Talk:Japanese people/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

That picture

The samurai picture has to go. It's a really great photograph but you might as well slap some cowboys and Indians or the cast of Biggest Loser on the United States article. I'd suggest that if anyone here lives in Japan and owns a digital camera you might stick your head out the window and take a snapshot, or if anyone would like to spend some time here and put together something like what's at Japanese American, really, anything would be an improvement. Doctor Sunshine 06:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture has changed several times recently and the one there now is just a placeholder added by someone who didn't like the blank space we had resolved upon on a temporary basis. You may want to look at the history of Template:Japanese ethnicity or my talk page to see some of the images that have been discussed/ worked on so far. User:Bwithh is currently discussing the licensing of the flickr image here with its copyright holder. Dekimasu 13:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Also see this discussion, which resulted in an interesting collection of four people, showing great diversity in a small collection. In a similar vein, for Japanese people, one might consider two men, two women; a variety of fields such as science, arts, business, religion, government; someone from pre-medieval, medieval, Meiji, and post-Meiji; nobility, warrior, commoner. Examples include Murasaki Shikibu, Emperor Meiji, Higuchi Ichiyo, Tokugawa Ieyasu, Kukai, Kiichiro Toyoda. Other suggestions? Fg2 21:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion (I think there is more of this discussion in the talk archive, and there is some on my talk page as well) is that we don't use famous Japanese citizens in the template. This page is about the Japanese people as an ethnic group, not about residents of Japan, but using people who are widely known to be Japanese nationals seems likely to confuse readers as far as that distinction. I would also highly recommend using photos over paintings, which cancels out the old-timers. There would be a place to show a painting in the article, though - in the arts section (under the literature section, in comment tags), if it ever gets written. Dekimasuが... 21:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of the photo at Japanese American, I get a really funny feeling looking at that. None of them looks like a full-blooded Japanese person, really. They look like half-Japanese, half-Korean mixes. I mean, Kristi Yamaguchi looks totally Korean, not Japanese at all. Ebizur 09:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been four months since the January possibility of a new photo, and the temporary placeholder is still in the article. Any progress or further thoughts? Fg2 04:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I updated the template with a more modern image. Thoughts? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Pesonaly the illustarted people (Prince Shotoku, etc) are not suitable for this article. And the long caption is redundant. Using illustration in historic article is ok. But weird to imagine Japanese people from the illustrations. Because those illustrations are not popular among western people. --221.190.253.162 (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese colonial period

January NPOV discussion

I am happy to discuss the section here; I would rather not be called a revisionist. Anyway, I have made a few changes to the section in the portion that suggested the use of "Japanese people" being an instrument rather than a symptom of the suppression of other ethnic groups. This was certainly not the case in the English language. I also removed the reference because the paragraph is completely different now.

I do believe that the previous section was somewhat imbalanced, which was why I added a citation tag for the line about a "strong awareness of Japan as a multiethnic nation" (or something along those lines). However, I think the intent there was to convey that people did make a distinction within ethnic groups; one of the linguistic issues was that there hadn't previously been a word in Japanese to distinguish a nation from the ethnic group it "consisted of". Another useful aspect of the section is to note that the 1900 definition of "Japanese people" does not mesh with our current understanding of the term. I think the section can be expanded within that context. However, I think the intent of the section is not to discuss Japanese imperialism in general, which has little to do with the article topic. Are we agreed on that?

