| Revision as of 20:07, 20 July 2020 editCurly Turkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users103,748 edits →Editwarring← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:22, 20 July 2020 edit undoHadassah16 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users871 editsm CommentTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit → | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
| :It is required on Misplaced Pages that references use a consistent style. Almost all of them do use a consistent style, except the ones you added. The rules state that we avoid "switching between major citation styles... or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's". As long as the page numbers are there, the text is verifiable. A good model to use is the featured article ]. It contains page numbers, but no Google Books links to individual pages, as that would be entirely superfluous. There are many other problems with the text. For example, there are no spaces between the citation numbers and the text that follows them. There are multiple sentence fragments like "as well as glassmaking and new styles of houses" (sentences require a subject and verb to be grammatical). There are words that make no sense like "aooears". There are sentences sourced to multiple sources where one would do the exact same. And you've filled the text with extra information unbefitting of a summary, etc... I don't agree with re-adding text that contains this many serious errors unless a clear majority back these changes. ] (]) 19:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC) | :It is required on Misplaced Pages that references use a consistent style. Almost all of them do use a consistent style, except the ones you added. The rules state that we avoid "switching between major citation styles... or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's". As long as the page numbers are there, the text is verifiable. A good model to use is the featured article ]. It contains page numbers, but no Google Books links to individual pages, as that would be entirely superfluous. There are many other problems with the text. For example, there are no spaces between the citation numbers and the text that follows them. There are multiple sentence fragments like "as well as glassmaking and new styles of houses" (sentences require a subject and verb to be grammatical). There are words that make no sense like "aooears". There are sentences sourced to multiple sources where one would do the exact same. And you've filled the text with extra information unbefitting of a summary, etc... I don't agree with re-adding text that contains this many serious errors unless a clear majority back these changes. ] (]) 19:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :: Consistency of reference style is a requirement of recognized content (GAs, FAs), which this article is not and will not be in the foreseeable future. The solution to reference style inconsistency is to reformat it, not delete the it, as WP:V is a core policy; reference style is a WP:MOS issue. Unless the text can be demonstrated to be unfixable or unreasonable to try to fix, reverting it is drastic and aggressively uncollaborative. "aooears" is not a "word that makes no sense", but an obvious typo for "a'''pp'''ears". The problems with this article are mountain high—these are nothing. ] <span style="color: red;">🍁</span> ] 20:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC) | :: Consistency of reference style is a requirement of recognized content (GAs, FAs), which this article is not and will not be in the foreseeable future. The solution to reference style inconsistency is to reformat it, not delete the it, as WP:V is a core policy; reference style is a WP:MOS issue. Unless the text can be demonstrated to be unfixable or unreasonable to try to fix, reverting it is drastic and aggressively uncollaborative. "aooears" is not a "word that makes no sense", but an obvious typo for "a'''pp'''ears". The problems with this article are mountain high—these are nothing. ] <span style="color: red;">🍁</span> ] 20:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :Yes, I agree that Nishidani's edits are awfully careless. It might be good to add in new details, but it should at least be done with some thought and logical citations. I don't agree with Nishidani's reverts. New information should be added to the current text, but only based on the good stuff we have, not slashing through the current text by inserting literally dozens of spelling and grammatical mistakes. ] (]) 20:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:22, 20 July 2020
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Japan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 28 days  |
 | History of Japan was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Turkic peoples
Today someone added the following:
- It is believed that also people of Turkish descent have migrated to Japan but when this hike took place is unknown. So in japan, old Turkish tombstones were also called "balbal".
First, the linked PDF talks about 'turkic' peoples, so this has me worried. Second, the PDF includes the footnote:
7 Caveat: the present author follows convention in speaking of balbal generically as “Turkic.” But, as shown below, balbal have an origin in pre-history that long antedates the appearance of Turkish peoples on the historical stage, and the people who created the balbal of Houjou-chou, Japan, were not necessarily Turkic — they may have been Scythian, Sogdian, Khotanese, or some other “Iranian” people of Central Asian provenance. The author is indebted to Prof. Victor H. Mair for this insight.
