Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:22, 3 September 2015

History of Japan has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 25, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Japan: History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 09:00, December 29, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the History task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Archaeology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

first paragraph opening

Why has the first paragraph of the lead section been deleted? 86.56.64.236 (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the problem. I restored the first paragraph which somehow got garbled. Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the IP comment above regarding the first paragraph, does anyone think it might be overlinked? For example, these chunks of links added seems kind of overkill, doesn't it? Keiiri (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I dont think thats overkill. Those are all central and important periods/key words (warring states, unification, tokugawa, invasion manchuria, pearl harbor, atomic boming, surrender, occupation, new constitution). Overkill would be linking every second noun or something like that, or linking words that have no direct connection to the article or japanese history (navy, august, victory, economy, engineering, etc.). 141.76.23.127 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yea, you're right. Just thought I'd ask. Keiiri (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the second paragraph of the lead section, the following sentence:

After a long period of civil war Tokugawa Ieyasu completed the unification of Japan and was appointed shogun by the emperor in 1603.

should have a comma inserted after the intial clause (i.e. between period of civil war and Tokugawa Ieyasu) and thus should read:

After a long period of civil war, Tokugawa Ieyasu completed the unification of Japan and was appointed shogun by the emperor in 1603. Oslyman (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Too long

I think this article is technically too long in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. Misplaced Pages policy states that articles should be between "4,000 to 10,000 words" of "readable prose", but this article is almost 15,000 words. I'm aware that this is a huge subject to cover, but there's no doubt that details from this article can be easily spun off into its thousands of sub-articles so there is really no reason why we should exceed 10,000 words here. Incidentally, the article History of Korea is only 7,200 words long and it explicitly has a message on its talk page warning users that it is "already too long".

Though it will he challenging to determine what material should be kept and what should be left out, I think there are certainly a couple of clear areas where the current article lacks focus. For instance, "the rise of the progressive movement" was a fleeting phenomenon that only lasted about five years and shouldn't have a whole section to itself. I also don't think that "historiography of modern Japan" serves much purpose, as it doesn't deal with a subject normally discussed in general overviews of Japanese history.

Apart from the readable prose, I think we could also stand to delete the periodization tacked onto the end of the article which is almost identical to the periodization already used in the body of the article and is therefore redundant. After that, the current article includes a lengthy explanation of regnal years even though the majority of the article does not mention regnal years and is not organized on the basis of them. This material can be safely cut and instead discussed in other articles.

I propose that the article try to focus on only the most pertinent events based on books which, like this article, attempt to present a broad overview of the most significant trends and events of Japanese history. This article could use a full re-write anyway, since apparently the current version "incorporates public domain material from websites or documents", which is probably not the ideal situation.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Article should not be citing Jared Diamond

See here for a full discussion. Diamond is not known for his knowledge of Japanese pre-history. The editorial piece in question appeared in a popular magazine. It doesn't cite its sources, so we can't tell whether Diamond got his information from reliable sources on Japanese archaeology and early history or hack authors. But given the demonstrated errors in his coverage of, say, the Horserider Theory, we can't take his word for it.

Where better sources can be found, they should replace the Diamond editorial. Where no better sources can be found, we can only assume Diamond misinterpreted his primary or (more likely, as I don't think Diamond reads Japanese) secondary sources, and therefore cannot include the information.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete the source. Diamond's piece appears to be a readable and well-researched summary of the scholarly consensus on the matter. I don't think anyone has demonstrated any inaccuracies in the work.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Can you provide some evidence that it is a readable and well-researched summary of the scholarly consensus on everything he is being cited as saying? (You say "the matter", but there is no "the matter" -- I don't think we should be citing him in any of the five locations we currently cite him.)

I demonstrated a particular rather glaring inaccuracy in the article almost a year ago, as described and linked above: his description of the horserider theory (騎馬民族説) does not resemble the actual horserider theory (the theory does not say "they weren't Korean"), and he presents it as one of four roughly equal theories embraced by Japanese scholarship even though it is in fact fringe in Japan as elsewhere. Given that our article currently cites Diamond for, among other things, a claim that most scholars believe the Yayoi period was instigated by continental invaders, these flubs are exceptionally problematic.

The bigger problem (as pointed out to you on the AFD) is this: Diamond sets himself up in opposition to "Japanese scholarship". The simple fact is that the majority of scholars studying the area of Japanese prehistory and early history are Japanese, so either Diamond is wrong in asserting that Japanese scholarship disagrees with him, or he is not representative of the scholarly consensus. Dismissing Japanese scholarship because it comes from Japanese people, even if it is based on WP:RSUE, is out of the question.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with CurtisNaito and reverted the erasures by Hijiri 88. Diamond is a famous scholar. We do not want to erase the sources actually used by Wiki editors. Rjensen (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

See above. Diamond's being "famous" is a red herring. Bart Ehrman and Kenneth Miller are both also famous scholars -- probably more famous than Diamond -- but what they think about early Japanese history is irrelevant. Scholars in unrelated fields are not reliable sources. I don't understand your last sentence: what does "the sources actually used by Wiki editors" mean? By "actually" do you mean French "actuellement" or some such? Because "previous Misplaced Pages editors used this source and it is here now -- you aren't allowed remove it" is not a policy argument. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I still favor leaving the source in. Diamond's article deals specifically with the important subject of Japanese ethnogenesis, and there is no evidence to suggest any of the details are factually incorrect or even outside of mainstream scholarship.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

When a Wiki editors makes the statement ABC and cites source D for it, the whole ABCD is a unit. Do not erase ABCD. If there are BETTER ideas they should be added. Rjensen (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: What about the evidence I already presented that he is wrong about the horserider theory, both in what the theory states and in who considers it viable? The fact is that Diamond himself says that he is on the fringe of scholarship in his views by stating that he disagrees with the view "most popular in Japan" and he disagrees with another theory that "appeals to many modern Japanese". He doesn't even say "historians generally believe" as the article cites him -- he leaves the question open, while presenting a very tilted view of the evidence and finally stating his own opinion directly. And "historians generally believe" is anachronistic for discussing Japanese ethnogenesis: there are extremely limited historical documents for this period and none of the documents we do have support any of the theories Diamond talks about. The scholars who should be forming a consensus on these issues are archaeologists.

@Rjensen: If ABC is based on D, and D is an unreliable source, then D should be removed and a better source should be requested. (This is what I tried to do before you reverted me -- your accusing me of "erasing ABCD" is entirely off-topic.) If no other source can be found, then the statement ABC should be removed as unsourced and inaccurate.

At this impasse, I think it's unlikely the three of us can agree. Should we take this to RSN? Or would the two of you prefer to start an RFC? Either way, I suggest we work together to form a neutrally-worded summary of the dispute.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

He never says that he endorses one or another version of the popular horserider theory. He only says that some other historians have advocated it. The point of his article is that the latest and best research leaves little doubt that modern-day Japanese people are principally descended from Korean migrants who immigrated to Japan or invaded Japan over the course of the Yayoi Period. Henshall's book is another reliable source which says the same thing, though I also cited Diamond for a few other general statistics and archeological data on the period.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

if D is an unreliable source, then D should be removed" --- and who are you to say the famous scholar is unreliable? Rjensen (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur that a reliable source should be provided stating that Diamond's article is not, despite all appearances, a reliable source on this subject. We shouldn't be trying to discredit leading scholars with original research alone.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: That turns Misplaced Pages policy on its head. The WP:BURDEN is on the party wishing to use the source and include the information from the source to demonstrate that it is reliable. Diamond, who does not speak either Japanese or Korean, who has no specialist training in Japanese history or archaeology, and who wrote a single, non-scholarly article for a popular magazine, should be treated as unreliable by default. You need to provide a reliable source written by a respected Japanologist that says Diamond is a reliable source, not the other way around. If Diamond had published his article in a scholarly journal, said journal would likely welcome rebuttals from other scholars, and other scholars would be lining up to get their rebuttals published: the fact that he is outside the field and published a non-scholarly article in a popular magazine means that the odds of any legitimate specialist in the area having even noticed the article are incredibly low. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If a better source can be found, then it should be added. Vivexdino (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: Sorry for being unclear. I didn't mean to say he endorsed one or another version of the popular horserider theory. I meant to say he had completely misunderstood the horserider theory, because he is not a specialist in Japanese history or archaeology. Or archaeology or history in general. He is a geographer who has written some popular books and articles on fields he has not formally studied. If you think that "the latest and best research leaves little doubt that modern-day Japanese people are principally descended from Korean migrants who immigrated to Japan or invaded Japan over the course of the Yayoi Period", then you need to cite a reliable source written by a reputable scholar in the field that actually says so. Diamond is far outside the relevant field, and he doesn't even cite his sources, making his article completely useless to us. For just one of the much better sources that contradicts Diamond, see my reply to Vivexdino below.

@Rjensen: I am someone who knows more about Japanese history and archaeology than Diamond. Because he is a professional geographer who occasionally (often?) writes books and articles in fields far-removed from his own. His "fame" is irrelevant.