In accordance with that concept, I've lost confidence that the section on stateless Koreans fits within the framework of the article. It's not out of a desire to whitewash. I just want the article to be about "Japanese people". Please let me know your thoughts. Dekimasu 12:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to my recent edits, Melonbarmonster posted the following message in my talk page...--Endroit 08:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
"Cultural assimilation" as you've used it, doesn't convey the context behind the patriarchal distinctions within the "Japanese" Imperial identity. I added a word to your last edit as a compromise. Check it out.Melonbarmonster 01:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Melonbarmonster, repeating redundant words like "colonial", "subsumed", and "assimilation" don't solve that problem. Also, in the context of the topic of this article Japanese people, mention of policies and nature of the Imperial Japan government (colonialism, assimilationist, etc.) detracts from that main topic. Rather, it suffices to mention that assimilation of the different cultures occurred during the colonial period. Also, regarding your addition of the word "forced", did they use physical force with a whip or a gun to do that? If not, "compulsory" is a more appropriate word.--Endroit 08:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that's why didn't revert your edits and only added the word "forced" to describe assimiliation. I absolutely disagree that Japanese Imperialism is irrelevant to the issue at hand. This section is about multicultural notion of Japanese identity during Imperial Japan. The purpose behind these patriarchal distinctions directly related to Imperial Japanese policies.Melonbarmonster 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see Melonbarmonster talk here instead of leaving long edit summaries and not dicussing. I'm not sure if he read my original post above, but I would suggest reviewing WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. As an example, part of the most recent edit summary claims that the section doesn't reflect the "referenced source which is critical" of Japanese imperialism. Since Melonbarmonster agrees it's not a neutral source, any edits expressing a point of view in reference to that source need to state the source in the text ("According to XYZ, Japanese colonialism..."). I would also like to reiterate that the point of the section is to discuss the historical applications of the term. Dekimasu 12:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that I'm violating WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. I'm not adding personal judgment to cited facts. I would be violating WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves if I used the reference to make personal judgments like "Imperial Japan is evil". That's not what's going on here.
What I am advocating is that "forced assimiliation" and historical context of "naichijin" needs to be reflected accurately, as it's dealt with by the reference, and as far as it reflects actual truth and has logical relevance to the issue at hand. I'm willing to compromise on what particular words and sentence structure to accomplish this. And while I agree with the edits which improved readability and eliminated redundancy, I don't agree with excising critical aspects of the reference just because it's critical of Imperial ethnic hierarchy. Especially since the source in question is genuine, academic work and as NPOV as it gets.
I also disagree with deleting the reference. While author is more concerned with emerging "Korean Japanese" identity, the article also examines Imperial roots of multicultural notions of Japanese identity.Melonbarmonster 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Endroit, I think "compulsory" understates the matter. And yes, cultural assiliation was brutally enforced. Peace demonstrations resulted in massacres of thousands of people in the streets, newspapers were shut down and people jailed at even a hint of Korean nationalism, etc..Melonbarmonster 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
You've said it yourself, Melonbarmonster. The "author is more concerned with emerging 'Korean Japanese' identity" rather than about the colonial times. And he doesn't even cover the topic of "Japanese people" in other parts of the Japanese empire, namely Manchuria and Taiwan. Furthermore, you appear to be misrepresenting the source by not adding its direct quote, and instead adding POV words of your own. Sounds like a violation to me. I suggest that any such unsourced, biased additions by Melonbarmonster be strikken, along with the source which doesn't really cover the colonial period nor the Japanese people in general. Other editors are welcome to add a more appropriate source which covers the topic of "Japanese people" in Taiwan, Manchuria, and Korea during colonial times.--Endroit 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The "emerging identities" stem from colonial ethnic hierarchy. I explained this my previous post which you haven't addressed. The emerging Korean Japanese identity is analyzed in light of WWII, colonial ethnic hierarchy. Why the heck would you think modern Korean Japanese identity and colonial ethnic hierarchy are mutually exclusive??? Melonbarmonster 05:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I'm waiting for somebody to produce a source saying that the Imperial Japanese chopped off people's heads in order to bring about cultural assimilation. This was suggested by Melonbarmonster in his edit comment[1]. Preferably, the source should mention that this happened in Manchuria and Taiwan as well as Korea. I'm sorry, but I don't see a link between the use of force and assimilation as claimed by Melonbarmonster.--Endroit 19:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Endroit, in spite of whatever differences we may be discussing please follow WP:CIV in your posts. Throwing around ridiculous accusations and demanding good faith disagreements to be "strikken" etc., are just inflammatory.

The reference in question was here long before you or me made edits to this without any problems from any poster. And you're confusing the facts being cited. The reference is a research article that was published in an academic journal. This is as great a reference as any can be. It's certainly not POV, unsourced and it is certainly about the colonial period. And what "direct quote" are you talking about? You don't need direct quotes to add citations to WIKI articles. Please refer to WP:Cite if you think citations need direct quotes.

Check March 1st Movement if you want evidence of brutality.