Third, I would not know whether this occasional journal, Sino-Platonic Papers, is a reputable source. I'm going to revert with explanation that this needs to be discussed before inclusion. Shenme (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
References
- http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp210_turkic_balbal_japan.pdf.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Missing or empty|title=(help)
Recent reverts
User:Davide palladini, how about you discuss here instead of continuing to revert? You previously changed already-sourced content without adding any new ones and also added unsourced content, and bad grammar such as "issuing apologizes". I now see that it was done in good faith, but that wasn't the way to address concerns. The popular culture sentence was also a minor part of the article and you are only removing it on an emotional basis. I don't see why something that is a significant part of the country shouldn't be mentioned at all, especially when it is only in passing. Fortunatestars (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Davide palladini: Using "and" to combine a noun phrase using a possessive "'s" with a present participle so that the same "'s" is also an abbreviation of "is" is, indisputably, horrendous, and adding a "most" before "nationalist politics" is not much better. As for the content, this edit completely changed the meaning of the sentence, so it was hardly "minor" like you claimed, and it is really inappropriate for you to be changing a sourced statement like that unless the original statement misrepresented the source and you are fixing that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Farris
William Wayn Farris is cited in several references but in the section "Books cited" there are two sources by that author, one from 1995 and other from 2009. So clarification is needed into which sepecific book is being referred in those references. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed this. Thanks! Hadassah16 (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Editwarring
User:Homemade Pencils As far as I can see you have never edited this article in the past, and have never appeared on its talk page. You have barged into an article with a very complex history, just to revert. One of the major problems here consists in the practice of systematically using a citational mode that replaces linked sources, which existed in the past, with delinked sourcing, while removing without any notable justification, multiple academic works cited by earlier editors. That, to me, is the central problem. The steady removal of links has made verification (WP:V) arduous to the point of impossible.
You object to the fact that I used a different citational form? Well, you know, all that needs to be done is to adapt it to the existing one (which however is highly defective) by making an addition to the bibliography that retains the page link.
I responded to your first revert complaint by rewriting the text, eliding the repetition you complained of, and improving the style. This is called compromise and consensus editing. No, with barely a glance you went ahead and removed the adjusted text, meaning you are not engaging on this page or in the article, in constructive editing.Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is required on Misplaced Pages that references use a consistent style. Almost all of them do use a consistent style, except the ones you added. The rules state that we avoid "switching between major citation styles... or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's". As long as the page numbers are there, the text is verifiable. A good model to use is the featured article Ulysses Grant. It contains page numbers, but no Google Books links to individual pages, as that would be entirely superfluous. There are many other problems with the text. For example, there are no spaces between the citation numbers and the text that follows them. There are multiple sentence fragments like "as well as glassmaking and new styles of houses" (sentences require a subject and verb to be grammatical). There are words that make no sense like "aooears". There are sentences sourced to multiple sources where one would do the exact same. And you've filled the text with extra information unbefitting of a summary, etc... I don't agree with re-adding text that contains this many serious errors unless a clear majority back these changes. Homemade Pencils (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Consistency of reference style is a requirement of recognized content (GAs, FAs), which this article is not and will not be in the foreseeable future. The solution to reference style inconsistency is to reformat it, not delete the it, as WP:V is a core policy; reference style is a WP:MOS issue. Unless the text can be demonstrated to be unfixable or unreasonable to try to fix, reverting it is drastic and aggressively uncollaborative. "aooears" is not a "word that makes no sense", but an obvious typo for "appears". The problems with this article are mountain high—these are nothing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that Nishidani's edits are awfully careless. It might be good to add in new details, but it should at least be done with some thought and logical citations. I don't agree with Nishidani's reverts. New information should be added to the current text, but only based on the good stuff we have, not slashing through the current text by inserting literally dozens of spelling and grammatical mistakes. Hadassah16 (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class history articles
- Mid-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- C-Class Japan-related articles
- Top-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- C-Class Archaeology articles
- High-importance Archaeology articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors