Talk:History of Japan/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

CurtisNaito's large, unilateral change

It's already been reverted but this was not a good edit and should have required consensus on the talk page first, especially considering how many times CurtisNaito has told other users that their edits require prior consent.

• Adding "prehistoric" before "Jōmon period" in place of the dates is problematic because it implies that "the subsequent Yayoi period" is not also prehistoric. (CurtisNaito has indicated several times above that he believes that the Yayoi period is historical enough that we have extensive historical documentation of the era to the point we don't need archaeology to study it, and that the precise nature of the society and polity of Japan has been established based on this documentation.)
• Removing the Easter egg link to "Zen Buddhism" was a move in the right direction, but wikilinking Shinto and not Buddhism is not great; I changed the link to Japanese Buddhism.
• Ancient Jomon of Japan of (from what I can see in the GBooks preview) far too technical and scholarly a source for me to trust CurtisNaito's interpretation of pages that I can't see. Since CurtisNaito called his changes "recommendations", I checked on the talk page, and it seems the only time Habu was quoted here was in relation to pottery.
• "Today historians generally believe that the Yayoi culture was established by new arrivals from the Asian mainland." CURTISNAITO, STOP SAYING "Today historians generally believe" WHEN YOUR SOURCES DON'T SUPPORT THIS. YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD COUNTLESS TIMES BY NUMEROUS USERS TO STOP THIS. IF YOU VIOLATE CONSENSUS ON THIS POINT AGAIN, SAID USERS WILL BE FORCED TO SEEK OTHER SOLUTIONS. Additionally, referring to your own opinion as a "recommendation" (from yourself?) is highly inappropriate and will get you blocked if you don't stop doing it.
• "the unified state" and "during this period" were good grammatical corrections. If CurtisNaito limited himself to fixing grammatical errors made by users with better sourcing standards, the whole project would be the better for it.
• As for removing the dates from my citations of Keene: As far as I am concerned, all citations should include dates. CurtisNaito, who thinks it is appropriate to cite a source and not name the authors of the source anywhere on the page, should not be changing citations written by other users.
  

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC) (Edited 13:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC): Sorry. Forgot to add the diff showing CurtisNaito's refusal to credit the authors of his sources anywhere on the page.)

• I have nothing to add to this, except to point out that the chronology of the Jomon period is a minefield. I would not be comfortable at present with saying any more than something superficial along the lines of "no one knows". The section awaits someone with access to a wide range of - scholarly - sources (and the ability to correctly interpret them). Curtis's edit restoring his already amply discredited version en masse is obviously unacceptable. zzz (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Zen Buddhism link was from me, just pointing that out in case of a misunderstanding. Anyway, @CurtisNaito: please stop misinterpreting sources (again), it's the main reason you get into so much conflict with other editors (not just Hijiri). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: I assume your thanking me for changing the Zen link was an indication that you don't disapprove of me reverting you? As my spat with Nishidani over Levy, Miller and Okura a few months back indicates, I don't generally look at who made edits and speculate as to their motivations: I look at the article and edit accordingly. Sometimes when certain errors appear around certain users over and over again, it's pretty inevitable to guess who made them, though.

I don't suppose your saying "not just Hijiri" is a subtle request to CurtisNaito to stop requesting that I be site-banned for disagreeing with him, and requesting (possibly off-wiki) his friends to rampantly attack me, when so many others also disagree with him? If so, thank you very much for pointing that out. However, I think the record indicates CurtisNaito doesn't get subtlety. That's probably why I so often find myself having no choice but to use so much capitalization and boldface.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Well yes, but also just thanking you for correcting my mistake. And no I wasn't being subtle, I simply meant that you aren't the only one that has confronted him about his sourcing issues. But, while I don't think he's having any off-wiki contact, showing up at ANI with no interest in understanding the issue in that one instance and !voting for an indef anything is in bad taste. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think he was having any off-wiki contact either, until Calvin999, a user with whom he has apparently exchanged favours regarding GA assessment (without ever colluding to do so on-wiki, CurtisNaito suddenly started GAing a bunch of pop music articles all written by Calvin999), suddenly appeared and started accusing me of hounding CurtisNaito across multiple pages, citing in particular an incident that occurred in May. It seems pretty unlikely that Calvin999 went back and looked at my contribs, since anyone who did so would have actually seen that what happened in May was not me hounding Curtis, but rather the other way around. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I made the changes is because Curly Turkey was saying that other users are too busy criticizing him rather than implementing his recommendations. My edit was focused on implementing all his recommendations, including the two sentences he criticized above. He said that he was concerned with "details [that] just drag down the reading experience" so I changed the sentences he found to be problematic. He was concerned about the verifiability of Nishidani's sources, so I swapped the source which did not check out. I went with "historians generally believe" because all the sources do indeed make this clear. The article already notes that this is supported by "genetic and linguistic studies", but it doesn't say it is refuted by anything. It's like Curly Turkey said above about radio carbon dating, either the radio carbon dating is universally supported and therefore should be used in the article exclusively, or else we are bogging down into the details of an historical controversy. If the article just says that "genetic and linguistic studies" support this, but there is no contrary evidence, then we might as well just go with what the studies say. The sources which I cited made quite clear that the invasion theory is the only one with clear evidence to prove its validity.

