paekche) in 668AD is Korea united.

So we don't see "Japan" and "Korea" until the 7th century, with the emergence of the "Yamato" during the Asuka and Nara periods and a unified Silla in Korea....

• Gina Lee Barnes, State Formation in Korea: historical and archaeological perspectives, Routledge (2001), p. xiv, ISBN 0700713239 .

--Endroit 16:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jefu - It's not original research to designate geographical location, but like I said in my previous comment, the motivation under which some editors are pushing for the current wording is that China and/or Korea "didn't exist" back then. That's the original research. Why is that original research? Because editors are taking the political division of historic China and Korea, and coming to the conclusion that these two countries "did not exist". That's a conjecture that's made by the editors themselves. Are there sources that specifically say the two countries "did not exist"? And actually, it's not even correct logic to say that "China" did not exist. Firstly, this was during a time when China was unified. Secondly, the English word China comes from the Sanskrit word cina, a reference to Qin dynasty China. It's, in my opinion, a completely ridiculous notion, and the logic behind which can be used to say that "Japan did not exist" as well, because the Japanese state was a completely different entity than today, or even since the Meiji Reforms, and also because the word "Japan" wasn't even in common usage until a few hundred years ago. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hong Qi Gong, I just cited Gina Lee Barnes; and the argument for the "existence of Korea" (or the lack of it) is based on that. According to her, a unified and independent Korea never existed until the 7th century. Her entire book is about "State Formation in Korea." Go read it.--Endroit 17:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason why I keep putting "Korea did not exist" in quotes, and then calling it original research. How does political division lead to the rhetoric that "Korea did not exist". All that says was that Korea had been politically divided during different periods of history. I read the preview of your source on that google books link you provided. The author does not lead to the conclusion that "Korea did not exist". In fact, the preview of that book never said "Korea did not exist". It doesn't even try to come to a conclusion that there was no Korea. All it did was offer different views on when the Korean state was formed - and it was careful to differentiate between the Western notion of "state" and the Eastern notion of 國 (guo), as the word is often translated as "state". The book made it clear that using the notion of 國, Korea had existed at least few centuries BC. Using the western concept of "state", there is strong evidence it existed in the Weiman period. The discussion is that of the formation of polities, not of a people and a civilisation. I mean, what we know of Japanese history says that "Japan" was divided into a number of tribes until a few centuries AD. Should we then employ the similar rhetoric that "Japan did not exist"? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction (sorry if I was misleading): No "state of Korea" existed until the 7th century. Before the Chinese arrived, there were only federations in the Korean peninsula, but no "state of Korea."

Also, the usage of the word Chaoxian/Choson (朝鮮) in Chinese texts is a source of confusion in the "few centuries BC" that you're talking about, namely for Gija Joseon (Kija Choson) and Wiman Joseon (Wiman Choson). Question remains whether they were Korean or Chinese to begin with, or a mix. There are questions whether they occupied parts of the Korean peninsula or Manchuria or both. Nevertheless my cited sources will confirm that no state of Korea representing the Korean peninsula existed. Therefore it would be misleading to use the word "Korea" during the Yayoi period in Japan.--Endroit 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, your source never confirmed that "no state of Korea representing the Korean peninsula existed". The source never tried to take that distinction away from even Tangun Joseon. It only raises the questions and concerns about the accuracy of information on that period, and on the Wiman Joseon period. And like I said, your source presents different points of views instead of concluding on one as the authority.

As for the use of the word "Korea" itself, we've discussed this before. Even your new source here uses the word "Korea" as far back as the development of Stoneware, right in the index of the book. Then uses it again in reference to the Bronze Age. Even the title of the book is "State Formation in Korea", not "State Formation on the Korean Peninsula". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You're only half correct because Gina Lee Barnes talks about Chaoxian/Choson (朝鮮) as occupying the border region of China. See the following map:

• Map of Chaoxian/Choson (Gojoseon in Wikipedia) by Gina Lee Barnes

Therefore they did not represent the entire Korean peninsula. And more importantly, "Chaoxian/Choson (朝鮮)" did not appear to occupy the southern Korean peninsula, which affected the "Yayoi" in Japan.

If we use the word "Korea" based on the existence of "Chaoxian/Choson (朝鮮)", they seem to be unrelated to the Yayoi. So what other state is there in Korea besides "Chaoxian/Choson (朝鮮)" during this time? A state of Korea representing the Korean peninsula did not exist from the perspective of the Yayoi in the Japanese archipelago during their times.--Endroit 19:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be your own conjecture, meaning original research, since, let me repeat, the author did not state that Choson (or rather, she's actually talking about Old Choson in this case) did not represent Korea. And beside, are there actually sources that say that Yayoi influences came specifically from southern Korea, completely isolated from influences from other parts of Korea? You'd be hard-pressed to find sources to make claims that northern and southern Korea did not influence each other. Now, your new source here discusses state formation in Korea. It doesn't support that we stay away from using "Korea" - especially because itself uses the word "Korea" for periods even before there was state formation. What has never been countered here is this - most sources, even your new source, have no qualms about using the word "Korea" even in reference to ancient times despite that there may not have been a "state" in existence in the formal, and Western, definition of the word. Now let me state again that I personally think "Korean peninsula" is acceptable as well because sources also use the term. But there is no good reason, only justification based on original research, that we should make it a point to stay away from using "Korea". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction, Gina Lee Barnes uses the word "Korea" with caution, after warning us that words such as Korean and Japanese are used in a linguistic and geographical sense, and NOT political sense : [7].

"Not political" but "geographical", meaning "Korean peninsula and Manchuria region" or simply "Korean peninsula". Now the complaint here is that the "state of Korea did not exist" which is confirmed as above, even if the usage of the word "Korea" is correct in the geographical sense. Hence we merely clarify it in our article with a purely geographical sense by using "Korean peninsula" instead. This is just a matter of English usage, and it is indeed correct English usage. There is no original research, since the word "Korea" used in the geographical sense to begin with, was merely replaced by the words "Korean peninsula".--Endroit 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Similar to what I replied to Jefu earlier, I see no problem with using both terms interchangeably in the geographical context. But "correct English usage", whether in real life or in WP, does not dictate that we should never, for example, use "Korea" in the geographical sense. Again, even your new source uses the word "Korea", even if only in the geographical context. What reason based on sources, and not based on editors' conjecture, have we to pointedly stay away from doing the same? At the very least, in the context of the Yayoi here, the reference is to the Korean civilisation. Our sources confirm this. None of them make it a point to use sneaky wordage to completely disconnect the Yayoi influence from civilisations that would eventually become the Korea or China of today. That is what I'm seeing in this article right now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you look up "Korea" in an English dictionary:

• Korea, from the American Heritage Dictionary.

"Korea" has an ambiguous definition, which resulted in many complaints from Wikipedia users, and a root cause for previous revert-wars. "Korea" during Yayoi times was certainly NOT a country or any such political entity as defined in this dictionary. But "Korea" during Yayoi times was the "Korean peninsula", and this is the only dictionary definition that makes sense here.

Also, unless the sources use the words "Korean civilization" there's no need to mention "Korean civilization" either. The dictionaries do NOT define "Korea" as a "civilization", they only describe "Korea" as a "site of an ancient civilization". Who's being sneaky here?

HongQiGong, I don't know what you are arguing about if you think "Korean peninsula" is an acceptable usage to begin with. Also, WP:CITE allows us to paraphrase, meaning that replacing one synonym for another is acceptable, especially if that replacement clarifies the passage. (You should ask for a third opinion regarding this). Hence unless you can prove that the usage of "Korean peninsula" is wrong to begin with, the sources can be paraphrased.

In my opinion, using the word "Korea" seems rather sneaky instead, because it implies that a political entity similar to Korea today may have existed back then. That is the reason Gina Lee Barnes has a disclaimer saying that such words are used in the "linguistic" and "geographic" sense, but not in the "political" sense.--Endroit 21:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think "Korean peninsula" is acceptable as well. What I'm saying basically is that I don't see a good, non-original research, reason to pointedly NOT use "Korea". All or most of our sources use the word, even to refer to Yayoi's time period. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong, I already gave you the reason why it isn't original research, and you refuse to accept it. Like I said, paraphrasing is not original research. If Jefu, John Smith's or LordAmeth also think that using "Chinese mainland and Korean peninsula" is original research, I'd like to know.--Endroit 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it not original research when so many notable sources widely use "Korea" even in reference to times when there wasn't even a Korean state? Everything you have said is based on your own conjecture, instead of taking from your sources directly - "Choson did not occupy all of the Korean peninsula, so we should not use the word 'Korea'", does your source actually say that? "Korea was not unified back then, so we should not use the word 'Korea'", did your source actually say that? "The word 'Korea' was used in a geographical context, so we should not use the word 'Korea'", did your source actually say that? (and that rationale doesn't even make sense) Etc, etc. Paraphrasing doesn't mean arriving at your own conclusion, it means a restatement of something, putting the same meaning in different words. None of the sources you provided have said that we should not use the word "Korea", and most even use the word itself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources need not dictate the language, word for word. Plus, the various sources use different wording, and we are within our right to choose the one which is less confusing for our readers. "Chinese mainland and Korean peninsula" is a valid and a better substitute for "China and Korea", as previously discussed with other editors. It is more un-ambiguous, while not compromising accuracy.

If Jefu, John Smiths or LordAmeth can comment here as well, I'd appreciate it. Others are welcome to comment as well.--Endroit 04:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's fine, if editorial concensus is that "China" and "Korea" is less confusing. That's a perfectly good reason that doesn't need to be backed up by sources, because that's an editorial reason. All the other reasons that's been offered so far, about how "Korea did not exist", or that we can't use the word because Korea was not unified, etc etc, that's original research because it went against what is commonly done in our notable sources. However, having said that, I think using "China" and "Korea" is much better wording. At the very least, a google search tells me that "Chinese mainland" is used synonymously with today's definition of "Mainland China", that is, the political entity and geography of the PRC but without Hong Kong and Macau. That's a lot more confusing than just using China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Using this logic, Japan did not exist until the 19th century.--Sir Edgar 23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Right - but not the 19th century, probably around the Nara period or the end of the Asuka period. Should we omit all instances of the word "Japan" until then? That would be ridiculous. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting "China and Korea"

Guys, seriously, this isn’t worth spilling this much ink over. What’s the problem with just using China and Korea? It won’t result in any misunderstandings, and Merriam-Webster, I was surprised to find out, apparently defines “Korea” with a purely geographic reference to the peninsula anyway (and even more surprising, China doesn’t even have an entry). And I agree with the point made above that China, while certainly not as coextensive as it is today, was a unified political entity from before the time period in question.-Jefu 04:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I personally don't mind the "China and Korea" wording, which I've said before. However, the word "Korea" in there was a cause for revert-warring in the past. I think we need to get wider consensus, from people who have voiced opinions before (but is silent now for some reason). If we can get them to comment here, maybe we'll all have a better understanding, and better consensus. I know who they are, and I can personally ask them. Should we do that? Or should we do some kind of a binding poll?--Endroit 04:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If they are reasonable people and not Japanese xenophobes, and you think it would avoid aggravation in the future, we might as well ask them.-Jefu 04:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll only ask the reasonable, established users to join in. I'll personally ask them each for a comment, if they happened to be part of any previous discussion regarding the "Yayoi".

I believe that we need wider consensus to overturn any previous consensus we may have had. Any "consensus version" we come up with will only be as good as the amount of support we have.--Endroit 05:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind everybody that polls are not meant to be binding, but only to gauge concensus. And in the spirit of not asking the opinions of "Japanese xenophobes" as Jefu suggested, I also offer that we should ignore the otakus and editors who are otherwise nihongophiles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Then, unfortunately, most of the people who edit this article would have to be ignored.--Sir Edgar 08:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What was that you said about going to be reasonable, Edgar? This is your problem, you say one thing and do another. Stop making cheap attacks on people if you want to resolve this.

