Talk:History of Japan
|History of Japan has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents.|
- 1 Huntington's Clash of Civilizations
- 2 Article badly needs footnoting
- 3 AD/BC , BCE/CE mismatch
- 4 Neutrality/Objectivity
- 5 Opening sentences unclear
- 6 Structure in Chichibu
- 7 Man'yōshū misdated!
- 8 Period dates are inconsitent
- 9 Social history
- 10 Edit request on 19 February 2012
- 11 File:Byodoin Phoenix Hall Uji 2009.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- 12 Unit 731
- 13 Edit request on 4 June 2012
- 14 Animal law
- 15 Japanese castes at different points in their history
- 16 Castes at Different Points in Japanese History
Huntington's Clash of Civilizations
I noticed there's a map showing Huntington's "Civilizations" and how Japan is a lone, one-country civilization according to Samuel Huntington. However, Samuel Huntington's "Civilizations" theory has been widely criticized and debunked, and he shouldn't be regarded as an expert on Japanese civilization. Isn't Japan considered by many academics a part of the greater Sinosphere? I think the reference to Samuel Huntington should be removed. What are the opinions of those of you who are more knowledgeable on Japanese civiliation/history? Do you agree? Skyduster (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- I hadn't heard about Huntington and my main interest is old Japanese history (Feudal and older), so I don't know much about recent history. From reading the wikipedia articles (The Clash of Civilizations and Sinosphere) it appears to me that Huntington is more concerned about the present (and future) world while "Sinosphere" depends more on the history (past) of the country. Also Huntington is a political scientist while James Matisoff is a linguist. In Japanese history there have certainly been times when Chinese influence was strong and times but also times when it was virtually absent (or at least not popular). As for the map, I don't think it should go to the top of the article next to the paleolithic. Also, the world map seems rather irrelevant for this article which is about Japanese history. If Huntington's view is considered relevant, the information of the image/map caption (possibly expanded) should go into the After the Cold War section as prose in my opinion. Maybe you could ask at the WP:HISTORY whether Huntington's view is relevant. PS: Possibly the map could go into Foreign relations of Japan or related articles!? bamse (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is a problem with numerous East Asia history / culture articles. Too much modern Western "interpretation" and creep of unrelated contemporary political ideas (see the atrocious "gender" section in the Korean language article, for instance) rather than just the facts as they're known. A reader couldn't be blamed for distrusting what's presented in these East Asian history articles - not with all the distorting lenses and filters.
Article badly needs footnoting
There are huge chunks of text entirely devoid of proper sourcing. This should be corrected at once. I also saw a few grammatical errors which I'll 'fix' and note over the next few days. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmsFan —Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
AD/BC , BCE/CE mismatch
I notice that this article uses both formats. Furthermore, isn't it a bit inappropriate to be using the BC/AD format in an article on Japanese history? I mean I can understand very well that people want to use it when discussing the history of their own historically christian countries, but it hardly seems right for the non-christian ones.
- Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dates and note that this article has used BC/AD format since the beginning. It is therefore inappropriate to change it to BCE/CE style. Fg2 (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The objectivity of this article, I have noticed, is rather suspect, particularly once the narrative moves into the Second World War and the Occupation, as though it was paraphrased from an old secondary school text (by old I mean pre-Social history) and probably should be updated/objectified. Additionally, there is a lack of citations throughout the Taisho/Showa and Occupation sections which adds to a lack of credibility, objectivity, and propriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafenryn (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your concern for quality in Wikipedia, Leafenryn. I think it would be helpful if you pointed out specifically which text you think is bad, and say how you think it is lacking, and maybe how it could be improved. No one owns the text, so don't worry about hurting anyone's feelings by saying, "this part is poor quality". Without specific mention of what part(s) you feel is biased, it's hard for other editors to understand your criticism, and work to improve the text. Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Opening sentences unclear
The very first lines of this article leave me scratching my head. What exactly is the contrast between paleolithic inhabitation and the fact that there is a first century historical text? There is no clear connection between these, let alone contrast. The word "however" implies a contrast. Paleolithic peoples could not write history, so there is no connection there; furthermore, is it impossible that the information contained in that text might mention such paleolithic inhabitants? Unlikely, but technically possible. Again, therefore, there is no clear connection between the statement of the first sentence and that of the second. This section would seem ripe for rewriting.
In addition, what is meant by brief information "of" Twenty-Four Histories? Do you mean IN Twenty Four Histories? In other words, there is information in that text. "Of" that text implies that there is some evidence that such a text exists--but this is clearly not the meaning that is intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Structure in Chichibu
It may be worth mentioning the structure in Chichibu which was dated to 500,000 years ago. Though it is likely that it was built by an ancestor that's classified as a homo-erectus rather than homo-sapien. There's a BBC article about it.
