Curly Turkey (talk | contribs) Undid revision 686768399 by CurtisNaito (talk) this is your last warning, CurtisNaito. The article is not ready, and you will not renominate it until it is. |
CurtisNaito (talk | contribs) It will take considerable for someone to pick this up. Please, let's improve the article and then eventually see what the person who picks the article up wants us to do. |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{GA nominee|03:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:CurtisNaito|CurtisNaito]] ([[User talk:CurtisNaito|talk]])|page=2|subtopic=World history|status=|note=}} |
|||
{{Article history |
{{Article history |
||
| action1 = GAN |
| action1 = GAN |
Revision as of 05:17, 21 October 2015
History of Japan was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Restructuring
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
- Jomon
- Yayoi
- Asuka
- Kofun
- Nara
- Heian
- Kamakura
- Muromachi & Azuchi-Momoyama (because the latter is short and doesn't fit with Edo)
- Edo
- Meiji
- Taisho
- Showa
- Heisei
Events
- Genpei Wars
- Meiji Restoration
- Pacific War
- Sino-Japanese War
- Russo-Japanese War
People
- Toyotomi, Nobunaga, Tokugawa
- Emperors (in general); we should probably link to a list somewhere as well
- Murasaki Shikibu
- Sei Shonagon
- Fujiwara clan
- Takeda Shingen
- Miyamoto Musashi
- Yoshitsune
- Minamoto and Taira clans
- Basho
- Natsume Soseki
- Murakami Haruki
- Edogawa Rampo
- Commodore Perry
- Kurosawa
- Mizoguchi Kenji
Notable things to mention in context
- Yasukuni
- Samurai/bushido
- Hagakure
- Rise of literature in Heian period
- Mass publishing in Edo
- Modern pop culture, especially internationally known authors, artists, anime, manga, video games, Vocaloid, etc.
- Daimyo/clans/crests
- Tale of Genji
- Tale of the Heike
- Manyoshu, Kokin Wakashu (see Japanese poetry article)
- Nihongi
- Bakufu
- Prefectural system
- Political systems
- Industrialization
- Economics
- JSDF
- Castles
- Japanese calendrical system (there's an article on this, but it's clunky)
- Poetry (tanka, waka, haiku, etc.)
- Battleship Yamato (the real one)
- Development of chounin
- Geisha
- Yoshiwara
- Major cities through history
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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, 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 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, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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:
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
"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)
- Does the source support that wording? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:46, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
"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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
"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)
You have to be fucking kidding me—can an admin help, please?
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)
- 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)