The reason why I added prehistoric is because Nishidani wanted the start date of the Jomon period raised by two thousand years, which I thought was problematic for the lead. Most sources did not give such an early start date and including a potentially controversial date in the lead could provoke conflict. Therefore I decided to delete all the dates and just call it "prehistoric" instead. If Nishidani wanted, he could add in discussion of the possible start dates of the Jomon period into the body of the article, instead of the lead.

I also wanted the citations to be in a common style, which I don't think should have been reverted. Apart from that, what I was doing was implementing talk page suggestions. The reason why complaints have been made about this thread on the administrators' noticeboard is because there are too many personal attacks and rants on this talk page and not enough action on the article. I decided to go ahead and take the action which was recommended instead of just allowing the few real suggestion for change on the talk page to die amidst a sea of ranting.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito: I brought up those points to initiate a discussion on how best to improve the article. You reacted by "implementing" those undiscussed changes, and Signedzzz and Nishidani reacted by trying to derail the discussion. No wonder this article's such a mess—nobody wants to discuss things. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I posted an explanation directly above of several of my implemented changes, and yet, none of the posts which were made below it had anything to do with what I had said in my initial post. Without any actual discussion, I didn't think I had much choice but to go ahead and implement the recommendations. If you have an idea on how to fix the issues which you outlined above, maybe you should just go ahead and fix them. The only alternative is to discuss things, but that was already tried and it didn't work. My proposal to fix the issues is already on the table because I already attempted to implement it. No one else has a proposal on the table right now, because no one else is actually presenting anything on the talk page. With my proposal reverted and without any new proposals on the table, I can only assume that maybe the majority of users commenting here are happy with the article the way it is.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, The only alternative is to discuss things, but that was already tried and it didn't work. is completely out of the pale. You can't claim that you are trying to "discuss" things, when in fact what you are trying to do is force your views on everyone else by any means necessary. Everyone else has been trying to discuss this article with you, but you have been completely unwilling to work with us. It is not the responsibility of other users to fix all of your mistakes: it is your responsibility to make the mistakes in questions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, I have posted many messages trying to open discussion, and every time you just ignore them and post the exact same personal attacks which you are again posting above. You have made more mistakes than me, but instead of continuing to dwell on that, I have been trying to initiate productive discussion. There is no point in you continuing to make baseless personal attacks on me in this talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, everyone can see you ignoring the majority of the content of my messages and posting your own non sequiturs with no real relationship to the dispute. On one occasion I asked you if several pages you cited from Henshall verified what you attributed to him, and you changed the Henshall citation to include another page in a completely different part of the book that is not available in the free preview; when I asked you what exactly on that page verified your claims, you posted several quotations from the other pages I had already read, which didn't verify the material! How on earth is this "trying to open discussion"? That's just one example, but they all went pretty much like that, except that sometimes your responses were so immediate that I find it hard to believe you even read my messages before responding.

Also ... "You have made more mistakes than me"!? Don't make me laugh! Where on this page -- or on any other page where I have disputed with you -- have I made even a single mistake!? You accuse me of making personal attacks -- which personal attacks, exactly? WP:WIAPA clearly defines making unfounded accusations against other users as a personal attack, so if anyone is making personal attacks it is you.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I said, the reason why the article passed good article review in the first place was because I took the time to improve the article with accurate and reliable sourcing. In the talk page, I have been reasonable in pointing out to you your misreadings of the Henshall text as well as the gaps in your understanding of the horserider theory. All I can do is explain these things to you, I can't force you to listen. What I do keep on telling you though, is that the talk page is for discussion of article content, not personal attacks. I have pointed out your many, many mistakes, as have other users like TH1980, but only as was relevant to article content. Once an issue relating to article content is dealt with, you're supposed to move on. I posted a lengthy explanation of my edits above, and yet your responses completely ignored all content issues in favor of false accusations and personal attacks. As I said, there is no sense in continuing to repeat allegations which have been debunked so many times by so many other users. Just stick to discussion of article content and don't bother with any further personal attacks.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the reason the article pass good article review was Calvin999's utter failure as a reviewer to check the sources and see if they said what you claimed they said. Subsequent investigation and thorough discussion has established that they did not. The article's GA status would likely have already been revoked, if it wasn't for users like you and Calvin999 making me want to avoid calling attention to myself for the time being. My "allegations" have not been debunked: you misrepresented sources on this article; in the case of Henshall, it looks increasingly possible that every single citation is a misrepresentation of the source; you included false or misleading OR in the article that was not even hinted at in any of your sources. You and your attack dogs have thus far been completely unable to debunk these, because they are blatantly true. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I ain't touching this article anymore. Just today a certain someone made this edit in a transparent attempt to bait me. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the sentence starting with "Environmental changes contributed to a rise in Japan's..." is not properly cited. The book pages cited don't say anything about environmental changes or an early population of a few thousand. Why was a source which failed verification re-added to the article?TH1980 (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Because the user who removed it had been told multiple times by numerous users to refrain from large, unilateral edits. He claimed that he was doing so in accordance with "recommendations", when in fact most of what he was doing was reinserting his personal opinion into the article when it had already been removed by others. If in the process of reverting this hideous violation of consensus, some good stuff (like the grammatical errors I fixed) happened to be undone as well, it cannot be blamed on the reverting party. Now, having only access to the free GBooks preview, I have no way of knowing what it says on page 49, so I can't say you are right or wrong on the substance. Koyama's "260,000" estimate appears at the very bottom of page 48, so if environmental changes are mentioned they would almost certainly be on the page I can't see. TH1980, are they? I won't remove it if I don't know it fails V. One other thing I noticed, though, while checking Habu, she actually does say (p46, eleventh line from the bottom of the page) that the Kofun period lasted until the start of the Nara period, so CurtisNaito's original research a few sections up has once again been proved incorrect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No, my changes were in accordance with talk page recommendations. It was suggested that I cut down on "details [that] just drag down the reading experience", but even the specific sentences which were mentioned above as being examples of that were still reverted to their earlier version. Regarding the source mentioned above, the part about the environmental changes and the initial population of a few thousand are not mentioned on the pages in question, and incidentally the end date of the Kofun period is also not mentioned.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, if you can't understand that where it specifically states "the Haji period (usually called the Kofun, Nara and Heian periods, ca. AD 250-1150)" it is stating that the Kofun period ended when the Nara period started (as did one of the encyclopedias I quoted above), then you are clearly not capable of reading the source properly, and so I cannot trust you when you say the pages I can't see say or don't say something. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, you should focus talk page discussion on issues relating to the article, not other users. Many users including myself and TH1980 have pointed out your many errors in reading sources, but I won't insist that I mistrust you just because you have made many mistakes. This talk page is not for discussing other users. I'm aware that there are a great many different ways of periodizing Japanese history, including perhaps an expanded Kofun period, but most of the sources I consulted which mention the Asuka period consider it an era which succeeded the Kofun period or else a subset of the Yamato period. On the page in question, the author does not state if he supports the existence of an Asuka period, nor does he say when he believes the Kofun period ended. I'm not going to assume the things that the author in fact leaves unstated. If you have a concrete proposal to change the periodization you can put it forward. As I said before, my first choice is to leave the periodization as it is, and my second choice would be to combine Kofun and Asuka into Yamato. Based on the Kodansha Encyclopedia and many other sources cited in the article, I think this would be most reasonable, though I'm aware many other ways of periodizing Japanese history have been tried by various historians.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, when have either you or TH1980 ever pointed out any of my "many" errors in reading sources? I did not say that most sources date the end of the Kofun period to 710 (they don't); I said some do, and so your arbitrarily picking a beginning and end date for the Asuka period (a pair of such dates that is not backed up in any of your sources individually) is not necessary because any date up to 710 could be picked for the end of the Kofun period. I don't think many date the end of the Kofun period to "538". The fact that I have now found a source that explicitly says not only that the Asuka period doesn't exist, but that most sources (presumably in the field of archaeology) don't recognize it, and you have once again failed to read it as saying what it does, makes me quite convinced that you should limit your activities on Wikipedia to fixing spelling and grammatical errors, since it seems to be the only thing you can do without introducing factually-inaccurate OR into the articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet, somehow I managed to bring this article up to "good article" status before you did. I was able to achieve this because my focus is the writing of accurate and reliable content, instead of making personal attacks on other users in the talk page. The accusations you are making against me have been debunked enough times so there's no gain for you in repeating things about me on this talk page which are known to be untrue. I went ahead in this article and included a periodization which is well supported by reliable sources. If you have a concrete idea for changing the article also based on reliable sources, you can put it forward and maybe build the article from good level to featured level.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Bull. Shit. You got the article to GA status because GA status doesn't mean anything. You added at least one citation to each paragraph and lied to the GA reviewer as to whether the source backed up what you said. Everyone here thinks there should be a reassessment in light of the poor sourcing. The only reason it hasn't happened already is because you and your cohorts (and others with whom you have expressed sympathy but who are not your cohorts) have been putting me through so much crap lately that I don't want to open a broad community discussion. (Why User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Signedzzz have not done so yet is not clear, but the latter dislikes forms, and Nishidani is indifferent to the whole affair.)

