Talk:History of Japan/Archive 8

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.

Here's my article outline. I'm not bothering with long vowels, because it should be clear what's what. We only need to be particular in the article.

Objective: Generalist survey-type article giving a historical overview of Japan.

Periods is still the best way to subdivide the article,but here's some stuff to work on and through.

Periods

1. Jomon
2. Yayoi
3. Asuka
4. Kofun
5. Nara
6. Heian
7. Kamakura
8. Muromachi & Azuchi-Momoyama (because the latter is short and doesn't fit with Edo)
9. Edo
10. Meiji
11. Taisho
12. Showa
13. Heisei

Events

1. Genpei Wars
2. Meiji Restoration
3. Pacific War
4. Sino-Japanese War
5. Russo-Japanese War

People

1. Toyotomi, Nobunaga, Tokugawa
2. Emperors (in general); we should probably link to a list somewhere as well
3. Murasaki Shikibu
4. Sei Shonagon
5. Fujiwara clan
6. Takeda Shingen
7. Miyamoto Musashi
8. Yoshitsune
9. Minamoto and Taira clans
10. Basho
11. Natsume Soseki
12. Murakami Haruki
13. Edogawa Rampo
14. Commodore Perry
15. Kurosawa
16. Mizoguchi Kenji

Notable things to mention in context

1. Yasukuni
2. Samurai/bushido
3. Hagakure
4. Rise of literature in Heian period
5. Mass publishing in Edo
6. Modern pop culture, especially internationally known authors, artists, anime, manga, video games, Vocaloid, etc.
7. Daimyo/clans/crests
8. Tale of Genji
9. Tale of the Heike
10. Manyoshu, Kokin Wakashu (see Japanese poetry article)
11. Nihongi
12. Bakufu
13. Prefectural system
14. Political systems
15. Industrialization
16. Economics
17. JSDF
18. Castles
19. Japanese calendrical system (there's an article on this, but it's clunky)
20. Poetry (tanka, waka, haiku, etc.)
21. Battleship Yamato (the real one)
22. Development of chounin
23. Geisha
24. Yoshiwara
25. Major cities through history
26. Kamikaze (as far back as the Mongols)

Add more as needed. MSJapan (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I like periods, but fitting some reference to just about everything in those other three lists would also be a priority. As I mentioned in the section above, failing to namedrop several key figures in Japanese history while putting so much emphasis on Meiji-Showa (and World War II in particular) is one of this article's main problems at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

What about a bit more on the arts? Noh, kabuki, bunraku (in the article already), tea ceremony, the rise of the modern novel. Seppuku, yūkaku, and I'm sure there will be readers CTRL+F-ing for "ninja". I'm surprised the 1980s seem to have been buried—wasn't there a point when the top ten manufacturers in the world were all Japanese? No mention of Japan's role in the electronics or automotive industries. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There are grounds to expand on some of those things, though I should point out that the article already does briefly mention noh, kabuki, bunraku, the tea ceremony, and Japan being the world's leading producer of cars, televisions, and radios.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I was looking for them but somehow missed them. Are radios and TVs really the only electronics they led in, though? What about video game consoles? I'd've thought audio and other electronics were at least quite prominent Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, as for just the source cited, it says that Japan was the world's largest producer of ships, in addition to cars, radios, and televisions.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine it would be difficult to find sources talking about Japan's role in the camera, gaming, train, robotics, and other industries. Oh, and no mention of the shinkansen? Or the 1964 Summer Olympics? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, part of the reason why I tried to keep the article well under 10,000 words was because I predicted other users would have a laundry list of items which they wanted re-added. I wanted the article to have some leeway to make sure plenty more topics could be added at the discretion of users without worrying about exceeding the 10,000 word limit. I referred to this in the good article review when I said, "the rewritten article was a little over 8,500 words, so there is definitely room to add in additional content if needed." The shinkansen, gaming, and the 1964 Olympics are mentioned in the sources already cited and so could be easily added to the article. By contrast, the sources cited don't mention ninjas or yukaku, but I'm not opposed to adding them. I think if you want something added to the article, you should go ahead and add it.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree: accretion is a terrible way to keep a large article in line—that's how we end up with fifteen different dates for the start point of an era. I've been saying this all along—discuss so we can figure out what really needs to be there, and then fix the article. Notice how I worded my comment?—"What about X, Y, and Z?" I'm trying to foster a discussion, not make demands. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I cut down the size of the article before the good article review, and I believe I included all the most essential topics without delving into anything less than essential. Naturally, I had to leave out most of the information which the sources I consulted mentioned, though most of the general histories of Japan which I consulted did not mention ninjas, yukaku, Miyamoto Musashi, battleship Yamato, Takeda Shingen, Edogawa Rampo, and many of the other topics mentioned above, which is why I did not myself put them in. However, the "importance" of a subject is fairly subjective, so I expected more to be added over time. So far, no one has concretely proposed deleting any specific topics from the article. The only proposals are for expansion. I think that the users who want to expand the article might as well just go and do so. Discussing a list of additions as long as the above one point-by-point would take up an awful lot of talk page space. I don't think the article requires any additional material, but I'm counting myself as neutral rather than opposed when it comes to further additions. If you think further discussion would be helpful, then why not go through all the additional material MSJapan has proposed point-by-point and tell us whether you support or oppose each one individually? So far no one has openly said that they oppose any of the additions which were proposed above. We can only assume everyone is in favor unless someone says otherwise.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The only proposals are for expansion.: Perhaps because every attempt at discussion gets buried before it can get started? Many of the proposed and actual additions are totally out of scope, resulting in an unbalanced article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