@Vivexdino: Strictly speaking, the policy states that if a source is unreliable it should not be used, and material that can only be sourced to unreliable sources should not be included in Misplaced Pages. Adding better sources is necessary in order to keep the information under discussion, but is not a prerequisite to removing unreliable information sourced to clearly unreliable sources. If what you mean is that I need a better source that directly contradicts Diamond and demonstrates him to be an unreliable source, the AFD detailed that. Gary Ledyard's 1970 article is "fringe" insofar as Ledyard considered the horserider theory to be a viable option, but his article discussing the history and nature of the theory is held in high regard by other scholars. Donald Keene, for instance, wrote the definitive history of Japanese literature in English, and in it (Keene 1999 : 58, N63) he described Ledyard's article as "an up-to-date, brilliantly reasoned study of this period". (The text to which the note was attached was "The emperor also received gifts from the kinf of Kudara (Paekche), another Korean kingdom. Ōjin asked this king for a learned man, and the king sent Wani-kishi, along with ten volumes of the Analects of Confucius and the one volume of the Thousand Character Classic, marking the beginning of literacy in Japan. Other immigrants from Korea included a blacksmith, a weaver, and a sake brewer. This account probably should not be accepted literally, but it indicates that Ōjin's reign was distinguished by the cultural influences that reached Japan from the Asian continent, especially Korea.") And Ledyard gives a completely contradictory account of the horserider theory to Diamond, and several other details that contradict Diamond.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC) (Edited: 02:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC))

Additionally, while it is in a sense an argument from silence, don't you think that if all the evidence had led to a scholarly consensus that the majority of the Japanese population was descended from Korean immigrants around the start of the western era, that such evidence (or the fact of such a view being widespread among modern scholars)would be discussed or even hinted at somewhere in, say, Farris's 1996 article "Ancient Japan's Korean Connection"? I read the article somewhat carelessly some months ago, so I'm sorry if I have forgotten it in all of its minutiae, but I don't think such a point is made anywhere. I do recall that he outright rejected Egami's horserider theory, which seems to be what is being talked about when our article says "Today historians generally believe that the Yayoi culture was established by invaders from the Asian mainland who conquered the native Jōmon people." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC) (Edited: 03:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC))

I wouldn't say that Diamond confirms or refutes Ledyard. Diamond's account of a Korean migration to Japan is less specific whereas Ledyard goes into all the alleged details about how Ojin and his horseriders conquered Japan. Diamond just sets out in his essay to explain the most recent scholarly consensus on the issue. His article is more detailed than the other cited source, Henshall, who says the same thing. Certainly Diamond's article is reliable, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be cited here. Ledyard's horserider theory does remain controversial, so I don't want to discuss in too much in this article. However, the fact that the Yayoi culture was established by invaders from the Asian mainland is widely believed even by most scholars who reject the horserider theory.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: You cite Diamond as saying that the consensus among historians is that Yayoi culture was brought by invaders from the continent. The Diamond piece is long and I don't have the time to read it in detail again -- could you quote the specific passage where he says this? As far as I am aware, the "invader" theory is the same as the "horserider" theory of Egami/Ledyard. Diamond doesn't appear to know about the horserider theory, since he says that it is popular in Japan (presumably he means "among Japanese scholars") but that it rejects the possibility that these invaders came from the Korean peninsula (something Ledyard specifically contradicts Diamond on). The word "invaders" appears three times in the Diamond piece, and two of those in the same paragraph. In that paragraph, he explicitly says "I suspect", clearly indicating that what he is doing is not summarizing the scholarly consensus, but rather giving his own (uninformed -- he doesn't know Ainu, Korean, Japanese or any other language involved) opinion of which languages are related to which.

You say that Diamond "sets out ... to explain the most recent scholarly consensus on the issue" -- the reputable Japanologist Farris did the same two years earlier in the article I cited above, and (assuming Diamond actually says what you cite him as saying in the article) Diamond accepts the "invaders" theory that Farris not only rejects but explicitly states has been rejected by the majority of scholars in both Japan and Korea. Where are you getting that Diamond set out out to explain the scholarly consensus? "consensus" isn't mentioned once, and "scholar" appears only once in his essay, in a sentence claiming that "most scholars" believe the Japanese language to be an isolated member of the Altaic family. I don't want to get into the mudhole of the origins of the Japanese language, and it is almost certainly beyond the scope of our article, but this seems like an oversimplification.

Diamond is more detailed than Henshall? Henshall's book is over 300 pages, is it not?

You say "Ledyard's horserider theory" remains controversial and you don't want to discuss it in the article, but isn't that exactly what "historians generally believe that the Yayoi culture was established by invaders from the Asian mainland who conquered the native Jōmon people" means? Can you provide some evidence that this is widely believed by scholars? I just noticed that the relevant pages of Henshall are available in the GBooks preview -- Henshall doesn't say anything on pages 11-15 about invaders coming in and replacing the native Jomon people. Page 12 directly contradicts the statement that the majority of historians believe Japan was conquered by invaders from the mainland -- it says that the one that is certain is that newcomers arrived probably in northern Kyushu and changed Jomon Japan forever, but that beyond that the nature and scale of the immigration are not agreed upon among scholars. Also, you are aware that "Ledyard's horserider theory" actually comes from Egami, and Ledyard only expanded on it, right?

@TH1980: Please explain your flat revert of my latest edit. You changed "scholars" to "historians", removed two "dubious" tags on "Today scholars generally believe" and "invaders", and your edit summary read "There has been no consensus for this change, and Diamond is a trusted, reliable source I favor keeping". This is a red herring, since there was also no consensus for CurtisNaito's introduction of the current wording two weeks ago, and what does Diamond being a "trusted, reliable source you favor keeping" have to do with it? Diamond has nothing to do with my edit, since he doesn't mention "historians" except in conjunction with "archaeologists" (i.e., Diamond agrees with me that the question is outside the scope of history, which deals with written texts, of which we have next to none), his use of "invaders" is so vague as to be unusable, and is contradicted by Henshall, and he doesn't mention "most historians" or "most scholars" anywhere in relation to the "invader" theory anywhere.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, @CurtisNaito: can I ask how long it takes you to read a page of text? I ask because within seven minutes of me posting this, you were able to respond with this. It would normally take me the better part of seven minutes to type a response like that, let alone read the other person's comment carefully enough to respond, and that's besides the fact that I linked to a 20-page article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think scholars are virtually unanimous in saying that the Yayoi culture was sparked through migration/invasion from mainland Korea, but that doesn't mean they all endorse the horserider theory. Farris very briefly notes that he rejects the horserider theory, but he does not say whether or not he agrees that the Yayoi culture was brought about due to invaders from mainland Asia. His essay does not actually cover that issue because it starts the story around 400 AD, long after the start of the Yayoi period. Another essay cited in this article, "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan", explicitly rejects the theory that "horseriders" conquered Japan while still strongly affirming the Korean origins of the Yayoi culture. The horserider theory itself comes in many varieties including both those who affirm and reject the "Korean" origins of the invaders. As Henshall notes while introducing the Yayoi period, "Around 400 BC – or possibly even as early as 1000 BC, according to some scholars – Japan was effectively invaded. Immigrants arrived in number from the continent, immigrants different in appearance and culture from the Jomon people. They were lighter and taller, with narrower faces. Their culture included technology such as bronze and iron, and was also more rice-based than that in Japan." Diamond says, "We have seen that the combined evidence of archeology, physical anthropology, and genetics supports the transparent interpretation for how the distinctive-looking Ainu and the undistinctive-looking Japanese came to share Japan: the Ainu are descended from Japan’s original inhabitants and the Japanese are descended from more recent arrivals."CurtisNaito (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think scholars are virtually unanimous in saying that the Yayoi culture was sparked through migration/invasion from mainland Korea but that doesn't mean they all endorse the horserider theory. No, scholars are virtually unanimous in saying that the Yayoi culture was sparked through migration from the Asian mainland. Your own source specifically says that the scale and nature of this migration is a subject of debate, and only mentions "invaders" in the context of the horserider theory. Your latest revert restored the wording "historians generally believe that the Yayoi culture was established by invaders", something that is explicitly contradicted by the source you cite.

Farris very briefly notes that he rejects the horserider theory, but he does not say whether or not he agrees that the Yayoi culture was brought about due to invaders from mainland Asia. No, he doesn't note that he rejects the horserider theory: he notes that the majority of scholars in both Japan and Korea reject the horserider theory. If he thought that Japan was conquered by "invaders" from the Asian mainland and that modern Japanese were primarily descended from these "invaders", and that most scholars agreed, he would outright say so in an article entitled "Ancient Japan's Korean Connection". He does not.

His essay does not actually cover that issue because it starts the story around 400 AD, long after the start of the Yayoi period. Yes, you are essentially right on this point. The reason he started the story around 400 AD is because he is interested in summarizing the basic points on which a majority of scholars actually agree. Our article at present completely fails on this point, summarizing instead a Wikipedian's interpretation of what a geographer with no training in ancient Japan says, and calling it something most historians agree.

Another essay cited in this article, "Korean Contributions to Agriculture, Technology, and State Formation in Japan", explicitly rejects the theory that "horseriders" conquered Japan while still strongly affirming the Korean origins of the Yayoi culture. What exactly does this have to do with whether the majority of scholars agree that Yayoi culture was introduced by "invaders" from the mainland?

The horserider theory itself comes in many varieties including both those who affirm and reject the "Korean" origins of the invaders. As Henshall notes while introducing the Yayoi period, "Around 400 BC – or possibly even as early as 1000 BC, according to some scholars – Japan was effectively invaded. Immigrants arrived in number from the continent, immigrants different in appearance and culture from the Jomon people. They were lighter and taller, with narrower faces. Their culture included technology such as bronze and iron, and was also more rice-based than that in Japan." This quote is taken out of context. The actual statement of what the scholarly community agrees on is given in the following paragraph, where it says that the nature of the migration is uncertain. Calling it an "invasion", when even in the out-of-context quote above Henshall qualifies "invade" with "effectively". He uses the words "immigrants" and "immigration" throughout the rest of his discussion of the phenomenon.

Diamond says, "We have seen that the combined evidence of archeology, physical anthropology, and genetics supports the transparent interpretation for how the distinctive-looking Ainu and the undistinctive-looking Japanese came to share Japan: the Ainu are descended from Japan’s original inhabitants and the Japanese are descended from more recent arrivals." Where in this quote does Diamond say he summarized the scholarly consensus? You still have not answered any of my questions.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I answered all of your questions. The horserider theory may be controversial, but the fact that invaders from Asia sparked the Jomon-Yayoi transition is borne out by every source cited in this article and then some. I see no reason why Farris would not agree too, though it's not really relevant because in fact he never says whether he agrees or not, nor does he say whether or not other scholars agree or disagree. In Henshall's book he starts out by giving the basic facts, that Japan was invaded by new people from the mainland, and then he notes next that some of the specifics are open to question. However, we don't necessarily need to go into specifics here. Henshall and the large majority of others affirm that Japan was invaded by new people from the mainland at the start of the Yayoi period. Diamond says the same thing.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Answer the question, please. Where does Diamond say that he is summarizing the scholarly consensus? If he doesn't say that is what he is doing, why do you say it is what he is doing? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

He states that all recent evidence endorses the theory of a Yayoi era invasion of Japan. It's the same thing all the other sources cited also note. Henshall is referring to the same thing when he writes, "It was once felt possible that there was no real immigration at all and that gradual evolution could explain differences between Jomon and Yayoi. However, recent genetic research – in addition to obvious physical differences – confirms that immigration took place." Given the near universal popularity of this theory, I didn't think that we needed to discuss alternatives in this article. Still, if you know of a recent reliable source which argues that the Jomon-Yayoi transition was not caused by an invasion from mainland Asia, then I suppose it would okay to put that into the article as a one sentence counterpoint to the prevailing theory.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It is universally accepted that there was a migration, and it brought with technological and cultural innovations, and modern Japanese are descended at least in part from the migrants. Everything else is still (per Henshall p12) a matter of controversy among scholars. That includes the ideas of an "invasion", a migration of a scale where all subsequent generations of people on the archipelago are the "pure" descendants of the migrants, and so on. My rewriting of the sentence in question was an accurate representation of what Henshall says (I don't frankly care what a non-specialist tertiary source like Diamond says when specialists disagree). Your wording explicitly contradicts its source by saying "most historians believe an invasion took place. Please either (a) find a reputable source that says most scholars accept the invasion theory or (b) change the wording to accurately reflect what Henshall says.

Anyway, the above is separate from my concern about the use of the word "historians". The most relevant field of scholarship for the question of Japanese origins is not "history" but "archaeology" (and maybe linguistics). History deals with analysis of historical documents; when it comes to the period and region in question, no such (usable) documents exist. Can you at least consent, while discussion continues on the other issues, to me removing this anachronistic use of the word "historians"?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, "historians" is the most accurate term based on the sources mentioned by Henshall and Diamond, but since all historians are scholars anyway, I suppose I don't personally have much objection to that change. I don't see why the rest needs to be modified though. The current version is an accurate summary of the points Henshall is making. He says it is a fact that Japan was invaded by new peoples from mainland Asia at the start of the Yayoi period, citing dozens of historians for this information, and notes that new evidence leaves little doubt about the correctness of this idea, though of course he does still acknowledge that some of the specific details of the invasion remain open to interpretation within the academic community.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No, both the sources you cite (the good one and the useless one) use the words "archaeologists", "archaeology" and "archaeological" to describe the scholars who study this period of Japanese prehistory, the work they do, and the data they analyze. There is virtually no historical documentation of any kind. Historians reinterpret the extremely limited and problematic documents in light of the findings of the archaeologists.

"the rest needs to be modified" because it is directly contradicted by Henshall. How are you not seeing this? Where does he say it is a fact that Japan was invaded by new peoples from mainland Asia? He says "Around 400 BC ... Japan was effectively invaded. Immigrants arrived in number from the continent", and then immediately clarifies that the word "invasion" does not have broad acceptance among scholars: "There is great diversity of opinion over the nature and scale of this immigration, and even the motives and origins of the immigrants. The picture is confused, but what is clear is that newcomers arrived, very probably in northwest Kyūshū initially, and were to change Jōmon Japan forever. Genetically, in modern Japan 54 per cent of male lines and 66 per cent of female lines show Sino-Korean origins, reflecting this influx. In material terms, both Korean and Chinese artefacts are found at this time." Emphasis mine. Henshall clearly disagrees with your version of the sentence. Consider the following:

"There is great diversity of opinion over the nature and scale of this immigration, and even the motives and origins of the immigrants." The "invasion" theory is controversial: it is not accepted by "most scholars". For this reason, Henshall uses the words "immigrants" and "immigration" across the board.

"newcomers arrived, very probably in northwest Kyūshū initially" The reason I'm honing in on this is that I don't think either you or Diamond have ever visited Kyushu National Museum. Being a national museum, Kyushu National Museum is funded and operated by the Japanese government. And it devotes a great deal of its permanent exhibit to telling visitors about how Yayoi culture was brought to Japan by immigrants from the Asian continent. Immigrants, not "invaders". It is a lie that "the Japanese" don't like this theory, even if Jared Diamond doesn't want to believe it.

"Genetically, in modern Japan 54 per cent of male lines and 66 per cent of female lines show Sino-Korean origins, reflecting this influx." 54%-66%? Where did the other 34%-46% come from? I thought "the modern Japanese were descended from invaders from Korea". This may be technically true, but they are also descended from the earlier inhabitants of the archipelago. The immigrants interbred with the indigenous population. Because it was a gradual, and mostly peaceful, migration. Not an invasion. You will find that neither Henshall nor Farris nor Diamond (I can't believe I still have to talk about his essay...) say that there is evidence of large-scale conflict between the immigrants and locals, or of genocide of the locals on the part of the immigrants. That's because that wasn't what happened. That's why modern Japanese are not "pure blooded" descendants of the Sino-Korean "invaders".

"In material terms, both Korean and Chinese artefacts are found at this time." I believe you said ""historians" is the most accurate term based on the sources mentioned by Henshall and Diamond"? Is it "historians" or "archaeologists" who work with material evidence and artefacts?

Please address these issues individually. If you do not have specific responses to my arguments, and if you are not open to the improvement of this article, you are not using this talk page correctly.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I am not an expert on this issue. However I personally feel a feeling of strangeness that the description "Yayoi culture was established by invaders". If this is based on the Egami's horse rider theory, it should not described as if it is a fact. @Hijiri88: if you have other theory, with a reliable source, you can add it as an alternative theory. I don't think Diamond's theory is a sole theory of this controversial history. Please consider WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to these controversial claim.―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

@Phoenix7777: I think "invaders" is CurtisNaito's taking Diamond at his word, when Diamond himself is an unreliable tertiary source. As demonstrated above, Diamond misunderstand Egami's horse rider theory, in terms of what the theory states, and who buys into it, and why. I therefore think Diamond has (mistakenly, not through any malicious intent) merged the horse rider ("invader") theory in his mind with the idea of immigrants bringing in the new culture and technology that instigated the Yayoi period. Some variation on the latter idea has near-universal acceptance (including among Japanese, even conservative Japanese, scholars). But the idea that "invaders" "conquered" Japan and "replaced" the indigenous population has almost no support, especially if supporters of Egami's horse rider theory (which is essentially the same) are not included, since Diamond apparently considers them to be different and contradictory theories (Ctrl+F his article for the word "emphatically").

I don't need to provide another reliable source, because the outline I provided here is directly supported by CurtisNaito's source (Henshall, page 12). It is not supported by CurtisNaito's other source (Diamond) because said source is a fringe, tertiary source, and explicitly marks itself as its author's opinion rather than a summary of the scholarly consensus (like Henshall). Combining the two sources together and writing the sentence to say something that is not directly supported by either ("most scholars" does not appear in Diamond, and the rest does not appear in Henshall) is the very definition of WP:SYNTH, in my opinion.

Regarding ATTRIBUTEPOV: I am familiar with the concept. Look at how many times Donald Keene, Katagiri Yōichi and the like are named inline in my rewrites of the Ono no Komachi, Kenji Miyazawa and Ariwara no Narihira articles. But Keene and Katagiri are among the best and most reputable sources on those topics. They both held teaching positions in major universities, in the field of Japanese literature, at the time they wrote what they did. Who on earth is Jared Diamond, and why should he be named inline in our history of Japan article? Why not name Hijiri88, Phoenix7777 and CurtisNaito inline, while we are at it? The essay being cited is essentially an opinion piece, and was likely not subject to any oversight or editing by scholars experienced in Japanese archaeology, linguistics, history or any other such field. Similar to my posts on this talk page. But I am not a reputable expert in this area, and neither is Diamond. His opinions are his own, and are clearly not well-informed by scholarship.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC) (Edited: 12:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC))

For the record, neither Diamond nor Henshall say that they are advocating the horserider theory. However, both of them do say that there is indisputable evidence that the Yayoi culture was established through an invasion of mainland Japan by immigrants from the Asian mainland who were clearly distinct from native Japanese Jomon people. That is what is stated in the article, and that is the view of most scholars. No one has found anything wrong with Diamond's essay or the scholarly consensus it represents. Regarding Henshall, he starts by stating the basic facts, and then clarifies that some of the specific details are in dispute. As I already quoted above, Henshall's footnote on this issue leaves little doubt about what he considers the scholarly consensus to be. In most of your posts you are delving into extreme details which are not necessary for a general overview of Japanese history. Perhaps we could expand the sentences in question to include more details, but what is currently in the article is already clearly factually accurate and substantiated by the sources in question.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) For the record, neither Diamond nor Henshall say that they are advocating the horserider theory. That is correct. The reason for this is that Henshall presents a fairly neutral overview of what the scholarly consensus is, with coverage of minority theories that are still important -- he treats (p. 16) some form of the horse-rider theory as a reasonable possibility -- while Diamond doesn't know what he is talking about, rejecting "the horse-rider theory" as a fanciful idea proposed by conservative and Koryophobic Japanese scholars (again, Ctrl+F his article for the word "emphatically"); but he nonetheless takes on the most fanciful aspect of the horse-rider theory -- a large-scale invasion and total conquest of the Japanese Archipelago by continental (explicitly "Korean") "invaders" who completely demolished the indigenous population -- as a fact.

both of them do say that there is indisputable evidence that the Yayoi culture was established through an invasion Please tell me on which page does Henshall say that there is indisputable evidence of an invasion. I want an answer to this question. Why have you not answered yet?

invasion of mainland Japan No. Henshall explicitly says (p. 12, already quoted by me above) "northwest Kyūshū". It's a pedantic point, really. But you are still wrong.

That is what is stated in the article, and that is the view of most scholars. That is what is stated in the article, but only because every time someone changes what you wrote you revert, and insist that they establish "consensus" for their edits while your unilateral massive rewrites must be allowed go unchallenged. And it is not the view of most scholars: neither of your sources say so.

No one has found anything wrong with Diamond's essay Except for the fact that its author is not a specialist in this area or anything in the vicinity, he makes several already-demonstrated mistakes because he is getting his information from secondary sources he doesn't fully understand and tertiary sources that themselves likely are imperfect, and the article contains several unjustified assumptions of racist/xenophobic motivations on the part of Japanese scholars. Please actually address these issues. You keep ignoring everything I write, and then saying "no one has found anything wrong" -- because when people find things that are wrong you ignore them.

or the scholarly consensus it represents It does not represent the scholarly consensus. It represents Diamond's personal, layman's opinion. He himself states as much at several points in the article.

Regarding Henshall, he starts by stating the basic facts, and then clarifies that some of the specific details are in dispute. No. He is writing for a popular audience and was not careful enough with his words. He used the words "effectively invaded" once in his text, and three years later a Misplaced Pages editor ignored the use of the word "effectively" and extrapolated from this that "an invasion took place" is a "fact. That is not how proper interpretation of texts works. We are supposed to interpret the vague with reference to the clear, not the clear with reference to the vague: if he specifically says that the only universally-accepted facts are that a large-scale migration took place and that it had a lasting impact on Japanese civilization, you can't take an off-hand use of the phrase "effectively invaded" to extrapolate that Henshall states the near-unanimous view among scholars to be that an invasion took place.

As I already quoted above, Henshall's footnote on this issue leaves little doubt about what he considers the scholarly consensus to be. Did I miss something? Which quote? Which footnote? It looks to me like Henshall's book doesn't have footnotes. Do you mean his endnote? What page/endnote number? I'm really not sure what you're talking about at this point, and I have been putting far more effort into reading and carefully analyzing all of your posts and responding politely and carefully than you have apparently been doing with mine. I'm still waiting for answers to ... pretty much all of my questions, by the way.

In most of your posts you are delving into extreme details which are not necessary for a general overview of Japanese history. Why was the wording I provided here a problem? Answer my question, please. Don't try to tell me that adding 20 words is "extreme detail" when your preferred wording cites the opinion of one geographer and student of pre-Columbian civilization of the Americas as something "historians generally believe". If giving Diamond's opinion as though it was the scholarly consensus is the kind of "general overview" you want to provide, then I think virtually every good-faith Misplaced Pages editor would consider "extreme detail" to be preferable.

what is currently in the article is already clearly factually accurate and substantiated by the sources in question No, it is not. Please actually read my comments rather than just repeating the same talking-points over and over again. I have already explained why (1) Diamond is not a reliable source in general, and (2) the use of the word "invaders", and referring to a detailed description of what these "invaders" did as some kind of universal consensus, is not supported by Henshall. Please address these issues in your next response, or I will revert back to the better wording.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Some additional relevant quotes from the sources are as follows. "In modern times European farmers thereby replaced native Californian hunters, aboriginal Australians, and the San people of South Africa. Farmers who used stone tools similarly replaced hunters prehistorically throughout Europe, Southeast Asia, and Indonesia. Korean farmers of 400 b.c. would have enjoyed a much larger advantage over Jomon hunters because the Koreans already possessed iron tools and a highly developed form of intensive agriculture."(Diamond)

"In fact, the Jomon people bore considerable similarity to the present day Ainu of Hokkaido. This is not surprising, for studies by physical anthropologists confirm that the Ainu are unmistakably descended from Jomon people. This sets them apart from modern Japanese in the other main islands, who overall show greater descent from the Yayoi – though this is a matter of degree, since 43 per cent of males in Japan carry a Y chromosome related to Jomon genes... The Ainu are in effect the original Japanese. For many centuries the Yayoi-derived modern Japanese (known in this context as Yamato Japanese) were to deny this..."(Henshall)CurtisNaito (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is Diamond's opinion. But please cite a scholarly source written by a specialist in the area in question that agrees with him.

You just quoted another passage from Henshall that contradicts what you apparently want the article to say (that an "invasion" took place and that the Yayoi dominated and "replaced" the indigenous Jomon population). Immigrants came over and interbred with the local population. There is practically no evidence otherwise, which explains why no specialists believe otherwise.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I already clearly answered your questions, but I'll try to provide additional clarification. All the criticisms that have been made of Diamond are based on extremely flimsy original research. Diamond doesn't go into much detail on the horserider theory, but what he does say is not contradictory with many versions of the theory. Even Ledyard said that the first wave of immigrants were ethnic Japanese. I have already quoted Henshall and Diamond's discussion of the invasion many times, and there is no reason why the views of such prominent scholars should be denied.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you have not answered any of my questions. Please answer my questions. I am not here to chitchat with you about horse-riders. This talk page is meant to be for discussing improvements to the article. I have specific concerns about the state of the article. I tried to address these concerns by editing the article myself, and you and your cronies (one of whom has a history of hounding me) reverted me without explanation. Now I am trying to discuss on the talk page, and you are ignoring everything I say. This is edit-warring, and needs to stop. Hijiri 88 (聖 やや) 16:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think CurtisNaito has answered all of your questions if you listen. I concur with Rjensen and CurtisNaito that Jared Diamond is a reputable scholar in this field and I don't see any reason to tag the source.TH1980 (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

What you think has been noted. But your own comment indicates that you have either not read or not understood my questions -- despite my initial concern and the thread title, my concern is not only with whether Diamond is a "reputable scholar" in "this field". Two quick concerns with that, neither of which have yet been addressed:

According to whom is Diamond a "reputable scholar"? No other Japanologists ever cite him, and he appears to be a geographer, student of pre-Columbian civilization of the Americas, and popular author -- why do his opinions about Japanese origins count for anything?

What "this field" are you talking about? CurtisNaito has been calling the field "history", but in reality the relevant field is "archaeology", with maybe "linguistics" and some others tagged on -- the "historical" evidence is very bare-bones and needs to be creatively and very carefully interpreted in light of the archaeological evidence. Jared Diamond is a geographer and popular author who does not speak any of the languages of the region, so why is he a reputable scholar in whatever "this field" you are talking about?

But this is beside the point. Despite my initial concern and the thread title, my concern is not only with whether Diamond. Why is a migration of which Henshall says almost nothing is agreed upon by scholars being called an "invasion" when there is no evidence? We are in Mortimer Wheeler territory, here, people; except that in its day the "Aryan Invasion Theory" had a lot more support among legitimate scholars.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Assisting a user in edit-warring is unbecoming. I have been trying to discuss on the talk page, and have met only with dense dismissal of my concerns. I have presented CurtisNaito with questions about why the article is worded the way it is, and he has ignored me every single time I ask these questions. I am approaching 3RR right now, and so am not allowed to revert back, but the tags need to stay as long as consensus has not been established that the current wording and sources are acceptable. Also, this is a blatant and unfair assumption of bad faith. There is no "Deliberate harassment of Curtis" taking place. The article has serious problems. The GA review was a failure. I was merely pointing this out. If posting a comment on an already finished GA review is a violation of some guideline of which I am not aware, I apologize. But if not, then you have blanked another user's talk page comment, and should apologize to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Hijiri 88 and Phoenix7777. I'm not sure if the problem started after the major rewrite on August 15, but I guess a compromise could be noting that it is Diamond's views, or quoting from Diamond directly and then attributing the statements to him. Vivexdino (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Both the Jared Diamond citations and the problematic SYNTH wording of the sentence in question, were introduced by CurtisNaito on August 15. CurtisNaito has a somewhat checkered history of citing dubious sources and engaging in SYNTH in this topic area (and getting these past GA reviewers who by their own admission are unable to read the sources). I would be willing to work toward a compromise, though only if Diamond's credentials as a geographer and popular author are clarified inline, and CurtisNaito and Calvin999 cease their extremely aggressive hate campaign against me. Please keep article content disputes to the appropriate forums, people. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see anything wrong with saying, "According to Jared Diamond,... ", I guess that an be a compromise. Vivexdino (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Anybody quoting Jared Diamond (an extraordinary scholar several of whose works I have) on Japan or the Yayoi in particular, is either ignorant of contemporary scholarship of Japanese history, or in bad faith. The issue is simple: everything covered by a generalist like JD is covered amply in superb Japanese and Western scholarship, and anything I've seen cited by JD is either a simplification, wrong or dated. Stop the nonsense and familiarize yourselves with the scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is from a popular magazine, Diamond does not cite his sources, and it has been shown that the Jōmon/Yayoi transition isn't part of his field of study. His fame has no bearing on how reliable the article is. I'm fairly certain it fails WP:RS, at least in the context it's being used here. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

And now thanks to Nishidani replacing Diamond with much better sources, there is no point in carrying on this dispute. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with pretty much everything Nishidani says above. My problem is not with Diamond as a person. While I have not read his books, I did see one of the documentaries based on them; he seems like a good scholar in his field. But he would likely be the first to say Misplaced Pages shouldn't be quoting his 1998 opinion on Japanese origins when he is contradicted by the specialists. The users who insist on quoting him over Henshall are misusing his works and need to stop. Thank you also to Sturmgewehr88 for weighing in -- you didn't deserve the pot-kettle-black message that the edit-warring assistant Calvin999 left on your talk page. Or the completely baseless personal accusation against me that he posted in the same place. Hell, I don't even deserve it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are we splitting hairs as to whether or not Jared Diamond is a "reliable" source? He is a noted scholar, but his writings do not measure up to Hijiri88's standards even though Diamond's writings measure up to other users here.TH1980 (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

For the nth time, Japan has huge academic resources, scholarship from there and abroad is magnificently endowed, intensively productive on all issues. To write an encyclopedic article, it is pointless ignoring innumerable area specialist studies to cite generalists outside the field, esp. if it is dated. Anyone citing the latter is just flaunting her ignorance of Japanese studies. It is that simple.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Philip Diamond!? You have read neither the article, nor this discusdion, and are only posting here as part of your ongoing hounding campaign against me? Why else would you be ignoring the fact that I have said this isn't about how "famous" or "renowned" Diamond is, and why would you be placing all the blame on me when everyone here except you disagree with CurtisNaito. Why do you and CurtisNaito (see the latter's gross AGF-violations both on ANI and his own talk page) have to make everything personal, when the rest of us are trying to discuss article content? Why can neither of you answer my questions? 182.249.211.108 (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC) (Hijiri88's phone on a bad day)

Break

@TH1980: Anything written by Jared Diamond has been shown to be unreliable when relating to this topic, and this is supported by Nishidani, Phoenix777, Hijiri88, and myself. CurtisNaito had just added the source (because every half-sentence needs a citation apparently) before I reverted him for using it after having this long discussion about using that very source. I'm inclined to just remove the offending statement if CurtisNaito finds it so controversial as to need a citation. And there is no consensus needed to remove an unreliable source. Besides, CurtisNaito supports this source because he's the one trying to reintroduce it; you seem to be saying "who cares if it's reliable when he's a famous scholar" or is that a misinterpretation? Either way, there is already consensus to remove this source. Is it so important to use Diamond just because he's famous, instead of finding a more reliable (or more recent) source? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the source is reliable, as do TH1980, Calvin999, and Rjensen. Phoenix777 merely said that the horserider theory should not be included, though in fact Diamond was never advocating horserider theory. Vivexdino believes that the use of the source is acceptable provided that the words "According to Jared Diamond" are added. Vivexdino calls this a compromise approach, and so in the interest of compromise, I personally think that adding "According to Jared Diamond and Kenneth Henshall" would be okay. However, I have to concur with TH1980 that there is no consensus nor any good reason to tag the source. The factual accuracy of the information which is currently sourced to Diamond has never been disputed by anybody and there is no reason to believe Diamond stated this information erroneously. Though the information is not controversial, it's normal on Misplaced Pages to source claims even if they seem to be uncontroversial. Diamond is a highly reliable source, and while I personally might not oppose replacing Diamond with an equally reliable source, we should not simply tag or delete a reliable source without first replacing it with an equally reliable source.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen made a vague statement before it was clear what was going on; if you asked them to comment again in light of the more recent discussion they would likely have changed their mind. Calvin999 and TH1980 agree with you because they like you and don't like me and not based on any analysis of the source, as is clear from all of their comments on the subject, as well as the fact that neither have ever edited an article in this topic area until they saw that you and I were arguing here. Also, CurtisNaito and TH1980, both of you (and even moreso Calvin999) have accused me multiple times of "edit-warring" based on the somewhat dubious claim that I violated 3RR. (This claim could only be true if one took the stance that all of my edits were "partial reverts" of CurtisNaito's edit of August 15, when in fact several were technically attempts at comprise or partial edits made after CurtisNaito had already agreed to them, like changing "historians" to "scholars".) The fact is that "No one user can make four or more reverts within 24 hours of each other without being blocked" is not the policy; the relevant policy is Don't edit war". Multiple users ganging up to "win" an edit war while none of them technically violate 3RR, or one or more users reverting slowly to carefully avoid violation of 3RR, or a combination of the two, are are all explicit violations of the policy. You were called out for this kind of wikilawyering on ANEW in May. The true measure of who is "edit-warring" would be to see which users have been actively engaging in discussion on the talk page, as opposed to ignoring the users who disagree with them and only pretending to discuss on the talk page.

In case the above was too subtle for you: Stop reverting now. Even if you think you are right, there have been specific complaints brought against your preferred version by a plurality of users on this talk page, and you should address these concerns and gain consensus on the talk page. Edit-warring looks ugly, and is never the way to solve disputes.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, Calvin999, and TH1980 all clearly reverted the changes you made. In fact, I think there was overwhelming opposition too your changes until you began canvassing other users for support, something you were recently warned about on the administrators' noticeboard by several other users. Ultimately though, we shouldn't discriminate between whose comments are valid and whose are invalid. There is still majority support right now to not tag the source.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious you canvassed TH1980 initially (you and he had friendly interactions on articles related to the Battle of Nanking, and he suddenly showed up and implemented your proposed edits to the Korean influence on Japanese culture article, and when he was reverted you immediately jumped in) and he started reverting my edits and hounding me any chance he got. As for Calvin999 ... he has never edited a Japan-related article before, as far as I can see (it seems 99% of his articles are related to western pop music albums), and you reviewed some of his GA nominations, followed by him reviewing some of yours. In this case, he completely and utterly failed to review the article properly for GA purposes, since in at least one case it explicitly contradicted its cited source, and in many places cited an unreliable tertiary source written by a non-specialist. I requested that Nishidani and CurtisNaito look into your disruption here, since they both have experience with you; they both also hardly ever agree with me on article content, so comparing what I did to "canvassing" is dubious at best, and an off-topic ad hominem attack at worst. Phoenix7777 also almost always disagrees with me; he agrees with me here, because my arguments have been more compelling. The only two users who agree with you are your "friends" who both clearly have a bone to pick with me (see their recent activity on ANI).

Also, they are not "my changes". Stop lying. They are your changes; you made them scarcely two weeks ago to an article that has hardly changed in years, and I took a little while to revert you because I was busy.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Unlike you, I didn't canvass anyone, but what's done is done and since the users you inappropriately canvassed are commenting here, I won't discount their opinions. Phoenix7777 only called into question the horserider theory, which is not relevant in the current case. If necessary we can try a request for comment, but right now there is simply no consensus to tag the source. The information in question has never been disputed by anyone. There may be equally reliable sources which say the same thing, but since no one is questioning the accuracy of the information right now, I see no reason not to use a reliable scholar like Jared Diamond as a source without needing any tag. Furthermore Calvin999 is an experienced good article reviewer, he did review the article appropriately, and no source has ever been found to be incorrectly cited.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: According to WP:V, there is no consensus needed to add a tag to an article, section, sentence, etc. I'll readd the tags later; in such time it would behoove you to find a better source or remove the offending sentence (and is it true that the Henschall reference means nothing without the Diamond article?). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Don't see anything wrong with the sourcing here. Diamond's article just presents the essential facts and his goal was to present them without any taint of nationalist bias.Hko2333 (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hko2333: Yes, and somehow he also managed to make glaring errors in the process -- ones that no specialists in the area (Diamond is not a specialist in the area) would make. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Asuka period dates (538-710)?

The article currently states that the Asuka period began "in 538 with the introduction from the Korean state of Baekje of the new religion of Buddhism, which would henceforth coexist with Japan's native forms of religious practice known as Shinto". This is not "wrong", per se, but it is also the earliest of the possible start dates given in the sources I have checked, which all tend to prefer something in or around the 592 start date. Furthermore, no source is actually cited to state that the Asuka period ended in 710, merely that that is the start of the next period in the list, Nara.

Examining what other encyclopedias give as the dates for the Asuka period we see:

• "推古朝 (593～629) を中心とするその前後の時代。時代区分の範囲については諸説ある。…もともと白鳳時代，天平時代 (→奈良時代 ) とともに美術史上の時代区分で，仏教公伝 (538，一説には 552) から大化改新 (645) までの約1世紀間，都が多くこの地方にあり，仏教およびこれに伴う大陸文化がこの地方を中心に開花したことによる。" (Britannica Kokusai Dai-Hyakkajiten)
• "6世紀末から7世紀にかけて、飛鳥地方を都とした推古朝を中心とする時代。" (Digital Daijisen)
• "７世紀前半，推古(すいこ)朝を中心とする時代。推古天皇が即位した592年から710年平城京遷都までをさした時代区分。美術史などでは７世紀後半以後を分立させて白鳳(はくほう)時代と呼ぶ。" (Hyakkajiten MyPaedia)
• "政権の所在地による日本史の時代区分法によって，推古天皇が豊浦宮で即位した592年から，710年(和銅3)の平城京遷都までの100余年間をいう。" (Sekai Dai-Hyakkajiten)
• "「飛鳥時代」は元来、日本美術史上の時代区分であるが、これを政治史上の時代区分として用いることも多い。一般には推古(すいこ)朝（593～628）前後から大化改新（645）までとするのが普通であるが、これをさらに天智(てんじ)朝（662～671）ごろまで下げて考える説も美術史家の間には行われており、さらに時代を下げて平城遷都（710）までを飛鳥時代とみる説もある。ここでは、上記のうちもっとも広義の飛鳥時代を取り上げることとする。この時期の皇居の所在地をみると、推古天皇の豊浦宮(とゆらのみや)、小墾田宮(おはりだのみや)、舒明天皇(じょめいてんのう)の岡本宮(おかもとのみや)、皇極天皇(こうぎょくてんのう)の板蓋宮(いたぶきのみや)、斉明天皇(さいめいてんのう)の川原宮(かわらのみや)、天武天皇(てんむてんのう)の浄御原宮(きよみはらのみや)などはいずれも飛鳥の地にあり、天武のあとの持統、文武(もんむ)2天皇の藤原京も飛鳥の域内ないしその北方に隣接して存在し、この間、皇居が飛鳥以外に移ったのは、わずかに孝徳(こうとく)朝の10年足らず（難波(なにわ)）と天智朝の5年余り（大津）の計15年ほどで、この時代の政治、文化の中心はおおむね飛鳥にあったので、この時期を飛鳥時代とよぶ。

"広義の飛鳥時代は、したがって仏教伝来（538）以降、平城遷都以前と言い換えることもできるが、まさに仏教伝来に伴う新文化の成立発展こそが、この時代を前代の古墳時代と区別する指標である。古墳は8世紀初頭まで営造されるが、飛鳥時代は古墳時代の後期および終末期に相当するという意味で、古墳文化の終焉(しゅうえん)を促した時代だともいえる。

"また大化改新以後は政治、経済、社会の各方面に大きな変革が試みられ、それに伴って時代の様相も大きく変化したので、この時代を大化改新を境に前後の2期に分けて考えるのが便利であろう。

"総じて広義の飛鳥時代は、大和国家(やまとこっか)が豪族の連合政権的性格を脱して統一的中央集権国家、天皇制律令(りつりょう)国家へと飛躍するための模索と、試行錯誤と、そして努力の、積み重ねの時代ということになるであろう。" (Nihon Dai-Hyakka Zensho Nipponica)

None of the above actually give "538-710", and many of them specifically state that the earlier dates tend to be used more in art history, while the later dates are used in political history (which appears to be the primary concern of this article). Art historians apparently don't say the Asuka period lasted until 710, and political historians don't say it started as early as 538. Art historians who say the Asuka period began in the early-mid 6th century apparently distinguish the Asuka period from the latter half of the 7th century, which they call the "Hakuhō period", a term which is not mentioned anywhere in the present article. It is unlikely a source can be found that specifically states that "the Kofun period lasted from c250 to 538, then came the Asuka period which lasted from 538 to 710, then came the Nara period which last from 710...", which our article currently does.

I'm not saying the dates need to be changed (that would get messy), but I think we should at least mention in the article that the dates are not fixed, and are somewhat arbitrary, and mention which branches of scholarship use which 時代区分 methods, giving wikilinks (at least) to all the alternative systems. Another possibility would be to remove the parenthetical dates given in the section header, since this lends undue weight to an era system that it seems very few scholars actually use.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It might be better to leave the discussion of this issue to the Asuka period article. Every book I read gave a slightly different periodization, and even the Asuka period itself is often combined with the Kofun period into so-called Yamato period. The Kodansha Encyclopedia notes that the beginning of the Asuka period is commonly dated to the introduction of Buddhism which occurred in either 538 or 552. However, the date of the introduction of Buddhism is itself a complicated issue which scholars continue to be divided on. If we are going to explain this controversy in the article, a footnote would probably be sufficient.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, technically you could just leave out the Asuka period and call the period c250 to 710 the "Kofun period". But I'd be interested in what perspective Kodansha's article takes on the Asuka period -- is it about art history like the other encyclopedia articles say it probably should be if it dates the beginning that early? Also "controversy" is really the wrong word for this ;) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the period from c250 to 710 is called the Yamato period, not the Kofun period. If necessary we could combine Asuka and Kofun into a new section entitled "Yamato period". The Kodansha Encyclopedia refers to the Asuka period as both a political and cultural period which ended in 710. The start date, by contrast, is uncertain, though one start date commonly cited in various entries of the encyclopedia is 538/552. These dates, the possible dates of the introduction of Buddhism into Japan, are certainly controversial and a number of scholars have weighed in over the years on one side or the other. The Kodansha Encyclopedia also uses the term Hakuho period to refer to purely culture/art-related themes. The encyclopedia says (in the entry on periodization), "Asuka is used in this encyclopedia to refer to the period from the latter part of the 6th century to 710 as a subdivision of the Yamato period. Both it and the Hakuho appear in the chart; however, the latter is used in this encyclopedia only as a broad cultural or art term..."

Also, concerning recent reversions, the sentence in question combines information from both Henshall and Diamond, so both sources are required. If another source can be found with the same information as Diamond, I suppose I would be willing to replace it, but so far a majority of users commenting do not support the alleged unreliability of Diamond's article and therefore I agree with TH1980 that the tags are unnecessary and against general consensus from the talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Does Kodansha say specifically that the Asuka period lasted from 538 to 710? If so, then I have no problem with leaving the section as is, although I wonder why you wouldn't say you had a source for this exact statement when I first asked for it. I also don't think we should be arbitrarily selecting different periodization methods from different sources: if Kodansha mentions the Hakuhō period (please check the index and report back) or states that the Kofun period lasted to the seventh century and overlapped with the Asuka period (most sources apparently say this), then we can't, say, pick its start date for the Asuka period and another source's end date for the same, unless we include an explanation of how the periodization is essentially arbitrary and differs by source (I personally am not averse to this latter option).

(Also, if you take "Kofun period" to mean "the period when Kofun were constructed", then it would be until the early eighth century.)

As an aside, I opened a new talk section to discuss a new and unrelated problem. Please keep discussion of the other problem to the appropriate talk page section.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Kodansha Encyclopedia refers to the Asuka period as a subunit of the Yamato period. This is the same source I have been referring to from the beginning. The end date is uniformly regarded as being 710, though a uniform start date is not given. 538/552 is one of the most common, though a few other dates are mentioned including 645, the date of the Taika Reform. For Japanese history as a whole, naturally both the Kodansha Encyclopedia and other history books do cite various other ways of organizing things.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "The end date is uniformly regarded as being 710"? The latter part of your post implies you are talking about just Kodansha, but if that is so then the clause immediately following contradicts what you said earlier about Kodansha being the source for the 538 date. If you were talking about all the sources you have checked uniformly giving the end date as 710, then what about all the sources I quoted above that give the end date as 645? Also, you didn't answer my question: does Kodansha's index indicate that the "Hakuhō period"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I have said right from the very beginning, Kodansha states clearly that the Asuka period ended in 710. By contrast, Kodansha does give a variety of start dates, including the ones I already listed above. As I already quoted above, Kodansha mentions both the Asuka period and the Hakuho period, but the Hakuho period refers only to cultural events, whereas the term "Asuka period" is used more broadly.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your first comment here read as follows:

The Kodansha Encyclopedia notes that the beginning of the Asuka period is commonly dated to the introduction of Buddhism which occurred in either 538 or 552. However, the date of the introduction of Buddhism is itself a complicated issue which scholars continue to be divided on. If we are going to explain this controversy in the article, a footnote would probably be sufficient.

How can the above possibly be interpreted to mean "Kodansha states clearly that the Asuka period ended in 710"? What you presumably mean is that, when asked specifically, you gave another piece of apparently contradictory information (accompanied by a quote). And an off-topic comment apparently added to get under my skin.

