Talk:Kamakura period

Ctrl-F "genpei"... no matches?!

This article literally does not even mention the Genpei War, which is the whole reason the Kamakura period began. Talk about a major lack of historical perspective! Can someone please expand this to talk about the beginnings of the period and what it meant? This was the period that came after the end of the Heian Era, and therefore the end of Japan's classical era. This is a big deal! Xezlec (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edo Japan is NOT part of the so-called feudal period.

Please change the heading: the "feudal period" lasted until the country gradually became unified under Tokugawa Ieyasu (after the Battle of Sekigahara c. 1600)--not, as stated, until the Meiji Restoration!

You're right that scholarship today generally refers to the Edo period as "early modern" and the medieval period as ending around 1600. However, many aspects of Edo period society, from the relationship between lords and peasants to the relationship between lords and the shogun, to the very fact that we use words like lords, castles, and domains in this period, show significantly feudal features. It was not until the Meiji Restoration that all things comparable to a "feudal" society - peasantry, feudal domains, lords, a sword-wielding warrior class - were eliminated. LordAmeth 23:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections on Buddhism section

There are a number of errors in the Buddhism section I had to correct. Contrary to popular belief, the earlier schools of Buddhism never really lost power as the new Kamakura schools emerged, but the newer schools did gain even wider following. Recent research shows that even the older Buddhist schools experienced some revival during this time as they cross-pollenated ideas with the newer schools.

I also edited the summary of each school of Buddhism. It was factually incorrect and used Christian terminology (prayer) where Buddhist terminology (chanting or recitation) would have been more correct. I also changed the list to focus on the founders, who were all ex-Tendai monks, rather than attempting to explain the new schools. Readers can click on the subsequent links if they want more info. Ph0kin 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is an archived debate.

There is extensive overlap between this article and Kamakura shogunate and I feel that if the redundancies were removed, the resulting smaller Kamakura shogunate article could not stand alone in its present state. I therefore propose to merge it into here, "Kamakura period" being the broader theme. Steipe (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merger. While there is extensive overlap, the topics are quite distinct and worthy of separate articles. The article on the shogunate should focus on the institutions of the Kamakura government, while the article on the period should relegate that topic to the daughter article and serve as an umbrella article on culture, economy, and the political and institutional history of the provinces as well as the Court (i.e. anything but the shogunate). We should aim for separate articles on Kamakura (period, shogunate), Muromachi (period, shogunate) and Edo (period, shogunate). Editing can separate the coverage as appropriate. Fg2 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Fg2. Better improve the Kamakura Shogunate article than merge it with the Kamakura period article. I will try to improve the article soon. urashimataro (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Fg2. --Tenmei (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a month, this discussion is concluded with the result no merger. Fg2 (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jomon period

From the Wikipedia entry for the Jomon period: 

The Jōmon is the time in Prehistoric Japan from about 16,500 years ago to about 2,300 years ago...

However, the Wikipedia entry for the History of Japan indicates: 

The Jōmon period of prehistoric Japan spans from about 12,000 BC[6] (in some cases dates as early as 14,500 BC are given[7]) to about 800 BC...

☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flourishing of Buddhism

For many years this article has been tagged for a lack of citations. I'd like to start addressing this by adding sources to the "Flourishing of Buddhism" section. I am going to start with some of the authors contributing to "Revisioning Kamakura Buddhism" edited by Richard K. Payne. Hopefully other editors will chip in when the topics goes beyond my expertise.BrandenburgG (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Two new sects, Jōdo-shū and Zen, dominated the period"

The current article states in the Flourishing of Buddhism section: "Two new sects, Jōdo-shū and Zen, dominated the period." There is no citation here and my research is revealing much more detailed and nuanced conclusions. I will try to improve and cite as I revise.BrandenburgG (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please review and comment. I largely followed the Cambridge Encyclopedia article and divided the subsection into two sub-subsections (kyu Bukkyu and shin Bukkyu). I think this organizational schema works well. Hopefully other editors will expand.BrandenburgG (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition and flow

I was able to add references to the "Flourishing of Buddhism" subsection although a few lines still need citation. The lead to the section and "Old Buddhism" still need a rewrite. There is repetition and an awkward flow. Perhaps an editor with fresh eyes can take a look. Otherwise I will address at some point in the future. BrandenburgG (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flourishing of Buddhism

As currently written, the content of this subsection does not match the title "Flourishing of Buddhism." Rather, the content refers much more to "The Expansion of Buddhist Teachings." Please feel free to revert or engage in further discussion or make a suggestoin for another tile.BrandenburgG (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamakura_period&oldid=1212597768"