So far, no one has yet said that they opposed any of the specific proposals for expansion. The reason why I haven't opposed is because I already reduced the size of the article according to my own standards of importance before the successful good article review, and I just wanted other users to add in their own material according to their own standards of importance. I'm probably not going to strongly oppose any additional content until after we pass the 10,000 words limit, and we still have about 900 words to go until that happens. However, you indicated in the above post that you, by contrast, do oppose some of the proposed and actual additions. Which ones? In order to facilitate discussion, why don't you make a list of all the proposed and actual additions which you think are "totally out of scope"? Let's try to get those ones out of the way, and then we can deal with the shorter list of whatever is still left.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, we're talking at cross purposes. I don't think this article can be fixed by adding stuff, but by stopping and coming to a consensus on what really needs to be there, why, and what context it should be presented in. The problem with the article is not "not having even stuff", but that it is poorly focused (one result of which is important things being left out). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I support adding material at least on the 1964 Olympics and on recent popular culture trends like anime and gaming. I'm not sure whether the rest is necessary for a short summary article like this, however.TH1980 (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, make the article even more focused on modern popular culture that is already well-known outside Japan. If we covered anime, manga, gaming, cars and the Olympics the way we discussed the above-mentioned "noh, kabuki, bunraku, the tea ceremony" it would simply say "in the Showa period Japan developed anime, manga, video games and cars, and hosted the 1964 Summer Olympics" and leave it at that. Not even mentioning Japan's national hero (Yoshitsune) Japan's national epic (the Heike Monogatari) any of the political developments of the 13th century that didn't involve foreigners who are also well-known in the west, the court anthology that revolutionized waka composition in this period (the Shin Kokinshū), the representative poetic form of the middle ages (renga), ... are much bigger problems than the ones TH1980 mentions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, of course that other stuff needs to be better developed, but you can't seriously be suggesting that the Olympics wasn't something that "just happened"—it's symbolic of Japan's re-mainstreaming into the international community post-WWII (and needs to be presented in such a context). Japan's role in video game history can't be ignored as "recentism", and right now is not even mentioned in the article. We don't need to go into detail, we just need to balance prose and context. There is so much fat that can be cut from this article. For example:

"Following the death of Emperor Meiji in 1912, Emperor Taishō acceded to the throne. During his short reign Japan developed stronger democratic institutions and grew in international power."

could easily be cut to

"Emperor Taishō's short reign saw Japan develop stronger democratic institutions and grow in international power."

without losing any details that are important to the context or scope. Meiji died? Yeah, we can assume that, we don't need to say it. Cut this shit throughout the article and there will be plenty of all the other missing stuff. "Modern humans arrived in southern east Asia 60,000 years ago."—so what at this scope? "Hanihara Kazurō has suggested that the annual immigrant influx from the continent ranged from 350 to 3,000."—who?! And why do we want to read these numbers here? I could go on and on and on, but certain editors are addicted to this shit and won't let it go to make room for what really needs to be there—like this incompetent horseshit, preferring more words where fewer will do, leaving little room for Yoshitsune and the Heike monogatari. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Curly Turkey, some of the details could just be moved into their own sub-articles. Vivexdino (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: No, I'mnot making a definitive statement on the Olympics one way or the other: I'm saying the article already contains a strong bias in favour of modern history and Japan's relationship with the west, without any regard for how the Japanese view their own history. I plan on counting up which key events in Japan's history are left out, which relatively unimportant events are recounted in undue detail, and which people are explicitly named in the article: regardless of any other merit of such a survey, it would undoubtedly support my above assertion. I think before anything else is done, we all need to sit down and decide (on the talk page -- no edit-warring) what/who is in/out, and determine relative weight afterward. The way Noh, chanoyu and so on are treated at the moment is abysmal, and is IMO equivalent to limiting discussion of the above modern topics to "in the Showa period, Japanese anime and manga became popular around the world, Japan became a leader in the production of cars and video games, and Japan hoted the Summer Olympics". But I'm not saying that such a description is desirable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I see—the history's undoubtedly distorted, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Right now video games, manga, and anime are not mentioned at all, so Japanese theatre is hardly suffering in their favour. As for the Japanese perspective of "who's important", a Kumon poster my son recently put up in his room titled 歴史人物 lists the following:

* Shōtoku Taishi

* Emperor Shōmu

* Gyōki

* Ganjin

* Fujiwara no Michinaga

* Taira no Kiyomori

* Minamoto no Yoritomo

* Minamoto no Yoshitsune

* Ashikaga Yoshimitsu

* Ashikaga Yoshimasa

* Francisco Xavier

* Oda Nobunaga

* Toyotomi Hideyoshi

* Tokugawa Ieyasu

* Tokugawa Iemitsu

* Chikamatsu Monzaemon

* Utagawa Hiroshige

* Motoori Norinaga

* Sugita Genpaku

* Inō Tadataka

* Matthew Perry

* Saigō Takamori

* Ōkubo Toshimichi

* Kido Takayoshi

* Fukuzawa Yukichi

* Itagaki Taisuke

* Itō Hirobumi

* Mutsu Munemitsu

* Komura Jutarō

* Noguchi Hideyo

An interesting selection that likely won't match ours—obviously we'd have Murasaki Shikibu, and likely not Noguchi Hideyo, and it's interesting to see Hiroshige rather than Hokusai (who paved the way for Hiroshige and had a far longer, broader, and more prolific career—regardless they'd both fall under "ukiyo-e" and probably don't merit naming in the article). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• So I brought up robotics, cameras, game consoles, etc—but all that falls under the term I first brought up: "electronics". Like I said, it shouldn't be hard to find an acceptable source that calls Japan a leader in the electronics and automotive industries and tehn saying so, rather than "televisions, radios, and cars", which isn't really what the article should be saying. Also, Japan became the second largest economy in the world in 1978—I'd say that rather than "By the end of the Shōwa period". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will make these changes to the Showa period section later today, unless you are planning on doing it yourself. Are you sure that you want to delete the translation of "Showa" though? I thought readers might want to know why the period was called "Showa".CurtisNaito (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I see you went in the other direction form what I suggested. Is it because you disagree?

"Showa": I'm sure readers would like to know what "Showa" means. I'm also sure they'd like to know what "Meiji", "Taishō", etc as well. We don't stick things in a long, crowded article just because they're "interesting", otherwise the article will get filled with trivia. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I went in other direction. I was attempting to implement your recommendation to have information on electronics integrated into the section dealing with the automotive industry and the economy. I think Meiji and Taisho are somewhat more self explanatory because we refer to those emperors in the article as Meiji and Taisho. By contrast, we call Emperor Showa Hirohito, so some might wonder why the period is called "Showa".CurtisNaito (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggested—just above—to collapse the long list of electronics into just "electronics"—you've got "televisions, radios, camcorders, VCRs, and computers", but the list could seriously include robotics, digital cameras, game consoles, audio devices, cell phones, etc. I'd also drop "The Economist magazine described the electronics industry as "the epitome of Japan's post-war success".", as it's redundant when we've just called Japan a world leader in electronics production.

"Showa" again: I see your point, but giving a gloss of the word "Showa" isn't going to answer readers' curiosity—the real answer to their unanswered question is: what is an era name, and why is it different for Hirohito but not Meiji and Taisho? Is that a question this article should be answering? Perhaps in a footnote. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Isn't the Shōwa financial crisis of 1927 worth mentioning? The article's not well developed, but I was under the impression that this was a key event. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can think of a way to insert it, go ahead and we'll see how it looks in the article. Personally, I would leave it out. Totman's history of Japan is almost 700 pages, and it never mentions it. Henshall's book is 200 pages, but it only mentions it in one sentence.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• A couple other things worth considering: Shūshin koyō? United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The troll Signedzzz‎ just reverted every fucking copyedit I made to this article (dozens) over the past couple days with the edit comment "rv unconstructive deletion" (?!?!?). Is there an admin watching this page? Can something be done about this? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

