Talk:Japan

Did you know nomination

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

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

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

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

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

Regarding human rights issues in Japan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was an open secret that the president of Johnny's was committing sexual crimes against men. This has been revealed for a long time through disclosure books and court cases by multiple singers. Sexual crimes were also committed in the restrooms of the national broadcasting station and Asahi TV. When Mr. Kitagawa died, many politicians and the media paid tribute to him and held a grand funeral. This was despite the fact that the crime had already been discovered in court in the 1960s. 流山隆一 (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

If you've ever lived in Japan, you'll understand. More than 70 years have passed since the birth of women as national representatives, but the proportion of women in Japan's House of Representatives has increased from 8.4% in 1946 to 9.7% in November 2021. The proportion of cabinet positions held by women is 10.0% (2 out of 20), ranking 151st in the world. The Minister of Justice once said, ``Women are child-bearing machines. By the way　CHIKAN, a sex crime committed on a train, involves not only touching but also putting one's hand inside someone's clothes, but even if a complaint was filed with the police, it was not treated as a crime for many years. Moreover, many men say that the problem is not so much the crime of CHIKAN but the false accusation. The BBC reports that CHIKAN crimes are being circulated as cell videos.And Housewives are forced to work only up to an annual income of 1,030,000 yen because they are taxed and don't want to pay their own pension premiums. As a result, women who do not get married also have trouble finding employment.This is Japan.https://hrn-or-jp.translate.goog/eng/news/2024/09/16/cedaw-japan-review-report/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=ja&_x_tr_hl=ja&_x_tr_pto=sc 流山隆一 (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your discussion. Last time, I was dissatisfied because the human rights content was limited to LGBT issues, but I now understand that other human rights issues were also covered. 流山隆一 (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Mentions of WWII atrocities in lead

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

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

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

But why is it undue? Contrary to your claim, the Wikipedia article for Germany does mention the Holocaust in its lead. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I was under the interpretation that they were making roughly the some observation as me above: i.e. it is mentioned in tertiary summaries elsewhere for Germany more often than for Japan. Remsense ‥ 论 00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUE states that Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources and not anything specifically about tertiary sources. WP:V says that Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. Could you cite the specific policy that states or suggests we should weight our coverage based on how Brittanica, or another tertiary sources, covers the topic? This runs into all sorts of issues in application, including one that you have already encountered—the Britannica Germany lead being significantly longer than the Japan lead. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I checked around wikipedia - many country also have mentions of crimes in the lead section - e.g the US lead section talked about slavery and displacement of Native Americans, China's had the Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Square. Same with the USSR/Russia regarding the loss of lives due to rapid industrialisation and Stalin's policies. Considering Japanese war crimes very much influence the current geopolitical situation of Japan and the relationship it has with its neighbours, I think it should be involved in the lead section. Hemlockian (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

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

This is a good point, I might focus there. The body of that article also has some major holes. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It's already in the lead of the Empire of Japan article, where they are more closely associated with. Modern Japan is usually not often associated with these acts anymore, if you like that or not. Even in the lead of the Germany article, a country that is still widely known today for its war atrocities and is often regarded as having started both World Wars, the Holocaust is only mentioned in one word. Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering that Japanese war crimes are often to be considered on par in cruelty and scale with Nazi Germany (see comfort women, Nanking massacre, Unit 731) I feel like there should be at least some mentioning in the lead section as opposed to none.

"Modern Japan is usually not often associated with these acts anymore, if you like that or not"

Yes, neither is modern Germany, but acts such as the Holocaust is still mentioned there, which I think is a good thing, because it is a vital part of history of that country.

I'm happy and open to hear your thoughts and arguments on this! Hemlockian (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I think arguing about which crimes were crueler is the wrong approach, as is direct comparison to other countries. The question is, what weight do reliable sources give to these relative to all of the other details about this country? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Good question, and I think I agree with your statement that arguing on subjective factors such as cruelty is wrong, my mistake.

From what I gather, Britannica seems to be the standard of a 'reliable source' in the Wikipedia community, but its article for Japan doesn't even talk about the atomic bombing at all in its article, which obviously is a significant event in Japanese history.

Notably, in other wikipedia articles such as the USA and China, many of their countries crimes are mentioned, whilst they are not mentioned in a Britannica article. I know it sounds like (and probably is) whataboutism, but I do think its evidence to suggest that Wikipedia diverges in some instances from certain reliable sources to include certain events in the lead section of a country if it is significant enough. And as I mentioned in my other posts, I do think Japanese war crimes in WWII do have a significant legacy on its geopolitical relationships to warrant itself at least one sentence in the lead section.

Of course, Britannica isn't the only reliable source, and I'm willing to hear you bring forward other reliable sources of information as well! Hemlockian (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

We have talked about this in a few other places as well as here as seen in the archive. One of the most poignant reasonings for not being mentioned in alot of history books about Japan itself is that the atrocities "mainly" happened in Japanese occupation territories. It definitely had a dramatic historical relevance to the occupied territories but not all that much when it comes to actual Japanese history within the country. Where I believe the German situation is a little bit different because it happened on its own citizens... much like the Soviet Union and Armenia

That being said it's definitely brought up in history books alot when looking at the world wars.... but generally gets a passing mention when it comes to the country itself. Moxy🍁 06:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Video game sector

I feel like the content about Japan's video game sector in the science and technology section would fit better in the media section since it is more focused on Japan's video game market instead of its video game industry. Maxeto0910 (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I now moved the paragraph to the industry and services section because placing it in the science and technology section was probably just a mistake by someone. However, I still think the content about the video game sector rather belongs in the media section. Maxeto0910 (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)