Hong, don't take a swipe at people for being "otakus" or "nihongophiles". I, Endriot, etc don't accuse editors of being anti-Japanese racists, biggots, etc. Everyone has a right to express their views - don't start "deciding" whose views are acceptable and not. John Smith's 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Who have I taken a "swipe" at...? Like you said, everyone has a right to express their views. All I'm saying is that if we should exclude the opinions of so-called "Japanese xenophobes", then it would only make sense to also exclude the nihongophiles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A xenophobe is someone who unconditional hates people based on race - a "X-phile" is merely someone who likes something. It doesn't make them particularly predisposed one way or another on a discussion such as this. John Smith's 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. While a xenophobe would have a negative bias on a people, on the flip side, an "X-phile" would have a positive bias on a people. So in the same spirit, if we are to ignore the negative bias, we should also be ignoring the positive bias, and only rely on neutral opinions. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hong, what exactly is the "positive bias" that could apply to this discussion? Why would a "Nihongophile" prefer the "mainland, peninsula, archipelago" over "China, Korea, Japan"? There is no real reason. Besides, you were rather implying that I should be barred from the discussion, weren't you? I don't think someone who is nominally positive towards Japan should be banned along with racists. If there were some Japanese ultra-nationalists here or something, they could be ignored. John Smith's 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no. I was not implying that you specifically should be barred from the discussion. I'm only making a point, that if we as editors are to decide for ourselves which other editors have negative bias, and then ignore their editorial opinions, then we have to do the same for those other editors that have positive bias. If you are not an otaku or a nihongophile, then I wasn't talking about you then, was I? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know - am I an otaku or nihongophile in your opinion? It's not what I think - it's what you think, given you made the original statement. John Smith's 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it was a blanket statement applied to all that have bias toward editing this article. I don't know anything about you. But you seem to be offended by the notion that if we are to ignore negative bias, then we should also ignore positive bias. Why? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hong, people have regularly bitched that I am too "unbiasedly pro-Japan", so I just want you to say that the comments weren't directed at me. John Smith's 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I already say it wasn't directed toward you specifically?[8] I'm making a simple point here - if we are to start picking and choosing which editors have negative bias, and then proceed to ignore them, then we should also do the same for editors with positive bias. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Jefu was talking about ANYONE who was slightly negative, just people on the extremes of either end. John Smith's 17:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah... he was talking about people on only one end, the negative end, aka the "Japanese xenophobes". I was pointing out that if we are to do that, we should also do that for the positive end, aka the nihongophiles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hong, you don't really think he believes ultra-nationalist Japanese should be taken seriously do you? There is no such thing as completely unbiased people - you have to look at those close to the centre. John Smith's 18:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know if he does or not. All I did was point out the other end of bias, because it was not pointed out, for whatever reason. It's ridiculous that us editors should task ourselves to judge who should or should not be ignored anyway. It flies against WP:Assume good faith. So all I'm saying is, let's be neutral. If we should ignore editors with negative bias, we should also ignore editors with positive bias. If "Japanese xenophobes" are out, then "nihongophiles" should also be out. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever - it's only going to be the group of us that talks about this anyway. No one else is interested. John Smith's 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right, John Smith's. There would be nobody else here. But I do want to note that I agree with HongQiGong that it is interesting that Jefu only mentions "Japanese xenophobes" and not "Japanese ultra-nationalists". I, for one, don't see a reason to exclude anyone's opinion. This is Wikipedia. ANYONE can edit the articles or Talk pages. And if you were to exclude "otakus" and "nihongophiles", there would be nobody here. Anyhow, who are we to decide who can participate in a discussion and offer their opinion? It's already been pointed out that you don't need an advanced degree in this field to edit this article or any other article here.--Sir Edgar 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out that it would be particularly ridiculous to exclude Japanophiles from discussing something about Japan, so I just ignored that insinuation (i.e.: "otakus" and "nihongophiles"). However, I agreed with Jefu that I needed to be selective when inviting people over here to discuss. I had my specific criteria, which you can judge by viewing my edit history.