That was one of your fucking "copyedit"s. zzz (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Signedzzz, up to now you have only commented on and edited the Yayoi and Jomon periods. Is there any reason why you deleted the changes made to the rest of the article? If you only object to the copy edits that Curly Turkey made to the section on the Jomon and Yayoi periods, then I advocate that we immediately restore the copy edits which TH1980 and Curly Turkey made to the rest of the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like I reverted it to an old version or something by accident. I was just editing the first paragraph, I have no idea how the fuck that happened. I'll fix it now. zzz (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently I had an old version of the page open and thought it was the new version and saved that, which I'm surprised can actually happen, it seems it can. Fixed it. zzz (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can do that, why do you need WP:Rollback, basically. zzz (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: It was an honest mistake. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The connection is not very often made -- a connection between the Heike and earlier Gunki Monogatari (at least two of which were in literary kanbun and meant to look like historical chronicles rather than tall tales) would probably be more apt, and much more readily found in the best sources for this field. However I'm not sure -- I'd rather see a direct quote from Totman before simply removing the sentence and replacing it with a comparison Donald Keene and I feel would be more apt. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"A number of short battle narratives appeared in collections of setsuwa... Not until the fourteenth century, however, as we note in chapter 8, were these war tales embroidered and developed into the grand sagas epitomized by the mature Heike monogatari."CurtisNaito (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that date for the Heike is incredibly late, if what he really meant was that the tale was composed in the fourteenth century. That would make it contemporary with the Gikeiki and Taiheiki, which virtually no one accepts. Pretty much every specialist agrees that, whatever the Heike was, it was in a genre more closely related to the then-recent Heiji Monogatari and Hōgen Monogatari (the genre's name is gunki monogatari) than to the setsuwa. Furthermore, what was actually requested was that the article mention the Heike as Japan's national epic, which condition the current wording doesn't satisfy. I'll look up a better source later and rewrite the sentence accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you have another equally reliable source, then you can change the text, but I don't know of any source which says that Totman's views are "inaccurate and fringe". "Japan at War: An Encyclopedia" states that the first written versions of the work do date from the fourteenth century. Regarding setsuwa, I think the point is that the short setsuwa gradually expanded and evolved into more complex sagas.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources stating that the mainstream view of the Heike Monogatari is that it was mostly composed in the thirteenth century. Therefore, sources dating it to the fourteenth century are fringe. We don't need a separate source that specifically states "Scholar X's view is fringe" if Scholar X states that the letters to the Romans and Galatians were not written by Paul (or that the letters to Timothy and Titus were written by him) to say that this view is fringe. Also, please note that arguments made on the talk page do not require citations to reliable sources -- I am saying that in the article we should only discuss the accepted view and not even mention the view your wording states as fact. I am not familiar with Totman's work in general, and allI have to go on is the above quote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

[1] For the record, I changed "The Tale of the Heike" to "the Heike Monogatari" so the similarity of title to the two "prequel" works I added would be obvious. I don't suppose anyone else minds this?

Furthermore, I removed the reference to Oyler because (1) it made the random author who happened to have written the article on the Heike for an encyclopedia that is not about classical literature one of the relatively limited number of figures who are named inline; (2) it was to an encyclopedia article rather than a specialist work our readers can check up for more details (see also [2]); (3) Keene works better in context and actually uses the words "the Japanese epic" (637: "Although it was not composed in poetry, in theme and execution The Tale of the Heike merits being considered as the Japanese epic"), which is why I suggested a reference to the work be included in the article; Nagai Kafu is a noted novelist and essayist who might very well merit being specifically mentioned as an important modern literary figure in his own right, so specifically naming him inline kills two birds with one stone; (4) it's pedantic, but "which recounted the key events of the Genpei War" is almost as bad a description of the Heike as "Gather crystals to stop warlords." is of Zelda; I don't have easy access to Oyler, so I don't know if she directly supports the much better description "which recounted the rise and fall of the Taira clan", so citing a different source was a technical necessity per WP:V.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm enjoying this read. It's a well-written article and I have learned a lot about the subject. I wasn't previously familiar with Japan's history, so I'm very glad to have taken it on. Most of the copyedits I have made myself. I'll put any others here.

• Is it "shogun" or "shōgun"? Either is fine, but be consistent. The former is an anglicized word, I think, so doesn't need italicising, but shōgun does.
  • We're told it has to be "shogun", though "shōgun" is more accurrate. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I personally am fine with either. I went to check on the Wikipedia article shogun, and I noticed that it didn't have a macron. However, either way is fine by me.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The MoS requires no macron. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It's a tough question. The broader Anglophone culture probably knows the word primarily from the eponymous TV miniseries and the James Clavell novel on which it was based, and the for former at least the official title had a macron. However, if we are going to use "shogunate" (which IMO should never have a macron) instead of or as well as "bakufu", then perhaps uniformly avoid the macron. MOS just says that we should use the macron unless the macronless form is common English, and in this case (thank you Clavell) that is ambivalent. The examples listed in MOS are not great and probably still need work -- I haven't been following that page much recently, but it has a nasty history of being prescriptive when it was supposed to be descriptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
        • You sure it was Clavell? This Google NGram seems to disagree. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant that it was Clavell who introduced the term to the wider culture. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to terms that only Japanese history scholars know, and I suspect (I don't know, as I wasn't alive) that Clavell's book and the subsequent TV show are responsible for COMMONNAME applying, if it does. If COMMONNAME doesn't apply, we use our internal guidelines, because that is what the scholars do. Again, I don't feel strongly about it either way, and I might be wrong about whether one is more common (please see the 2013 RM at Talk:Empress Jingu for why I don't trust GBooks on the macron:no-macron ratio). The one think I really think would be a bad idea is "shōgunate". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• One sentence I'm unsure about my edit to: Henceforth the Minamoto shōguns became puppets of the Hōjō regents, who were samurai of Taira descent and who wielded actual power. Is this correct?
  • It is accurate. There was some question over whether the article should claim "every member of the Taira clan was killed", but that has been resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Good. The original sentence was ambiguous: I'm glad I got the right sense out of it when copyediting! Relentlessly (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Inconsistency between "General Sakanoue no Tamuramaro" and "general Ashikaga Takauji". I don't know which form is correct, but the article should at least be consistent.
• The article uses "which" restrictively very frequently. I haven't changed this. My understanding, however, is that the restrictive use of "which" is not normal in American English and that "that" is preferred.
  • This external web article explains the correct way to handle this: Grammar Girl "which" vs. "that"
• There are one or two referencing issues as well, including SOME VERY SHOUTY AUTHORS.

I recognize that there have been some disputes over this article, particularly with regard to sourcing. I have not addressed that at all in my editing.

Relentlessly (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that thorough copy-edit. I will address the remaining issues, though I believe that the sentence about the Hojo regents is accurate.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Relentlessly, we all greatly respect and appreciate the work of the Guild of Copy Editors; thank-you very much for your objective work. Prhartcom (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Relentlessly: Technically, this edit introduced a minor factual inaccuracy that I didn't notice until now. Only one of the three emperors was exiled to Oki Island, which is why I had used that slightly awkward wording of Go-Toba being exiled to Oki and two other emperors also being exiled. I had been trying to avoid cluttering the description by listing all three of the exile destinations by name, only naming the best-known and most notably one. But it's fixed now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Glad it's now correct. I've modified it slightly to make it read more nicely. Relentlessly (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: Could you provide quotes for Perez 27 and Farris 109? IMO, it seems very excessive, bordering on WP:SYNTH to put together three sources that each support a small portion of a sentence this long. You think we should break the sentence down so that it reads better? Please note that the main thing I want are quotes from your two sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Louis Perez says "virtually the entire Taira family was hunted down and murdered". I think the fact that the Taira clan was exterminated is really the only pertinent information that the article needs, but since you wanted clarification about the Ise branch, I tacked on Farris as well, since he says "Almost all the Ise Taira... perished."CurtisNaito (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito stop saying that right now or this continued IDHT bickering will be brought up in the ANI case. None of your sources say the Taira clan were exterminated, and even if they did I would have already falsified that claim with reference to other sources. According to the quote you provided from Perez indicates that his inclusion does nothing to verify the text, so I'm removing him. Farris should be enough, but ideally we should have one or two scholarly sources, and no encyclopedia articles, to verify the material, so I'm restoring the tag. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I advocate that we just use Farris to say that the Ise Taira were annihilated. Then we can get rid of the dictionary article. The important point is the extermination of the Taira. The fact that, for instance, the Hojo clan were involved in the Kamakura government is something which is already pointed out later in the article and doesn't need to be repeated.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, please do not call an article from Encyclopedia Britannica a "dictionary article". And no, I don't approve of removing reference to the Hojo's Taira ancestry from this sentence, as that would likely lead to our readers drawing the same inaccurate conclusion you did that "the Taira clan" had been exterminated. The fact that it is also mentioned later is immaterial. Also, it would appear that the Hojo were in fact descended from the Ise branch specifically, so the issue is even muddier than I thought, and my wording ("extinguished") is also potentially problematic... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If the information is so important though, why isn't it mentioned in any general surveys of Japanese history? I eventually found some sources which might work as citations, but I'm concerned that these details are unnecessary. In order to find this information, one must consult awfully detailed history books. By contrast, Totman, Perez, Henshall, Farris, Weston, and Mason/Craiger simply say that the Taira clan was wiped out, without bothering to mention the genealogical detail that the Hojo had some Taira ancestry.CurtisNaito (talk)

Well, you included a random claim you made up. I tried to correct it based on other reliable sources that are less ambiguous than yours. I don't think you are the densest person on earth -- if your sources were ambiguous enough that you misinterpreted them, then us using the same ambiguous wording as your sources will result in other people misinterpreting us. Better be careful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why you think I made it up. I quoted the relevant passages to you, and they clearly said the same accurate information which I put into the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources said "Taira family". You changed it to "Taira clan". None of your sources said the Taira clan was wiped out, because it wasn't. You made that detail up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The article has been renominated to GA by the same nominator. This nominator is competent, has access to all the necessary sources, and is willing and able to work on the article; these are the three most important attributes a nominator can have and no one else can take those away from them. An ideal fourth attribute would be a willingness to work with others. I believe I see this willingness in this nominator, but occasionally the nominator has been accused of WP:IDHT. If this is true, will the nominator work on this, please.

The nominator has had a few challengers over the last several months. These challengers all care deeply about the article, and have access to many sources, but I don't think they have access to all the necessary sources that the nominator has. That means that, unless the challengers intend only to whine and complain, but instead if they wish to actually accomplish something, then it is important that they work with the nominator in order to get things done. It is true that these challengers have good ideas for the article and want it to succeed. However, I have observed these challengers become very frustrated with the nominator. The reasons are unimportant during this discussion, because I am talking about how they communicate: terribly disruptive, disparaging comments are pretty much the norm. I can tell you, it doesn't matter how frustrated you are, try to hold it back please, because no one is going to listen to you if you take that tone. I hope this message is getting through: If you want the nominator to listen, then communicate in a respectful manner. Please do not read this, become frustrated, then reply below with complaints about the nominator or me. Instead, please focus on yourself. Understand what I am saying. Try communicating with the nominator in a respectful way and see if that helps. It is possible to work together under mutually respectful conditions. Make it a rule to avoid being visibly upset with each other because that approach doesn't work. Remember: If you want the nominator to listen, then communicate in a respectful manner. Try it. Prhartcom (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom, why did you say the nominator is "competent" and "has access to the sources"? The former presents two problems: first that it assumes the nominator's repeated misquoting of sources is the result of deliberate misrepresentation rather than accidental misreading; second, it assumes that the nominators opponents will rely on ad hominem arguments rather than working to improve the article. As for sources, the nominator continues to assert that Totman is the best possible source for classical literature after being repeatedly told that Keene is much more reliable -- this indicates that he has not read, and is not prepared to read, the sources; if this is the case, whether or not he "has access" to them is irrelevant. He is very clearly putting the burden on us to build the article for him, as indicated directly above where he has refused to fix his own error (a case of him misinterpreting an earlier request to mention the Tale of the Heike in the article). He clearly intends to continue taking credit for the article on his userpage, despite doing none of the work.

Furthermore, your ignoring the nominator's slapping everyone else in the face by renominating the page immediately after the delisting -- clear continuation of the IDHT behaviour that started this mess -- is troubling. Why this article was immediately renominated despite the clear and continuing problems is an important point related to article content, and should be addressed first before assuming bad faith on the part of everyone but the nominator. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the information you wanted on The Tale of Heike, and I recently changed the text in a way to deal with your concerns. It's true that I cited Totman, but if it's mainly the date you're concerned about right now, the date was never mentioned in the article anyway.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom, I appreciate that you're trying to be a neutral moderator here. I think we have conflicting interpretation of the word "respect". Some of us have been borderline aggressive in our manner of communicating (which can be interpreted as "disrespectful"), but it's entirely possible to be horrifyingly disrespectful while being entirely polite. It would be tedious to go through the lengthy talk discussions (especially given the verbosity of some of the contributors), but I have to say that CurtisNaito has shown an disrespectful attitude throughout—just look at how many times I've tried to begin a discussion about what content to add and in what manner, only to have it drowned out. The discussions never took place despite the number of bytes each thread was filled with. "Exasperating" somehow fails to capture the level of exasperation I feel. CN displays an absolute contempt for "discussion".

Look at how many editors have raised concerns about the article's balance. This article is not a game of Katamari Damacy—we don't just slap in anything anyone suggests. What if I suggest Pokémon? Will that get slapped in without discussion of weight or context as well?

There are many, many other issues involved—like CN trying to claim credit for an article that is mostly (almost entirely) the work of others.

There is NO DEADLINE for this or any other article. Let's stop rushing to get this very long and very important article to GA and focus on quality. Once it meets the quality it needs it can be renominated—if that's ten years from now, so be it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's partly because I had already added everything to the article which I had thought was necessary before the good article review had taken place. Since I had already added everything which I thought was important, I figured that one of the main things left to do was to find out what other people thought was important and then add it in order to complete the article. Therefore, I was just waiting for input from others. If you think anything should be added or deleted from the article, you should mention that. I can either carry out your suggestions immediately, or first wait to see if anyone objects. For the record, no one has openly objected to the inclusion of any specific topic I have added. For instance, you and TH1980 suggested including the 1964 Olympics, and while I don't know if a lot of others agreed, at very least no one objected to the inclusion of this topic.