On the issue of "compulsory" vs. "forced" accurately describes historic reality without undermining or overstating. "Compulsory" isn't even a word that's proper for describing citizenship and ethnic identity.

Lastly, I exercised good faith by not reverting your edits but I just added "forced" in place of "compulsory". Even if you disagree with my edits please reciprocate the courtesy and refrain from making unilateral edits. I don't want to engage in an WP:EW. Thanks.Melonbarmonster 05:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster, I'm just responding to YOUR edit comments that says "dude, they cut heads in public, tortured, jailed and very brutally forced 'cultural assimilation'." Those are YOUR words, not mine. If you wish to excercise WP:CIVIL and WP:Cite, please provide a citation which proves those edit comments, or I suggest you don't make such provocative statements.
Now regarding your use of the word "forced", it DOES require some proof that physical force was directly applied to bring about "cultural assimilation". That means you need to produce specific citation of a source stating so. Now put up or shut up, instead of complaining.--Endroit 06:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If this argument is really down to the difference between "forced" and "compulsory" then we have better things to be worrying about in this article. I would really like us to move on. From the AHED: "compel. 1. To force, drive, or constrain; 2. To necessitate or pressure by force; exact: see synonyms at force; 3. To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway." Compulsory fits better in the sentence because "forced" sounds redundant when we are already saying "repressed" in the next phrase. But I don't really care which way it goes as long as there is no edit war bordering on WP:LAME. Dekimasu 11:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Dekimasu, the only one here who's reverting good faith edits unilaterally here is Endroit. I've already compromised on previous edits and have refrained from resorting to telling editors to "shut up" and other such behavior. The guy wants proof that Japan compelled, forced, and made "cultural assimilation" compulsory and wants to delete the reference in this section and claims beheadings, tortures, massacres didn't happen. Hard to assume good faith to such revisionist POV.
Endroit, it's hard to take you seriously at this point. I already gave you a link which you've conveniently ignored. Here's another: http://www.cgs.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/workshops_e/w_2004_02_23_e.html. If you respond on point rather than telling people who disagree with you to "shut up" and other such immature, troll behavior in violation of WP:CIV, we can continue this discussion. Knock yourself out and keep "compulory" but leave the rest of the text and the reference alone.Melonbarmonster 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

February NPOV discussion

Sentence reworked for better accuracy and readability. Feedback welcome.Melonbarmonster 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Endroit is unilaterally reverting good faith edits and still claiming there was no "force" during Japanese colonization of Korea. As ridiculous as I find this proposition, I provided evidence of force above to which Endroit has not given a response. Furthermore, I have tried time and time again to compromise and rewrite the sentence while addressing Endroit's concerns only to face unilateral reverts again and again. Feedback from other editors at this point is welcome.
I deleted the word "repressed" and "compulsory" and added "forced assimilation". I used "colonized" where "repressed" used to be since it's a neutral descriptive word. The sentence now reads: "Such linguistic distinctions facilitated forced assimilation of colonized ethnic identities into a single Imperial Japanese identity."Melonbarmonster 17:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Melonbarmonster, your cited source uses highly POV words "Cultural genocide". But it doesn't show any details of physical force being used. It's just a lot of rhetoric.--Endroit 17:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a Japanese academic source. In any case, we're not using "cultural genocide" in the article so who cares?(although it's a legitimate academic position to say that what happened in Korea was indeed "cultural genocide"). But for purposes of our discussion, sources I've offered proves "force" regardless of what it's called. Unless you're going to refute these sources and claim that "force" didn't exist and that colonization was peaceful and beheadings, massacres, forced labor conscriptions, etc.. didn't happen, my last edits should be an appropriate compromise. Even the previous edits used the word "compulsory" which emcompassed "force" and you didn't object to that. I've taken out "repressed" to not get redundant and "forced" is a more accurate word than "compulsory" since the latter doesn't clearly imply "force". Melonbarmonster 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "compulsory" may or may not involve force. It has a slightly different connotation from the word "compel". According to Merriam-Webster, "compulsory" means:
Main Entry: com·pul·so·ry
Function: adjective
1 : MANDATORY, ENFORCED <compulsory retirement>
2 : COERCIVE, COMPELLING <compulsory measures>
Also, Melonbarmonster's cited source says things are grey in the case of Japan, and NO it DOESN'T give any example of how physical force was applied.--Endroit 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Again previous concerns about redundancy have been resolved and I've given multiple sources that prove assimilation of Koreans into Japanese Empire was forced. I find anyone claiming colonization wasn't forced to be devoid of good faith. Here's some more citations that prove force was used during colonization:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9050797/March-First-Movement http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/korea/history/march_1st_independence_struggle.htm http://www.gkn-la.net/history_resources/queen_min_tmsimbirtseva_1996.htm http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM http://www.han.org/a/fukuoka96a.html