And what you are also trying to say is that you don't have a single source that says Asuka was "from 538 to 710"? Because it would seem that all of the sources I quote above, as well as the one you quote, say that it's rare outside of the context of art history where a later "Hakuhō period" is included starting around 645 for the Asuka period to be taken to have begun in 538, no? Sorry if I'm misreading something here, but would it not make more sense to do what the majority of RSs do? I'm not saying no RSs exist that give Asuka as being 538-710 and don't mention Hakuhō (a quick Googling indicate that such do exist in some mass), but wouldn't mentioning this fact improve the article?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I said a while ago, "The Kodansha Encyclopedia refers to the Asuka period as both a political and cultural period which ended in 710. The start date, by contrast, is uncertain..." My opinion is that we should either leave the article as it is, using Kodansha's end date and possibly a 538/552 start date, or else we combine the Kofun and Asuka periods into the Yamato period.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I know you did. Having been confused by your conflicting statements, I went back and read over everything you said carefully. I then posted the diffs in the section above. The fact is that the article currently cites Kodansha as saying that the Asuka period began in 538 or 552, not that it ended in 710, and your first response to me here said in no uncertain terms that Kodansha stated that the Asuka period began in 538 or 552. Also, "Yamato period" would make the problem worse by citing an even more obscure term than "Hakuhō period" -- only two of the encyclopedias/dictionaries have entries on it; one of them defines it as being the same as the "Kofun period" and ending in the late sixth century, the other defining it as ending when the Ritsuryō state was put in place, i.e. around 645. I say merge nothing into nowhere: state in the article which sources give which periodizations, and the reasoning for such, and if it becomes unwieldy as a result we can summarize it later. Writing a happy story of "what happened" in "the past" is supposed to be beneath Misplaced Pages; we should be discussing the historiography of Japan in all of its complexity. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I never made any conflicting statements. If we include more details, I advocate we put most of it in a footnote. I think there are better areas where this article could be expanded outside of a lengthy discussion on the dozens of different ways various scholars periodize Japanese history. There is no common way in which historians periodize this era. The Kofun/Asuka split is a familiar method, with or without inclusion of the Hakuho period, and the Yamato period is another familiar designation, but plenty of other methods are also used. In some ways, this particular issue is not related to "what happened" in "the past", because this periodization was created recently and is by nature somewhat arbitrary. The events that occurred were recognized as they occurred, but periodization itself was invented by historians hundreds of years after the fact. In accordance with Misplaced Pages convention, we need to split up the article somehow, but in fact periodization is part of the recent Historiography of Japan, not the History of Japan. Right now I'm leaning towards maintaining the basic Kofun(250-538)-Asuka(538-710) split while including a footnote explaining a variety of other possible start dates to the Asuka period.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you don't think replying to the question "Does Kodansha say the Asuka period ended in 710?" with "It says it began in 538 or 552", and then later saying "It says in no uncertain terms that it ended in 710, but is ambivalent about when it began" is not making conflicting statements, then ... we'll just have to agree to disagree.

How about we agree to the same thing on both the other issues, like, say, you let me, Sturmgewehr88, Nishidani, Vivexdino and Phoenix7777 remove the Diamond references, and I let you not discuss the different periodization methods in the main article?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also: I'm not going to go back and check the history, but were you responsible for this fustercluck of errors? If so, can you at least admit that you included factually inaccurate information in the article based on either your own misreading of a scholarly, secondary source, or your blindly taking a single tertiary source that hadn't examined all the data properly at its word? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The date attached to the Manyoshu was the only thing you changed there. Henshall's book says, "These were followed shortly afterwards by the first poetry anthologies, the Kaifuso (Fond Recollections of Poetry) of 751 and the Manyoshu (Collection of Ten Thousand Leaves) of 759."CurtisNaito (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope. You referred to a collection of Chinese poems as a collection of Japanese poems. That's like you composing poems in French but Misplaced Pages describing them as being "English" because you are .. American? (Sorry if I'm wrong about your nationality.) Your quote proves that you inserted this error into the text, and did not base it on anything Henshall wrote. The precise date of the latter anthology is of course a subject of debate (with 759 being the earliest possible date, but several decades before anyone else appears to have noticed it), and Henshall's oversimplification was acceptable, but you should have checked another source. For both of these problems, you used a single, likely tertiary, source uncritically, something I and others criticized you for on the Korean influence on Japanese culture article. You also put the words "Lady Shikibu Murasaki" into Henshall's mouth, when he himself refers to her by her canonical name; no one calls her "Shikibu Murasaki". Admittedly, in that case you took an earlier Wikipedian's sentence and tagged a source onto it willy-nilly (removing the actual source in the process), but still you should have checked that Henshall supported what you were attaching him to. I don't know if Henshall gave the precise "1004" date (given your mangling of Henshall in the quote you provided above, it seems likely you have misinterpreted him again), but your edit nonetheless inserted misleading information into the encyclopedia. In all of these cases you have inserted errors into the article, and in the above reply to me directly admitted to mangling Henshall's words to insert your own (inaccurate) OR into the article. This work is not GA standard. Every time I look for something in the article that I know about, I find it in error; what about the bits I don't know about -- am I expected to just assume that you deliberately mangled only those aspects of Japanese history that interest me in order to fool me? That would just be silly, would it not? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I could have written "Japanese-made" poetry, but there was nothing wrong with the article as it was, and the date was in accordance with what Henshall wrote. So far, you have failed to find a single error. Some of the clarifications you have added to the article are useful, but your insistence that I misread sources or inserted errors into the text is supported by nothing. I don't mind if you have something useful to add to the article, but don't use the talk page to make baseless personal attacks on me.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope. You made the same mistake as so many other laymen writing about the subject have made, like Elliot Samuels for instance. You had a source that said "poetry anthologies Kaifuso and Man'yoshu" and changed it to say something (incorrect) that it didn't say. It is not a baseless personal attack to say that you have inserted blatant errors into the article based on your own misreading of the sources. This kind of thing just keeps happening -- I'd bet that every single reference to Japanese literature in your rewrite of the article contains an obvious error or misreading of a source that I could point out, and the places that aren't about literature I could point out with some careful analysis as well. I intend to put this article up for GA reassessment in light of the blatant misrepresentation of sources leading to factual errors in the near future -- GAs should be verifiable and contain no original reasearch; this article, at least as written by you, is jam-packed with unverifiable, factually inaccurate original research. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that there's much point in you doing that. You haven't managed to prove a single instance of misuse of sources or factual errors. If you think you can refine the article, you can go ahead and do that, but none of the quibbles you have raised so far would possibly justify downgrading the article. At any rate, the objective of a reassessment should be to try to maintain the article at good level status. Reassessing it with such a vindictive goal of downgrading it based on these flimsy grounds is not going to succeed and would just be a waste of time.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You haven't managed to prove a single instance of misuse of sources or factual errors.

You:

1. misquoted Henshall to make him say the same thing as Diamond with regard to a "Yayoi invasion";
2. misquoted Henshall to say the Kaifuso was a collection of Japanese poetry, a laughable factual error that Henshall doesn't make, and cross-checking with other Misplaced Pages articles would have made you suspicious and told you you should do a bit more research;
3. misquoted Henshall as refering to the author of Genji as "the Lady Shikibu Murasaki", when he correctly identifies her as "Murasaki Shikibu";
4. blindly inserted Henshall's rough estimates on the dates of several ancient literary works with no date given and few early external references, without checking against other sources.

User:Hijiri88 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, you took only five minutes to read my complex comment and type a 100+ word response. Please read my posts before responding, and address my points truthfully and completely. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Henshall said that Japan was "effectively invaded" and his estimates for the dates of Japanese literary works were perfectly valid. The fact that the previous editors of this Misplaced Pages article opted to call her Lady Shikibu Murasaki is so trivial of an "error" that you can have little doubt that other users will find it laughable that you would call for good article reassessment on such grounds. I notice you had no intention of correcting this for many years until I started editing the article and then for some reason waited for that moment to freak out about it. And yet, these minor clarifications, which are barely improvements over the previous version of the article, if improvements at all, appear to be all your case has going for it. Like I said, you would wasting your time in reassessing this article. It is not going to be downgraded.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) At any rate, the objective of a reassessment should be to try to maintain the article at good level status. Reassessing it with such a vindictive goal of downgrading it based on these flimsy grounds is not going to succeed and would just be a waste of time. There's nothing vindictive whatsoever about thinking the article should be downgraded: the article was not GA-status before your edit, your edit made the article worse by radically interpreting a small number of (occasionally unreliable) sources, thus forcing other users to go through the article sentence by sentence, trying to figure out what the sources actually say. The work of bringing the article to GA-standard now is harder than it was before August 15. It was pushed through the GA process extremely quickly, with apparently no oversight on the massive sourcing problems, approved for GA status by a friend of yours with no history of editing Japanese history articles (you returned the favour, of course). You immediately put the link on your page for bragging purposes, and shortly thereafter requested I be indefinitely TBANned from Japanese history because I have thus far failed to engage in this kind of back-handed, self-promoting quest for bragging rights. You made the article worse, forced it through the GA process in a back-handed way, immediately started bragging about your "achievement", and shortly thereafter used it to attack other users who are actually producing quality work in this area based on the best sources available. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you actually bring this to reassessment, comments like the above will demonstrate that you are too focused on using this article as an opportunity to rant instead of editing productively. This article was upgraded to good article status by an experienced reviewer who assessed its quality in an objective manner. All your baseless aspersions here are not useful to improving the article and trying to have the article reassessed for no good reason would similarly be a waste of time.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we get a quote from Henshall 228?

@CurtisNaito: Pretty much every single place where your rewrite cites a page of Henshall I have access to in the free GBooks preview, it misquotes him. I am therefore extremely skeptical when you suddenly claim "Oh, I just forgot to give the correct page number: it's actually on this page that you can't see without ordering a copy of the book on Amazon.co.jp".

Can you give the quotations from Henshall 228 that verify the following:

Japan was also heavily influenced by Koreans from the Three Kingdoms of Korea, who transferred to Japan important skills in metallurgy, government administration and construction, as well as the first use of writing in Japan.

Shōtoku authored the Seventeen-article constitution, a Confucian-inspired code of conduct for officials and citizens, and also attempting to introduce a merit-based civil service called the "cap and rank system". In a letter he wrote to the Emperor of China in 607, Shōtoku refers to his country as "the land of the rising sun", and by 670 a variant of this expression, "Nihon", would be established as the official name of the Japanese nation which has persisted to this day.