I don't know how long it will take to bring the article to good article status, but I am aiming to do it as soon as feasible. We don't necessarily have to rush, but I do want it to be reviewed as many times as necessary to bring up its level of quality.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you intend to continue to avoid all attempts at discussion, and are not in the least concerned with balance and weight. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wait I totally missed this. It's completely out of line to say that the nominator has access to better sources than the rest of us for the following reason: when asked to expand the article to cover particular topics, the nominator didn't look for the best sources on those topics and summarize them appropriately; he took whatever happened to be written about those topics in the insufficient sources he had, and wrote these random factoids into the article, even when the inclusion of very specific information had been requested (the Heike developed from earlier setsuwa literature, Yoshitsune was a "fallen hero", Shunzei and Teika revitalized waka poetry after it was first popularized by Zen monks in the late fourteenth century, etc.); other users then had to correct these problems based on superior sources to which the nominator apparently does not have access. Saying that the nominator is best-qualified to save this article because he has access to the best sources is completely wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what one sees as being the best sources. The majority of people making suggestions did not explicitly tell me which sources they wanted me to us. From my perspective, the best sources for writing a general overview of Japanese history are books which themselves are general overviews. Using survey histories as sources increases our chance of only including the most pertinent information, rather than including excessive or unnecessary details which the more specialized sources have in abundance. In fact, John Carter was suggesting earlier that we use encyclopedia and dictionary overviews of Japanese history as our main reference for information, including the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, and in that case the material which we would include would be even more restrictive. Survey histories by expert historians such as Totman and Henshall are reliable sources and they include only the most important details.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Expert historians of what? None of them serm to be classical literature scholars, and while they don't fail to mention Yoshitsune, Teika or the Heike, the details you chose to derive from them were either radically inaccurate (the dating of Teika and his father) or super-obscure, irrelevant factoids (the Heike and other gunkimono derived from early setsuwa literature). The inaccuracies were not the fault of Henshall et al -- you misread their bare-bones, ambiguous descriptions and didn't verify them against clearer sources -- but it is nevertheless true that your lack of access to the best sources (most of which aren't in English anyway) has hindered you from improving the article. And while you weren't explicitly told which sources to use, you were explicitly told what information to add; when you could not locate this information in your limited sources, you added different information rather than finding more appropriate sources. I think you should limit your edits to providing quotations from Totman, Henshall and the others that verify what's already there. The rest of us can then check that these quotes match not only what is in the article but what is in other equally reliable or more reliable sources on the individual topics. Your doing this in the section immediately above was most helpful -- please keep it up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I really have to concur with Hijiri on this one. CurtisNaito just slapped the battleship Yamato in a random section as a vague factoid "... Was sent on a mission without enough fuel to return to Japan [but was intercepted]" when the ship was actually on its way to Okinawa and should've been mentioned with the Battle of Okinawa. And is that source you added one of these "survey histories" or the general histories? Either way it was an inadequate description that I have fixed (although I should add a better source).

@CurtisNaito: as I've said once before, use these general histories as a guide and use more specific sources for the actual text. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The battleship Yamato was sunk well before reaching Okinawa, so we didn't necessarily have to include it as part of the battle. None of the general histories I consulted mentioned the battleship, so in this case I was forced to use more specific sources. My goal was to mention the battleship in a part of the article where it would not seem out of place and tacked on. It was mentioned in the article that the Japanese Navy was resorting to kamikaze tactics by 1944. In other words, the Navy was becoming desperate. This seemed like a good place to mention that the very next year the Navy sent Yamato on a mission without enough fuel to return to Japan.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying, Curtis, is that you agree with me and Sturmgewehr88 that your sources are inadequate and you're not willing to use better sources constructively? Because that's what the above looks like to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't know of anyone who says that Totman, Henshall, and the other books that I am using are poor sources. My personal opinion was that this article should not delve into many topics which are not important enough to be mentioned in general overviews of Japanese history. Therefore, my personal opinion was that we should not mention the battleship Yamato, because it is not important enough to be included in most general histories. However, because it was explicitly requested of me to add in information on the battleship Yamato, I decided that in this case I would delve into more detailed sources in order to ensure all requests from other users were included.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said Totman or Henshall were "poor sources". I said they were inadequate for the information that needed to be added to this article. However, I can't be completely sure of that. I have not read them, and know only what you have selectively quoted for me. The fact that your quotes and other actions have indicated quite clearly that you do not understand these books indicates that perhaps they are sufficient but you have been quoting the wrong passages by accident. If this is the case, then I was wrong in my claim of them being "inadequate", and I apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And apparently the Ryukyu Kingdom, the Battle of Okinawa, and the 1972 Reversion are also "not important enough to be included in most general histories" since there was no mention of them until I brought them up/added them myself. And Yamato was about 100–200 miles SW of Kyushu when it was intercepted, well within the Northern Ryukyu Islands and about halfway to Okinawa. The planes that sank Yamato came from the US fleet surrounding Okinawa. The ship was supposed to be beached on Okinawa. It is obviously tied to the battle. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A couple of those topics were mentioned in the overview histories, but keep in mind that even the overview histories are 400-800 pages in length, containing vastly more material than what we could put into the article. I had to select the topics which seemed most important to me, though after I had selected these topics, I openly asked for more suggestions on other ways to expand the article. If you have any more ideas on how to expand the article, I'm open to suggestions, though as I said, my preferred topics are those which are mentioned in one-volume overview histories and I am less favorable to details which are only discussed in specialized works. The place where I had initially mentioned the battleship Yamato made topical sense, because the previous sentence dealt with the desperate tactics of the Japanese Navy. It wasn't in strictly chronological order, but your version also is not in strictly chronological order, because you put the information at the end of the section on the battle when in fact the Yamato was sunk some distance from Okinawa just as the battle was starting, and not after it. At any rate, either version is acceptable.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help to take a look at some other-language versions of the article for organizational tips? The Spanish version (an FA) for example opens with a periodization table, as do a number of books I've flipped through. They also separate out the governemet systems into a separate section. What does everyone think of these ideas? What about separating out certain aspects of history into different sections (governement, social organization, arts, economy ...)? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I love that idea. es.wiki's inclusion of a breakdown of the "Kofun period" is also much better than ours, in that they actually explain the divide between historians/archaeologists, the fact that Asuka/Hakuhou are occasionally considered subperiods (read: their main periodization table neglects these, but they are at least wikilinked somewhere in the article body). Their articles is much longer (24,000>10,000), though... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not suggesting a translation, just looking for tips—what did they include, what did they gloss over, and what can we learn from that that can be applied to our article? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not totally bought on this; sure look at what they included for ideas, but lets not try to overhaul the article (again). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