Anybody who wants to participate here can do so. Nobody is restricting them. And you can invite other people to join in here as well.--Endroit 14:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that the articles sourced are not quoted. So, whatever consensus you come up with does not matter. You must accurately reflect reality, not the opinion of a few Wikipedians.--Sir Edgar 08:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, it does not matter whether a country is unified to exist. When there was West Germany and East Germany, we still referred to a single "Germany". And just because Korea is divided into North and South today, would that mean "Korea" does not exist? "China" existed for a long, long time, even though it may have been a bunch of warring states for a very long while. Same goes for "Korea" where there were kingdoms when "Japan" only had clans and tribes.

So, it is the height of misinformation to describe "Japan" at the same time as "Chinese mainland" and "Korean peninsula". I often see this in research by Japanese historians and to see it adopted here is absolutely horrific. In fact, the argument that a country has to be unified in order to exist works against the use of the term "Japan" prior to the 19th century.--Sir Edgar 08:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No one has suggested we talk about the Chinese mainland and Korean peninsula in the same breath as Japan - it's currently the "Japanese archipelago". Equally no one has suggested Korea not be refered to just because it is currently divided. John Smith's 16:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe nobody here, but there were before and that's how we got to "Chinese mainland, Korean peninsula, and Japanese archipelago". At one point it was indeed "Chinese mainland, Korean peninsula, and Japan". So, you're wrong again.--Sir Edgar 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with "China" and "Korea" being used in the article. I find it absurd that so many people get so worked up over this when there is so much evidence to support these claims. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We'll see what Endroit (previously the most vocal opponent to "China" and "Korea") and some Japanese trolls have to say...--Sir Edgar 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point I'm quite happy to go along with what the majority thinks, given the ultra-nationalists that were hopping-mad about this last year seemed to have disappeared. If the majority wants to go with "China, Korea & Japan" that's fine. John Smith's 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not for us to decide. The articles must reflect reality, not our opinions.--Sir Edgar 00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the truly crucial thing here is to just stop arguing over semantics. There are tons of aspects of Japanese history that are woefully covered by Wikipedia - let's get out there and work on making this something that can truly be relied on as a source of information, rather than just poking around with semantics. Now. There are obviously pros and cons to every argument. I'd like to think I have a pretty good grasp of each, and I sympathize with all sides. Ultimately, no matter what we go with, it won't please everyone, and it might arguably not be 100% accurate, but I think we need to just step back and allow it to be so. Every term has its wiggle-room, and I think it's safe to allow a bit of leeway in this respect, e.g. writing "Korea" to mean "kingdoms of the Korean peninsula" or "northeastern Asia" to mean "China, the kingdoms of the Korean peninsula, Jurchens, Manchus and Mongols." Even the most brilliant, well-read and well-respected scholars leave these sorts of iffy, arguably anachronistic, geographically too specific or too inspecific, terms intact just for the sake of ease and clarity. I'd be happy to accept any reasonable alternative the group agrees upon. LordAmeth 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with LordAmeth. Good suggestion and rationale. Fg2 20:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also strongly agree.-Jefu 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with LordAmeth and John Smith's above.--Endroit 15:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it seems like we've reached concensus. I've changed the wording in the Yayoi paragraph to use "China", "Korea", and "Japan". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

8)--Sir Edgar 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not really sure, but maybe we could just use the term "mainland Asia", since Japan isnt mainland while China and Korea are?--WoodElf 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In this new discussion, after 2 days, we have the following results:

• 3 people specifically prefers "China" and "Korea".
• 1 person specifically prefers "mainland Asia".
• 1 person prefers "China" and "Korea" but will be "happy to accept any reasonable alternative the group agrees upon".
• 4 people didn't specify any particular preference, but will be "happy to go along with what the majority thinks" or "happy to accept any reasonable alternative the group agrees upon".