Next time you accuse me of misrepresenting sources without providing evidence (even after it is requested) it will be taken as the personal attack that it is, and I will request that you be either blocked or otherwise restricted.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Also, your periodization ("Asuka=538-710") is not supported by your sources, as you yourself explicitly stated in the relevant section of this talk page. It is acceptable only because I went ahead and found some sources that do actually (appear to) support it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I would provide evidence, but that's not what we're supposed to be talking about on this talk page. By contrast, you haven't put forward any evidence of my alleged misdeeds. This article did merit good article status, and, though some have objected to the material added to the article since the good article review, that is clearly not enough to warrant the article be downgraded. If you have any suggestions to improve article content, you should just stick with that and not bother with senseless attacks on other users.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This page is also not for making personal accusations with no evidence. It is not my responsibility to fix all of your mistakes: I'll fix what I can and then request that the articles still rampant with those of your mistakes that I couldn't fix be taken off the GA list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, please keep the discussion limited to article content. Your personal attacks, false accusations, and generally nasty remarks are going way out out of bounds.TH1980 (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So basically, on seeing me making some entirely relevant, on-topic and easily verified points that CurtisNaito's recent edits to this article have been misrepresentations of sources and are consistent with his previous misrepresentations of sources, not only elsewhere but in this article within the past week, and CurtisNaito responding by making bogus, off-topic and completely unjustified accusations against me of the same in some other, unnamed articles at some indeterminate date in the past, TH1980 decides to accuse me of "false accusations and personal attacks". Didn't see that one coming at all... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, if you have the slightest interest in discussing article improvement in a serious manner, then knock it off with the personal attacks on CurtisNaito and I and try actually talking about article content instead. You are the one who is proving to be an obstacle to discussion. We are putting up with you patiently, despite your constant misreading of sources and personal attacks.TH1980 (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

if you have the slightest interest in discussing article improvement in a serious manner, then knock it off with the personal attacks on CurtisNaito and I and try actually talking about article content instead ... says the person who has yet to make a single constructive edit to the article, or post anything on this talk page that isn't either an ad hominem against me, or a non sequitur accusing Signedzzz for having accidentally reinserted one small problem to the article in the process of reverting CurtisNaito's massive, unilateral and destructive rewrite. Seriously, you people need to read WP:KETTLE. When I spend days on end trying to discuss article content on the talk page, and am met with nothing but non sequiturs posted within minutes of my comments implying that my comments have not been read and blank reverts because I do not have "consensus" (from users who themselves have never received consensus for any of their edits to any article, I might point out). It is not a personal attack to point out that "you need consensus for your edits but I don't need consensus for mine" is hypocritical. It is not a personal attack to point out that CurtisNaito and his attack dogs are misrepresenting sources and engaging in OR on this page. It is not a personal attack to point out that the same thing has happened with the same users on several other articles (i.e., 100% of the articles on which I have interacted with them). Both of you keep accusing me of making "personal attacks", without providing any evidence. The irony of this is that doing so is itself defined as a personal attack on the relevant policy page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm totally uninvolved but eminently qualified, as I've got multiple degrees in Japanese Studies (for better or for worse). The CurtisNaito edit is bad, period. "Jomon" and "prehistoric" are not synonymous, and "Cengage Learning" anything isn't legitimate; because they're custom-printed textbooks for specific classes. Therefore, if you're not in the class with that professor you will never see or be able to access the content, so it can't be verified easily. You need scholarly sources, I've got an entire library of stuff by established scholars published by large university presses and mass publishers. I've even got chronology tables. Especially for history, there shouldn't be fringe anything. Let me know where I can help. MSJapan (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who added in the Cengage Learning source, I merely didn't delete it. Signedzzz was the one who added it. The only reason why I described Jomon as prehistoric was because a previous user had wanted me to include in the introduction the approximate time when the Jomon period took place, but no consensus could be reached on the talk page about exact dates. Since I was supposed to approximate when the Jomon period took place without being allowed to use any specific dates, I figured I would just go with "prehistoric". The period was prehistoric, and using that word allows us to avoid having to insert a controversial date into the lead.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@MSJapan I just happened to have a copy of Brief History of Chinese and Japanese Civilizations for some reason, so I used it at first to correct some blatant mistakes. (I absolutely agree it's not ideal). I've added better sources as I find them. The article needs a chronology for the Jomon period, but as I said above, I am not comfortable with claiming any dates at all, as expert knowledge is definitely required (every source seems to give a different estimate, and what they mean by the "start" of the period also seems to differ). Any help would be greatly appreciated. And the paragraph about the prehistoric period still partly relies on the 'Brief History', which worries me.

@CurtisNaito The version of the article you nominated for WP:GA stated in the lead section "The earliest-known pottery found in Japan belongs to the prehistoric Jōmon period of 13,000 to 400 BC". The edit you made, under discussion here, as well as deleting new material without discussion, and again labelling the Jomon period "prehistoric" in the lead section, restored the specific date of 13,000BC to the Jomon section, which I had already removed for the reason stated above. zzz (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think there was any problem with stating an approximate start date in the body of the article, in accordance with the sources cited. We could even include a few different possibilities. However, I had been told by another user to not mention any periods of Japanese history in the lead of the article without telling the reader when the period took place. Generally, leads shouldn't include information which is under dispute, so I changed the disputed date range to a simple word, "prehistoric", which by contrast is not in dispute.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Your attempt to claim consensus for the edit is errant, and no one told you to do anything. zzz (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A broad-based survey article on history really shouldn't be mentioning specifics in the lede unless absolutely necessary - in particular, a period with a 12,600 year spread isn't terribly useful. I mean, that's literally the span of the majority of human technology in any civilization period. Even Britannica is better than that. However, we are going to get bogged down if we get tied up in Jomon, and especially in Jomon. 300 BC, by the way, is also at odds with the History of Japan template, which says 400 BC. I would suggest we change it here and not in the template. The lede is also really off-kilter; it covers 14,000 years of history in two paragraphs, 90 in the third, and 60 in the last.

I'll get some sources together by the end of the week, some of which will be literary - Nihongi is considered to be "fabricated" (insofar as there's no other record) to a certain point, but is still factually accurate past that certain point, and tends to be a starting point for a lot of jumping-off. In the meantime, use the sources in the individual period articles - this is a rollup summary article, so RS there is RS here. JSTOR should have articles on this; it was always particularly good with the Asian Studies journals, and the actual Journal of Asian Studies is definitely RS. Is there anyone here with that access through a library, be it a real one or through the WP Library? MSJapan (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, implement those changes. However, if you're suggesting that we use 400 BC as the end date of the Jomon period, I think we should put that only in the body of the article and not the lead. The date is too controversial to include in the lead. Also, are you suggesting we cite Nihongi as a source? That might be okay in some circumstances, but in general I think it's fairly dated as a history book. I do have access to Journal of Asian Studies, but what specific articles are you planning on using?CurtisNaito (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@MSJapan: If you need anything, I have full access to JSTOR, granted through the The Wikipedia Library. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Nihongi is the basis of what the Japanese view their "prehistory" as. It's "dated" because it's 1200 years old, but that doesn't make it any less useful because sometimes there are no other records, and it was considered an official history. We're writing an encyclopedia, so we're compiling, not researching or critiquing sources, and we're going to be light on detail to a certain extent because this is like an encyclopedia article of encyclopedia articles. That doesn't mean we can't add detail to other relevant articles, though, so I'd like to be as wide-ranging as possible. I'll figure out what needs to be found from JSTOR and JAS once I figure out what's actually missing that can't be sourced to anything else. MSJapan (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless using the Nihongi will raise a lot of eyebrows as it may be considered a primary source. I've also got access to Project MUSE and Questia if you see anything useful there. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as the Jomon period goes, the Britannica article linked above seems usable, as it does actually take into account the problems I mentioned. zzz (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yoshitsune?

This article should probably mention the hero of the Genpei War and Japan's national hero at some point, but Henshall's discussion of his death is inaccurate -- almost no one claims that Yoritomo had Yoshitsune's assassins killed "for good measure"; he wanted to conquer the north, entirely aside from the Yoshitsune issue. Hell, Hiraizumi and the Oshu Fujiwara don't appear to be mentioned anywhere either! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'm strongly thinking that we need a total restructure, so rather than deal with the single question here, I'm going to start a new section for structural ideas. MSJapan (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

One possible way to address this problem

I would think that one of the best and least disputable way to address the nature of this article would be to consult the relevant reference works. Over at Bibliography of encyclopedias: history#Japan, I count at least 11 reference works which deal with the subject of the history of Japan, presumably in at least many cases having an overview of the topic. Considering that the works selected by the ALA, which has listed many of them, are selected by specialist librarians in those fields, including academic librarians, I tend to think that unless reviews say otherwise they are probably consistent with the academic consensus. Many if not most of them might be available at WP:RX for anyone to request and, if so desired, distribute to the other editors involved.

Also, over at wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Japan/09 Domestic History there is a copy of the subarticle relating to the history of Japan in a now public-domain Encyclopedia Britannica, the content of which would be freely available to be even copied verbatim if it were found to still be consistent with the more recent reference works. Granted, it is rather long, but it can be used for at least the content related to the topic it covers, provided that the more recent works said effectively the same thing. Such attributed usage might even be one of the best ways to get the issue of the quality of writing many of our articles have had raised against it, if we are, in fact, quoting another high quality reference work.

For the abundant more recent material which is of course not included in that article, I have to imagine that the reference works in the bibliography mentioned above would be at least good indicators of what should be included. I imagine many of them will also indicate the sources upon which their content is based, or, alternatively, which reflects it, in their bibliographies, making it easier to find them and use them as appropriate.

Particularly considering that this is, basically, an overview article consisting of a number of WP:SS sections, the best way to determine the content might be to determine the number, length, and descriptions of the various subsections, the content they should have, and the sources. But, if there is an effort to do that, I have a feeling that it might be comparatively easy to not only keep this article at GA, but maybe even promote it to FA. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I can get behind this if other users are also in favor, but I do have access to most of the references you mentioned and only one of them which I checked includes a general overview of Japanese history. The rest merely include a wide variety of detailed entries on specific topics in Japanese history. However, I did already consult the Kodansha Encyclopedia when researching the article, as well as a variety of general history books, and I thought that both the scope and details of the article were more or less in accordance with what they discussed. Some have said that the article focuses too much on the modern period, but that was in accordance with other general histories. Henshall for instance spends the first fifty pages discussing Japanese prehistory to 1600, but then devotes well over 150 pages to the period since 1600. Perez is absolutely identical, spending fifty pages on prehistory to 1600 and then 150 pages to the period since 1600. No one has yet questioned the reliability of Henshall, Totman, Perez, or any of the other books currently cited in the article.