Samcol1492 (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it is a hoax. See Japanese paleolithic hoax. Although Chichibu is not mentioned in the article. -- Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone should correct the mistake about the Man'yōshū allegedly being written in the Heian-Period, while it was in fact already completed in 759 A.D. in the middle of Nara-Period (the detailed article about it states that accurate)! I lack sufficient english skill to change it myself, but anyone who doesn't could edit that in a matter of seconds! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I understand, the oldest poem in the Man'yōshū dates to 759, while the work itself was compiled some time after that date. Page 60 of this reference gives a date of "ca. 785" which would be just in the Heian period (assuming the 710-784 definition for the Nara period). In any case I agree with you that mentioning the Man'yōshū in the Heian period section is a bit misleading/wrong. bamse (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Period dates are inconsitent
In the table (top right) the Paleolithic is listed as 35,000–14,000 BC. In the section on Japanese prehistory the dates given for the Japanese Paleolithic age are 100,000 to 30,000 B.C. Then this section says, "This timeline corresponds with the beginning of the Mesolithic Jōmon period. As the Jōmon period has a start date of around 35,000 B.C, it is most generally accepted." The table (top right) lists the Jōmon period as 14,000–300 BC. Then the section on Ancient Japan then gives a range of "14,000 BC until 500 BC." Perhaps a clear source for these dates could be found and if there is no scholarly consensus for the date range, then perhaps the source for each proposed date range could be discussed in the article text. Stormcellardoor (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- My understanding, after reading a bit about early Japanese history recently.... Start date of Japanese Paleolithic is most often quoted as somewhere in the 30,000s BC and after 38,000 BC (or more likely after 35,000 BC). Some archaeologists (minority) claim a start as early as 50,000 BC. "100,000 BC" as in the prehistory section I haven't seen anywhere and is possibly related to the Japanese paleolithic hoax. The transition from paleolithic to Jomon is defined by the use (and creation) of pottery. This was a gradual process thought to have happened over a period from 14,000 to 8000 BC. The oldest pottery (sherds) are from about 14,000 BC but it took a while until pottery spread over the archipelago. Also "cord-marked pottery" (literal meaning of "Jomon") appeared around 8000 BC, so taking the literal meaning of Jomon, the start would be 8000 BC. However it is probably more natural to put the start at the appearance of any kind of pottery since this likely had a greater influence than the appearance of a new type of pattern. Depending on definition I've seen start dates like 14,000 BC (e.g. Habu, "Ancient Jomon of Japan"), 10,500 BC (e.g. Cambridge History of Japan) and others in that range. As for the Yayoi period (defined by wet-rice cultivation and metal use), it is traditionally dated to 300 BC to 300 AD, but due to new evidence this is likely shifted to something like 500/400 BC to 250 AD.
- Really, all of those early dates are approximate and new finds or new dating techniques (calibrated radiocarbon dating) can change those dates considerably. Another issue is that different authors might use different definitions and that dates depend on the location in Japan: most technology coming from mainland China/Korea arrived via Kyushu and spread from there, so periods start earlier in Kyushu than in central Honshu. The first fixed date is 710 (start of Nara period). bamse (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- You might want to use references from List of National Treasures of Japan (archaeological materials). bamse (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit request on 19 February 2012
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
the first external link is broken
File:Byodoin Phoenix Hall Uji 2009.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Byodoin Phoenix Hall Uji 2009.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Byodoin Phoenix Hall Uji 2009.jpg)
Why isnt Unit 731 and similar incidents mentioned in this historic article? It find it quite shocking. --Jonipoon 14:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 4 June 2012
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
"centralized its power" you can find this by doing a word search. It should be "centralize its power".
I am looking for help of animal laws in ancient Japan. I am aware Japan had some form of animal rights law in the history, but I do not know the exactly name. If anyone knows it, can you please add to the animal rights article or point it out in the talk page of animal rights? One act that I am aware was released during 15th century, it was based on Buddhist compassion to animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSZvH7N5n8 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Japanese castes at different points in their history
Similarly we link to Burakumin under the [[History_of_Japan#Muromachi_period]|Muromachi Period] and find other places where articles about significant historical Japanese social and political castes can be put into context within the overall history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimD (talk • contribs) 21:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Castes at Different Points in Japanese History
It looks like Japan had markedly different caste systems during different periods in its history.
Similarly we should link to Burakumin under the [[History_of_Japan#Muromachi_period]|Muromachi Period] and find other places where articles about significant historical Japanese social and political castes can be put into context within the overall history.