In summary, since 4 people specifically prefers "China" and "Korea", which is a "reasonable alternative", we have to declare that 8 people support "China" and "Korea" altogether. This is effectively the same as HongQiGong called it, and we have a new consensus using "China" and "Korea".

The new consensus, therefore, uses the following wording:

• The Yayoi period, starting around the third century BC, introduced new practices, such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making and a new style of pottery, brought by migrants from China and Korea. With the development of Yayoi culture, a predominantly agricultural society emerged in Japan.

Thank you , everyone, for your valuable comments. We can close this discussion now, and move on to other things.... (like shooting for a FA status).--Endroit 15:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a hard pill to swallow, isn't it? But I have to say you take it like a man, Endroit.--Sir Edgar 23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't "brought by migrants from China and Korea" haven been redone to "brought by migrants from ancient areas, now located in China and Korea" or some other form? I haven't been paying much attention, nor do I think the issue is that important, but I think an accurate compromise could've been made. falsedef 01:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Japanese cuisine

Please explain the reason to delete the section of Japanese cuisine. I am preparing it. return the section--Sir Joestar 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear John Smith's

You need to give a reason for reverting any edits. Don't be an unreasonable person. Your biases are evidently extreme, but you will have to try to understand the arguments first before mindlessly reversing other people's work. I know you can't help it, but try.--Sir Edgar 23:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should I explain? You yourself have said "I can do whatever I like" after being challenged about edits. Am I supposed to adhere to some sort of standard you refuse to be put on yourself? John Smith's 23:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Then let's both do that. It's not against the rules, right? You were complaining about that and you're complaining about it now. Didn't you think you were better than me?--Sir Edgar 23:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to set a new trend I may decide to follow it. But I'd need to see some consistent behaviour changes from you first. John Smith's 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't argue with me. I'm not reasonable around people who aren't either. And you're totally unreasonable.--Sir Edgar 00:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why can't I argue with you? Is it written somewhere in the wikipedia charter that no one may contradict/argue with User: Sir Edgar?

If you want people to show you respect/be reasonable, you need to show those qualities first. It's ridiculous to expect people to conform to your desired position first. John Smith's 00:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have been quite reasonable and polite in the past, but I became somewhat crazy after the numerous attacks by Japanese sockpuppets and vandals. Now, I don't have a desire to argue with people who are completely biased. So, perhaps my initial request was not worth your time. Let's just stick to playing our game then.--Sir Edgar 00:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What do I or Endroit have to do with sockpuppets and vandals? I'm not interested in that - your attitude towards myself and Endroit can't be justified by how other people annoyed you. You're still being stupid now, by saying we're "completely biased". That's not what a mature or objective person does - it shows your own bias. John Smith's 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm willing to go back to reasoning. But only if you give it a try, too. I just don't think you should revert my edits just because they're mine when I am also simply correcting expressions that are not uniform (i.e. "Japanese Archipelago" vs. "Japanese archipelago" in the same section) in the article. I know I'm outnumbered here. But I've also learned that I can edit any article here to the same effect as any idiot, vandal, or sockpuppet.--Sir Edgar 07:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See the above note. Taking obvious swipes at people isn't being reasonable. Maybe you'd like to apologise? Or is that beneath you? John Smith's 16:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you just tell another editor that taking "obvious swipes" at people is not reasonable, and then proceeded to ask if apologising is "beneath" him? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Given his previous attitude I wouldn't be surprised if Edgar said he had nothing to apologise for. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised. John Smith's 16:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's, please don't take obvious swipes at other editors. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hong, don't get involved in discussions that don't concern you. John Smith's 16:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Only doing my part by pointing out the irony in your comment there. Go on with your bad self then. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you should apologize for calling me stupid.--Sir Edgar 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess we're even then. John Smith's 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me.--Sir Edgar 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not argue. This article can only suffer if two of its most prolific editors bicker.--WoodElf 05:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)