However, if other users think it would be a good idea to use the tertiary references you suggested, instead of Henshall and Perez, then I'm willing to rewrite the article using those references. However, are you willing to rewrite just one section of the article, like maybe Jomon period or Muromachi period, in order to serve as a solid model for the changes that you think should be implemented to the rest of the article?CurtisNaito (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it worth noting that I am more thinking of using the reference sources more as a rough indicator of the content, a rough draft as it were, rather than necessarily use them as the sources. Having said that, depending on the nature of the sources involved, a lot of them aren't really "tertiary," but summaries of discussion by experts, more or less secondary. I know most of the articles in the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion are more secondary summaries than tertiary sources, for instance. The EB could of course be used if that discussion wouldn't give undue weight as per article content.

Regarding the balance to be achieved in the article as a whole, one thing I can regret to say that I have found to be true about sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica in its later editions and other reference works, is that they sometimes gives what would be undue weight to recent developments. I can understand a new edition of an encyclopedia doing that, because it has to, basically, sell itself against not only other encyclopedias, but its own older versions as well, and one way to do that is to give a lot of weight to recent content. Clearly, an RfC might be one way to address the matter of relative weight in the article, but, at least to my own eyes, in general, history articles which are summaries of more detailed history articles probably do the best job if they present the history in historical balance, perhaps a paragraph per 100 years or something of that sort. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the article already includes the same balance used by general histories like Henshall and Perez as well as general encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica and Kodansha Encyclopedia. I think you should consider rewriting one section, like maybe the first section, Jomon period, to serve as a model so that we can know more specifically what you are looking for. Incidentally, you might not want to use the "paragraph per 100 years" principle for the Jomon period, because it lasted 12,000 years.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess I should specify roughly an equivalent amount of weight per equivalent time period for the historical era. Prehistory of some sort is something encountered in most history articles, but it tends to be treated as a different matter, given the utter or comparative lack of contemporary historical documentation. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Is one paragraph per 100 years feasible for this article though? You said prehistory would not count, but are you proposing that we cover the period 1900 to 2000 in one paragraph, because a lot happened during that period. I suppose the reason why most encyclopedias and books cover the modern period more heavily is indeed partly because more documentation exists from that period.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Surely he meant "section" rather than "paragraph" per hundred years. While I understand the concerns about putting too much emphasis on recent events, we have to remember that the 20th century was a particularly eventful century, beyond mere abundance of documentation. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"The Emperor was permitted to remain in power"

Just verifying—what does "The Emperor was permitted to remain in power" mean? I though he was stripped of political power? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, change this to, "The Emperor was permitted to remain on the throne."CurtisNaito (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Does the source support that wording? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the sources, by Kenneth Henshall, says, "There was no real wish to dismantle the imperial institution itself, for this had a useful role in keeping the nation together, in maintaining national morale, and also in legitimizing Occupation policy. The Japan specialists in the State Department were not unaware of the deep-rooted importance to Japanese people of the exercise of power being legitimised by high authority and thus made acceptable... Even many Japanese were thinking Hirohito should at least abdicate. But Hirohito clung on. As justification... he variously claimed that emperors (especially divine ones) cannot simply abandon that position, and/or that he had a duty to stay on in order to help rebuild Japan... MacArthur felt that retaining Hirohito personally, not just the imperial institution, would be the most effective safeguard against anarchy and communism... Hirohito may have survived, but he could not escape a change of role and image. He had to become a symbol of the people, and win acceptance and respect from those people in the form of affection rather than mindless awe towards a deity incarnate. In line with Washington policy and MacArthur’s own views on the dangers of a god-emperor, Hirohito was to be made a mere mortal... As a related measure, state Shinto would be dismantled."CurtisNaito (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"The Meiji government radically changed the feudal structures of the Edo period"

Does "The Meiji government radically changed the feudal structures of the Edo period" mean that feudalism remained? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess you can change that to "abolished". That statement was based on a variety of information provided by Henshall and Totman, including the following quote from Henshall's book, "Early reforms undertaken by the new government included the relocation of the imperial capital with a view to centralising power, and to the same end the nationalisation of feudal domains to replace them with prefectures. The restrictive feudal class system was abolished, including the samurai class from which the government leaders themselves came."CurtisNaito (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"In 1872 the government announced its intention to make primary school attendance compulsory, and by 1906 the attendance rate was 90%."

"In 1872 the government announced its intention to make primary school attendance compulsory, and by 1906 the attendance rate was 90%."—the government announced its intention, but did it follow through? Does the 90% mean they failed to follow through on making it compulsory, or that 10% managed to slip through the system? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The sources note that from 1872 and onwards universal education was the objective, but it took considerable time to fully implement their vision.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid this unqualified "intention" wording. Am I right in reading this as they brought in compulsory attendance but it took decades to fully implement, as in they couldn't build all the schools at once or something? Can you find a date for when it was finally fully implemented, or when they gave up or whatever? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please check over my copyedits to make sure I'm not accidentally changing the meaning of anything. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I can speak for Okinawa Prefecture, where at most only 15% went to school until the 1890s. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I checked an additional source entitled "Burning and Building: Schooling and State Formation in Japan, 1750-1890" which mentions 30% attendance in 1873 and over 95% attendance by the end of the Meiji period. Basically, it seems to me that the objective set in 1872 was accomplished prior to 1912.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, what I'm trying to get at is not flooding the article with numbers but getting at the heart of the introduction of this system: it was introduced at a particular time and took however long to accomplish? or failed or whatever. "15% attendance in Okinawa in the 1890s" is something that absolutely should not be in this article—the meaning of that figure would require a pile of context that is way, way, way out of scope. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that what is already in the article is okay. If you want something more concise you could just stick with "In 1872 the government began implementing a system of universal, compulsory education." The fact that this objective was not finished until the end of the Meiji period does not necessarily have to be mentioned.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course I want concision, but that's not why I brought it up here: what is the meaning of what's there? It's not clear what happened or what the number is supposed to mean. What is a reader supposed to get out of that statement? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I inserted it in order to show the reader that the original objective was pretty much finished by 1906.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's absolutely not the message that got across to me. Let's be explicit and not rely on mind-reading. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"Historian Conrad Totman attributes the LDP's staying power to its cautious economic policy and its cultivation of close ties with business groups."

Is "the LDP's staying power to its cautious economic policy and its cultivation of close ties with business groups" a widely held belief? If so, why attribute it to Totman? If not, why mention it, especially at this scope? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ditto for "For the Japanese people as a whole, the three decades after 1960 were arguably the best in their entire history". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, we don't necessarily need to attribute it to Totman, but he is one prominent historian who is of that opinion. Totman's book explained how the LDP was able to remain in power even amidst a faltering economy, so I figured it was worth a mention.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it needs to be attributed to Totman if the source doesn't explicitly say it's a generally-held opinion. But is such analysis really needed at this scope? Is it essential overview-type information? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think something which is written in superlative is notable. If something is the best in a country's history I would presume it's notable. The information about the LDP is less important, but the LDP is still dominant in Japanese politics today, so it might be worth stating a possible reason for that.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not notability but scope and WP:DUE. If it's a widely-held belief, find a source that says so and cite it—but even then, I'm not sure it belongs at this scope. I'm sure we could easily fill the article with similar opinions for every event in the history of Japan. Why not similar analysis explaining why the LDP lost in 1993 and 2009, for instance? The answer: too much undue detail for an overview. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

ENGVAR

What WP:ENGVAR is this article supposed to be in? I'm finding both American and Commonwealth spellings and have been correcting to American as there seem to be more of them, but I'm not sure I should continue to do so. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey and TH1980: We should be using American English per WP:TIES; Japan teaches American English in their schools. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not how TIES works. Japan has no TIES to any ENGVAR, as ours not an English-speaking country. We still have to apply one ENGVAR consistently within the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Per this edit, the ENGVAR is American (the word "revolutionized" instead of "revolutionise"). That is the first edit in this article which uses a word where they are different between UK English and American English. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Plurals

I see both "daimyo" and "daimyos" used for the plural of "daimyo". Both are correct English. Which should we go with? I'm partial to "daimyos", as the no-s version can be confusing in some contexts. Of course, this should apply to other such words as well. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Use the -s variant. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"Select works cited"?

Does this means it's an incomplete list of the works cited? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

When I first added that section I opted to make it a select list so that it would include a list of works frequently cited (as in more than twice), but to not bother including works rarely cited (roughly two times or less).CurtisNaito (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)