Talk:History of Japan

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

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 Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)