This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 14:40, September 10, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Edo Japan is NOT part of the so-called feudal period.
Please change the heading: the "feudal period" lasted until the country gradually became unified under Tokugawa Ieyasu (after the Battle of Sekigahara c. 1600)--not, as stated, until the Meiji Restoration!
You're right that scholarship today generally refers to the Edo period as "early modern" and the medieval period as ending around 1600. However, many aspects of Edo period society, from the relationship between lords and peasants to the relationship between lords and the shogun, to the very fact that we use words like lords, castles, and domains in this period, show significantly feudal features. It was not until the Meiji Restoration that all things comparable to a "feudal" society - peasantry, feudal domains, lords, a sword-wielding warrior class - were eliminated. LordAmeth 23:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of errors in the Buddhism section I had to correct. Contrary to popular belief, the earlier schools of Buddhism never really lost power as the new Kamakura schools emerged, but the newer schools did gain even wider following. Recent research shows that even the older Buddhist schools experienced some revival during this time as they cross-pollenated ideas with the newer schools.
I also edited the summary of each school of Buddhism. It was factually incorrect and used Christian terminology (prayer) where Buddhist terminology (chanting or recitation) would have been more correct. I also changed the list to focus on the founders, who were all ex-Tendai monks, rather than attempting to explain the new schools. Readers can click on the subsequent links if they want more info. Ph0kin 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
There is extensive overlap between this article and Kamakura shogunate and I feel that if the redundancies were removed, the resulting smaller Kamakura shogunate article could not stand alone in its present state. I therefore propose to merge it into here, "Kamakura period" being the broader theme. Steipe (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I oppose the merger. While there is extensive overlap, the topics are quite distinct and worthy of separate articles. The article on the shogunate should focus on the institutions of the Kamakura government, while the article on the period should relegate that topic to the daughter article and serve as an umbrella article on culture, economy, and the political and institutional history of the provinces as well as the Court (i.e. anything but the shogunate). We should aim for separate articles on Kamakura (period, shogunate), Muromachi (period, shogunate) and Edo (period, shogunate). Editing can separate the coverage as appropriate. Fg2 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Fg2. Better improve the Kamakura Shogunate article than merge it with the Kamakura period article. I will try to improve the article soon. urashimataro (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Fg2. --Tenmei (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
After a month, this discussion is concluded with the result no merger.Fg2 (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)