I can go on and on listing evidence of "force" used to assimilate Koreans into the Japanese Empire.

You on the other hand are outrageously claiming that Japan didn't use force in assimilating Korea during colonization!!! And yet you have provided NO SOURCES nor logical analysis for your ridiculously controversial position! On top of that you are blindly reverting my edits while ignoring my good faith responses and attempts at compromise.

If you're still going to argue that there was no force. Give evidence for it and build consensus before reverting my edits.Melonbarmonster 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that colonization was forced, without any question. There was physical force involved there.
With respect to assimilation however, there does NOT seem to be any obvious and direct physical force applied.
This source describes how the assimilation policy was supposed to be "voluntary", on paper at least.
I'm not denying that people were forced to follow these assimilation policies. However, the word "compulsory" includes both cases:
  1. The case where assimilation was required by force
  2. The case where assimilation was not forced, meaning there was some degree of freedom
The majority of Melonbarmonster's sources say "colonization" was forced. But most of his sources DON'T say "assimilation" was forced. Therefore, using the word "compulsory" is more NPOV with respect to "assimilation", per the sources cited.--Endroit 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Good grief, I can't assume good faith when you're coming up with these types of arguments. Japanese government killed 7 thousand people in a single day because Koreans wanted to assert their Korean identity. There's no logic nor reason why this falls under "colonizaton" but not under "assimilation". You mentioned this bogus distinction only in your LAST post. All my citations prove force was used to assimilation KOreans into the Japanese Empire. That encompasses both concepts of "colonization" and "assimilation". These are not mutually exclusive concepts. Melonbarmonster 19:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Melonbarmonster, some of your citations describe the March 1st Movement, which is NOT directly related to assimilation. Linking them together is a WP:NOR violation on your part.--Endroit 19:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No, you're the one violating WP:NOR by coming up with this quack idea that colonization and assimilation are mutually exclusive in the last hour or so.
The March 1st Movement was a mass demonstration of Koreans asserting their Korean identity in opposition to Japanese attempts at assimilating Koreans as Japanese. Just because you say it's not related to assimilation doesn't make it so.
I've given you citations, sources, compromised edits and explained these things to you to no end. You are not being responsive and ignoring logic and my good faith attempts at resolution while repeating arguments that have I've already responded to.
There is no rhyme or reason, nor any historical evidence why "colonization" and "assimilation" are mutually exclusive concepts! If you think there are, please offer them bc you haven't given any reason, arguments or evidence, let alone citations. "Colonization" and "Assimilation are absolutely integrated concepts which cannot be separated from one another rather than being mutually exclusive concepts. Most importantly, for the purposes of deciding whether force was used to assimilate Koreans into the the Japanese Empire, atrocities committed against Koreans by the Japanese government during the colonial period furthered BOTH purposes of colonizing Korea and assimilating Koreans into the Japanese Empire. Melonbarmonster 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm not denying that "assimilation" was "forced". I'm just saying that "compulsory" includes BOTH cases.
  1. The case where "assimilation" did not involve the use of force AND
  2. The case where force was involved.
Since "compulsory" covers both cases, there's no point in arguing, Melonbarmonster. The word "compulsory" includes BOTH cases, is more inclusive, and is more NPOV than the word "forced".
Also, if you're trying to argue for a position regarding "assimilation", you should find sources which specifically mention "assimilation".--Endroit 20:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You are just talking crazy now and you've changed your position so many times now that you have little credibility or good faith with me.
  • You've never said that compulsory includes both cases until your last post.
  • However, you have complained repeated over and over that there was no force used to assimilate Koreans and that force was used only for colonization but not for assimilation.
And now you say you're not denying assimilation was forced????
Imperial Japan used force in all of their colonial expansions including Korea, China, Southeast Asia, etc.. To understate Japan's forced and brutal occupation of Korea as being not "forced" is historically inaccurate and just revisionist POV.
Practically, if you resisted "assimilation" by not bowing to the emperor in Shinto rituals, refusing to take Japanese name, refusing labor conscriptions, suspected of meeting in public gatherings or suspected of being a nationalist you were hanged or beheaded or taken in for torture and jail time before being hanged or beheaded. Compulsory is better used to describe school course requirements. Force is a more accurate and neutrally descriptive term that best reflects the historical realities of Japan's attempted assimilation of Korea.
I've been responsive to legitimate concerns and differing opinions and have compromised many times while taking the time to explain and discuss disagreements. You have instigated revert wars and it's hard for me to assume good faith on your part. Please be reasonable.
Melonbarmonster 20:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to play the role of the tiebreaker again. Honestly, most of the debate here can be set aside. I don't really like that Melonbarmonster came in and edited the sentence again, knowing that it was hard to manage a truce the first time. You can accuse Endroit of reverting too much, but you could have discussed the edit on the talk page before introducing it, as well. At the end of the day, though, the sentence in the article reads better than it did before.