In the past there was a periodization chart at the end of the article, but I didn't feel it was necessary because it used the same periodization as the one which the article was already organized by. It seemed like it was just a repetition of the article's table of contents. I think it would be difficult to organize the article both by period and by topic. I think the only good way of doing that would be to subdivide each period into political/economic/cultural sections, though some of the time periods which the article currently uses like the Nara period are probably not lengthy enough to warrant division into subcategories.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would be so hard if we separated out the socio-political history from other histories. We don't see much about what changes the non-ruling classes went through—what was life like for them? We learn that only two percent of the population could vote in the Meiji period. When did that change? Was it gradual, did it happen in clearly-defined steps, or did it not change until post-war universal suffrage? What about things like Slavery in Japan, Burakumin, status of women (who have traditionally been subservient to men, yet were allowed to own property, unlike in the West). How was society divided before the Tokugawas introduced the four occupations? This might sound like a lot, but a lot of it can be summed up quite briefly, and we really have quite a bit of room: the Manhattan Project is an FA that surpasses 100kb of readable text (somehow this article has bounced back up to 59kb, but I can see a lot of that is due to the prose and other cruft).

As for periodization, I think it would be good to accompany such a table (if a table were included) with some brief commentary (unsettled issues, disputes, alternate interpretations). A brief word on the development of Japanaese historiography would be a nice addition. We probably also want to mention that the socio-political periodizations don't always correspond to other periodizations: for instance, Azuchi–Momoyama is considered to have ended about 1600 from a socio-political perspective, but is considered to end at about 1615 from an art perspective. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The burakumin are mentioned in the article, and the fact that universal suffrage was introduced during the Taisho period is also mentioned. Thus, many of the things you have discussed above are possibly more a matter of rearranging existing text than adding new text. I could add some information on the role of women though.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Burakumin are mentioned with the slimmest of context, given they are "the largest minority group in Japan". We're introduced to them as being outside the four occupations that were established by the Tokugawas, as if they came into existence at that point. The article has not answered my question about how democracy developed: you're confusing universal male suffrage with universal suffrage. How did it get from 2% to universal suffrage? Gradually, in steps, suddenly? These things would be best developed in a section on social history, rather than embedded as contextless factoids in the main narrative. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Great article (I am guessing). I notice they have a Cultura section in the Período Edo, which seems a good idea. zzz (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As the article stands right now, the word "shogunate" is introduced without comment and without indicating that it means "bakufu", the term introduced the sentence before. "Shogun" isn't introduced until two paragraphs later. This needs to be thought through carefully—the writing is confused and is not taking the reader into account. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It depends whether you wanna count the intro, but I see your point. A bigger problem as I see it, though, is that I asked CurtisNaito to add a reference to Sakanoue no Tamuramaro, the first seii-taishougun, and he completely missed the point by using the translation "General". I'm sure he will again say, despite our repeatedly telling him to stop, that "the three or four books I arbitrarily decided would be this article's principal sources don't make this connection", but that's why we should be using other sources like Sansom, who I'm 80% certain said this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You didn't tell me that you wanted the article to mention that he was the first person granted the title of seii-taishougun. The Cambridge History of Japan is fairly detailed but it did not mention this as being significant. However, I found another book which does refer to this.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Great. Then don't use that book. And I most certainly did. The fact that you didn't ask me for clarification before inserting the wrong information and bragging about it says a lot. By the way, did you see Prhartcom's proposal on ANI? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you just said to include Sakanoue no Tamuramaro, and then later mentioned that an overview history book ought to mention him both by name and rank, though the Cambridge History is a good but lengthy history of Japan and it didn't mention him being the first person with the title of seii-taishougun. I inserted the information in the way you advised.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for my vagueness. I assumed you would take me saying that X should be in the article you would either ask the reason or try to figure out the reason. I didn't assume you would just add some random factoid that you happened across in some random book you Googled. Would you like me to start assuming that? It probably wouldn't be an AGF violation given how many times you've already done it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well all you said was that it should be included, without saying in what way, and it seemed to me that a reputable source like the Cambridge History would mention him in its article text in a way fitting enough to include in the Wikipedia article. If you had wanted such a specific factoid, it would have been preferable if you had told me in advance instead of just giving me his name.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I stopped by the library during lunch to grab Sansom to find it's missing (I imagine just mis-shelved—they're terrible about that here). I'm pretty sure they have it at the Prefectural library, so one of these days I'll try to stop through there. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)