?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Also: Isn't a single citation that includes such a random selection of pages from all over the book almost useless for WP:V purposes? I'm not going to ask you to do what I usually do and cite the exact page number for every single sentence you write, but the ref named "asuka" is laughably broad. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On page 16-17 Henshall says, "there was certainly a strong and generally amicable link between ancient Yamato Japan and the Korean kingdoms of Paekche (Baekje) and Koguryo (Goguryeo), including among the aristocratic class and indeed the ruling class... The Soga were of Korean descent, like many of the aristocratic families of the day, and probably felt more of an affinity with Buddhism than did native Japanese. It was from Korea – specifically priest-scholars from the Korean kingdom of Paekche – that Buddhism was introduced in the mid-sixth century. Its adoption was greatly aided by the practice of writing, which had also been introduced by scholars from Paekche a century earlier..." On page 228 he says "Although the scholars were Korean they wrote in Chinese... it is Paekche scholars of the fifth century who are credited with its systematic introduction." The rest of the details are mentioned in Totman's book.

On pages 18-21 he says, "Among other things he was responsible for re-establishing missions to a now reunified China, and for introducing the Chinese-style ‘cap rank’ system in which, as the name suggests, the rank of officials was indicated by their hat. Shotoku is also credited with drawing up the so-called Seventeen Article Constitution of 604, which was intended to strengthen central government. It had a strong Chinese flavour, particularly in its Confucianism... The modern name Nippon or Nihon (Source of the Sun) was also coming into use by the end of the period." The rest of the specifics come from Rhee and Weston.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So, what your saying is you misquoted the source as saying

Japan was also heavily influenced by Koreans from the Three Kingdoms of Korea, who transferred to Japan important skills in metallurgy, government administration and construction, as well as the first use of writing in Japan.

when in fact it said

Japan was also influenced to a degree by immigrants from Goguryeo and, moreso, Baekje, but not Silla, who introduced writing in the fifth century and Buddhism in the sixth.

and you misquoted the source as saying

Shōtoku authored the Seventeen-article constitution, a Confucian-inspired code of conduct for officials and citizens, and also attempting to introduce a merit-based civil service called the "cap and rank system". In a letter he wrote to the Emperor of China in 607, Shōtoku refers to his country as "the land of the rising sun", and by 670 a variant of this expression, "Nihon", would be established as the official name of the Japanese nation which has persisted to this day.

when in fact it said

Shōtoku allegedly authored the Seventeen-article constitution, in order to strengthen the central government, and he introduced an in-theory merit-based civil service infrastructure called the "cap and rank system". The name "Nihon" was coming into use by the end of this period.

are you not?

Also, how does adding page 228 to the citation affect this at all? Why are you not quoting the page I asked you to quote? I already read the quotes you just provided before I tagged the citations as failing verification, because ... well, they do.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The text in the article was an accurate summarization of that information, but as I said, I am citing Henshall, Rhee, Weston, and Totman here. You only asked for the Henshall quotes.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, are you familiar with the "Seven Last Words from the Cross"? If the answer is yes: did you know that the seven last words don't actually appear anywhere in the Bible? Please watch this lecture. You can't mush sources that say different, sometimes conflicting, things together and pretend they all say the same thing. When I noticed a place where Keene contradicted Henshall directly, I removed the Henshall citation and replaced it with a more appropriate citation of Donald Keene (a specialist in the area in question): I did not change the text and add the Keene citation but leave the Henshall citation there.

Also, you still haven't answered my question: what the hell is on page 228 that is so important?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry -- I didn't mean to attack anyone's religious beliefs. What I meant was that in 21st century historiography, and on Misplaced Pages, you are not generally supposed to mush sources together. If you or anyone else wants to do so in your church on your own time you are free to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The most pertinent information was in the previous page range, so I don't know why you put in failed verification tags in the first place. However, page 228 provides additional information about the role of Koreans in introducing written language to Japan. However, the sources were not contradictory, but rather, complementary. When writing a general history, summarization of the sources is necessary, like it or not. Each sentence in this article is a condensation of many pages of text from the cited sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, please refrain from taking claims that appear in one source and attribute it to another. That is WP:SYNTH. If you can't find a single source that can be attached to any single sentence, chances are it is because you yourself have drawn an incorrect conclusion from consulting multiple sources that say different things. As I demonstrated above, your edits misquoted Henshall on these points by mushing him together with Rhee, etc. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not synthesis. In fact, there is no other way an article like this could be written on Misplaced Pages. When multiple sources include various complimentary details about a single period of Japanese history, there is nothing wrong with including information from both sources and citing both sources at the end of the sentence. An article like this requires substantial summarization of information. One could partially remedy this by citing sources mid-sentence, but it's common during good and featured article reviews that the reviewers ask all citations to be moved to the end of the sentence for better readability. You still haven't found any instance of me misquoting Henshall or engaging in any inappropriate synthesis.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank goodness. More funny writing to make me laugh out aloud.

Japan was also heavily influenced by Koreans from the Three Kingdoms of Korea, who transferred to Japan important skills in metallurgy, government administration and construction, as well as the first use of writing in Japan. 'Japan' refers variously to a physical national political entity. One says: 'A' influenced 'B' where both A and B belong to the same category (persons). One does not say in prose written in one's lucid intervals, 'A' (state, nation, political entity) was influenced by 'B' (specific persons). All edits like that do is prove an editor has a tin-ear.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you'll notice that very, very few individual people are named in this article before the 19th century, and the choices of who is named are pretty arbitrary. Much of this isn't technically Curtis' fault -- I think an article on Japanese history that names Francis Xavier but not Fujiwara no Teika or ... any other waka poet apart from Murasaki Shikibu, for that matter, should be debarred from either GA or FA standard by definition, but that's the fault of ten years of Misplaced Pages editors. Curtis explicitly decreased the word count to meet GA criteria, and two sections up opposed my proposal to broaden the discussion of periodization, likely for the same reason, but just saying "Koreans" might be a good-faith attempt to meet an arbitrary and rather silly criterion for "the ideal length of a Misplaced Pages article". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

From a cursory glance at the previous version, the new version in my opinion raised the article from Start class to C class. I can't seem to find the review where this was awarded Good Article status. Normally this is on the talk page and/or linked prominently at the top of the page. Is this it? The reviewer's other claimed 235 reviews should be examined, especially any that fall outside of pop culture, their area of expertise judging from their claimed GAs. I don't know where this process should be referred to. zzz (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@zzz: As far as I am concerned, this article's GA status should be revoked until all the OR and personal opinions of Wikipedians are removed. Another recent GA that should not have passed without more oversight was Iwane Matsui -- the reviewer explicitly stated that he had not checked (is unable to read) 90% of the article's sources. Both of these were both written and nominated by the same user, who includes a list of "his GAs" on his user page -- maybe we should reexamine all of them?

This article's issues are discussed in more detail in User:Hijiri88/GA reassessment draft.

04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 03:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

During the Iwane Matsui good article review, I offered to provide English language sources, but the reviewer declined to see them unless Hijiri88 was willing to put forward an actual valid reason why the Japanese language sources should be rejected. Since no reason was forthcoming, the article passed. For this article, no OR and personal opinions have yet been uncovered, so a good article reassessment would not be productive.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

... except the places where CurtisNaito has already admitted that he put words in his sources' mouths. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I never said that, nor have you yet found any instances of that.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection

Maybe it would be a good idea to put this article under protection again? There seems to be some kind of edit-war going on? 158.181.80.83 (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really. If there is an edit war, then it is a slow improvement of the article by multiple editors, and about one in four of those edits are opposed and reverted by one user. There was an edit war three days ago, but that ended .. three days ago. Protecting the page now would not do any good, IMO. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"modern history of Japan"

The opening sentence of the lead links "modern history of Japan" to Heisei period—that would be an WP:EGG. The "modern history of Japan as a nation state" definitely didn't start in 1989. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• This seems to be happening a lot: "centralized government" links "centralized" to Taihō Code and "government" to Daijō-kan; "emperor" links to Emperor Go-Yōzei; "reside" links to Kyoto Imperial Palace; "Democracy" links to Taishō period. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The majority of those links were added quite recently by user 86.56.79.167.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm copyediting what I can, but I think a lot more work should be done on the lead. No mention of the Kamakura or Ashikaga shogunates! Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Emperors' names

"Emperor Shōwa died in 1989 and his son Emperor Akihito"—okay, anyone competent enough to edit this article will see the problem right away. Which names should we go with? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Never mind—I cut the sentence entirely as being out of scope for the lead. The beginning of the Heisei period is hardly the momentous event that Meiji was. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on common name policy, I personally have opted to use the name Hirohito only.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it I think the article should use the Showa Emperor's personal name. It's almost certainly less offensive to Japanese sensibilities than trying to match one emperor known by his era name to another emperor who should never be known by his era name while still alive (despite what the writers of The Last Samurai may think). This only applies to emperors who have reigned since 1945, right? 182.249.205.78 (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that would apply to an awful lot of articles and thus shouldn't be decided here (RfC?). The issue to be cleared up was having Shōwa in the same sentence as Akihito—a clear brain fart. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about referring to the Showa emperor by his personal name, or referring to the current emperor by his era name? If there are any articles that do the latter, then they need to be changed -- no one calls him that. 182.249.205.78 (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

BC vs BCE

There's a mix of styles—which should we go with? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Though I'm neutral on this issue, at the time the article passed good article review, it used BC exclusively. Though the sources cited in the article vary on which they used, at the time of the good article review a significant majority of the sources cited, including the book by Kenneth Henshall, used BC.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So someone added a bunch of BCEs after the GAN? Okay, then I guess they should go back. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference kofun was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference conrad was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• History good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class history articles
• Unknown-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• GA-Class Japan-related articles
• Top-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• GA-Class Archaeology articles
• High-importance Archaeology articles