Melonbarmonster is right that colonized is more neutral than repressed. Forced and compulsory are basically the same in this context ("not by choice"). Force does not always mean brute force. We are not talking about adding any kind of beheadings discussion to the article — quite rightly so, because this is the article about Japanese people. The personal views of we editors may be clear from the talk page, but I do not see any NPOV violation in the colonial period section. The current sentence, "Such linguistic distinctions facilitated forced assimilation of colonized ethnic identities into a single Imperial Japanese identity", is fine. Dekimasuよ! 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Dekimasu that forced and compulsory are the same in this context. If certain aspects of assimilation were forced, it was no doubt compulsory. However, the converse is not necessarily true. For example, the education system appears to have been compulsory but not necessarily forced. (There weren't any penalties for not attending school).
Having said that, if the majority of editors in this discussion is fine with Dekimasu's edit, I'll go along with it.--Endroit 16:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If there were no penalties, in what sense was the education system compulsory? I don't consider paying my NHK bill compulsory because there is no penalty. Dekimasuよ! 02:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
All of us have made edits before discussion without ill intent and I did make the edit concurrently with a comment in this talk page asking for feedback from all of you.
I replaced "cultural assimilation" with "assimilation" because I thought it more accurate to not specify the nature or type of "assimilation". Assimilation encompassed government, national/political identity, ethnic identity, cultural identity, etc.. "Cultural Assimilation" carries with it its own body of definition which doesn't necessarily fit neatly into what happened in colonial Korea during WWII. Again feedback is welcomed.melonbarmonster 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Is your comment about the link or the language? I believe it should still link to cultural assimilation, even as a piped link with the word "cultural" removed. Anthropologically speaking, culture refers to all of the institutions of a people - including government - and I think we are going to have trouble if we start to try to separate ethnic identity from cultural identity. That trouble would spread throughout this article, as we define Japanese people as an ethnic group and go on to explain the culture of the ethnic group. The article on cultural assimilation isn't in perfect condition, but its lead does state that cultural assimilation is often simply referred to as "assimilation". The opposite of cultural assimilation would be physical assimilation. Physical assimilation - with the relocation of Koreans to Japan and intermarriage as well - also happened, of course, but the majority of the assimilation was cultural (most Koreans remained in Korea, most Japanese people remained in Japan), and I find the link informative. If we are talking past each other and you don't object to the link, I apologize in advance. Dekimasuよ! 02:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Well both in a way. It's not clear in the linked article or the language on face value that "cultural assimilation" encompasses your anthropological definition. The linked article deals with the term in a more laymen's understanding of "culture" from the perspective of immigration in a "melting pot". It doesn't deal with "cultural assimilation" in terms of national, political identity, the way it happened in colonial Korea. The link should go either way because it's not descriptive of colonial Korea. The accuracy of the article goes down by specifying "cultural assimilation" with the link. I still think it's best to leave it open by just using "assimilation" without the link. melonbarmonster 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Population numbers

The Japanese people section needs some serious editing. The numbers for Japanese Brazilians and Americans go up and down. I know that are more than 1 million but Jesus Christ which is it? 1.3, 1.4 or 1.5 million? As for Americans of the Japanese descent, there are supposedly 1.2 million, yet, again, some sources say it's 900, 000 or 1.1 million, my brain is hurting and Wikipedia looses its credibility as a reliable source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fukaspica91 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what numbers you are talking about, since they are only listed once on the page here. However, it's not Wikipedia's fault if different sources give different numbers for populations of Japanese descent. The numbers on this page are mostly sourced to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and those pages are linked directly so that you can verify the information. Can you tell us which source disagrees? Also, please check to determine whether the variation in numbers is due to one page talking about Japanese citizens and another talking about Japanese immigrants and their descendants. Dekimasuが... 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Christianity a national religion?

The infobox lists Christianity as one of the national religions. If I'm not mistaken, Christianity is a minority religion in Japan. The two major religions are Shinto and Buddhism. --Candy-Panda 08:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it to be the third largest religion in Japan, but the CIA lists Christians as 0.7% of the population. Christianity may be more than proportionately visible because a large percentage of people who describe themselves as Buddhist or Shinto (or both) are non-observant. And marriage ceremonies are usually pseudo-Christian, in the same way that traditions for births are the realm of Shinto and funerals are treated in a Buddhist fashion. But we have never set any criteria for inclusion in that infobox and it would make just as much sense to take it out. Dekimasuが... 08:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing on the screen calls it "national"; it simply says "religions." But like Dekimasu, I think the box should list religions with a large percentage of the population, and 0.7% is not large. Fg2 09:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Japanese alone" and "Japanese alone or in any combination"

Today an IP user changed the Japanese-American population in the infobox from 1.2 million to 830 thousand based upon altering the cited link from the US census data for "Japanese alone or in any combination" to "Japanese alone". I think that this is faulty reasoning (and certainly not the reasoning used by Japan, in light of the dekasegi. While the links to Japanese culture are undoubtedly absent for some of these people, I think it is a mistake to change the infobox links to cite only "pure" Japanese. I'm going to change it back for now, but if anyone has a problem with this, please note it here. Dekimasuが... 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Japanese people and Yamato people

Cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan:

I've added a merge tag to Yamato people suggesting that any relevant information be added into Japanese people and redirected there. The introduction for Japanese people currently links the Yamato article without any semblance of an explanation as to how the two are different. While recognizing that they are different to the extent that we recognize "the Japanese people" to consist of multiple ethnic groups, and that we have separate articles for the Ainu and Ryukyu peoples, I think it would make more sense to explain "Yamato" within Japanese people. I'm not confident of my analysis here, though. If there's a good reason for them to stay separate, please provide input.... Dekimasuよ! 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I support this merge. I also added a tag to this article to let people know. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The result was that the introduction was changed and the merge tag was removed. Dekimasuよ! 05:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Two articles should remain. But the body of Japanese people needs to make more clearer who exactly the Yamato are. As the current dominant ethnic group they should be mentioned more prominently, or perhaps more clearly.--ZayZayEM 06:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

Can someone get ACCURATE figures of the number of Japanese living outside Japan. I'm more confused than ever trying to figure out how many Nikkei live abroad.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DaNerdz90 (talk • contribs)

What's the specific problem? We cite 1 million Japanese citizens abroad, plus 2.5 million nikkeijin abroad, making 3.5 million. Dekimasuよ! 05:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Japanese people up for deletion

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people. Badagnani 04:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Changing "South East Asia" to "East Asia"

In the paragraph addressing ethnicity of the Yaoyi Japanese, it states some scholars have proposed the origins being "Han Chinese" or "Southeast Asian." This is very unlikely, since Han is an East Asian Mongoloid ethnicity, and South East Asian ethnicities belong to the Australoid category. Thus, it should be an "East Asian" ethnicity, and not South East Asian. Intranetusa 18:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is marking contrast (thus the "or"). Scholars have proposed this, partially based upon the types of rice introduced. Dekimasuよ! 00:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)