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)

@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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.[1] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

What proof do you have as to Diamond "not being a specialist"?TH1980 (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Give it up, troll. You are only posting here because you don't like me, and now you are just clawing desperately for any excuse to refute me, even when your post makes no sense whatsoever. Diamond is not a specialist because he has received no specialist training in any of the relevant fields. His faculty bio doesn't say he has received such training. After close to a year of searching, CurtisNaito has been unable to find any evidence of such training. Wikipedia policy is against you here, but you are trying to turn it on its head and pretend I am the one violating policy. Give it a goddamn break already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:39, 5 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 Wikipedia; 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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[See page 18!], 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[This word is important: it is a disputed, and highly dubious, tradition, as Henshall rightly notes.] 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Seems like I'm throwing petrol on a fire here. There's not much point in looking for a review for an article while it's being developed. I think the review it received is hard to understand - the very first sentence in the article stated "The first evidence of a human presence in Japan dates back to 200,000 years ago", a statement which could have been easily discovered to be false by checking just about any source or even the Wikipedia article Japanese Paleolithic referred to just above the statement as the "Main Article". zzz (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the source cited says, "No-one is quite sure when the first humans appeared in Japan. Claims have been made for a date as far back as 500,000 years, and some even expect a history of a million years to be proven in due course. The general agreement at present allows for around 200,000 years, though the earliest definite human fossil remains are only about 30,000 years old."CurtisNaito (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I say, the reviewer should have checked just about any source, or even the source cited, which mentions, apparently, nothing whatsoever about "evidence". zzz (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Henshall's book cites the work of Richard J. Pearson for evidence of human habitation around 200,000 years ago. 200,000 years ago may be the general consensus, but both older and more recent dates are also advocated by various scholars.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I get that you refuse to accept your increasingly obvious errors. One author's vague opinion of an imaginary "general agreement" gets translated as "the first evidence", thereby rewriting history, and the reviewer passes the article. That's what concerns me. zzz (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

However, would the statement really be all that contradictory with what the new source says? The new source says that "However, although we have evidence that humans lived on the continent from at least seven hundred thousand years ago, there is to date no solid evidence of human presence in the Japanese archipelago before about 35,000 years ago. It is likely that humans had arrived much earlier than that, but at any rate it is clear that by thirty thousand years ago, groups of humans were living throughout the archipelago in the Late Paleolithic (Old Stone Age)." I think plenty of reliable sources can testify for evidence of human habitation in Japanese territories hundreds of thousands of years ago, but naturally it's better if the article notes that definitive proof comes only during the Late Paleolithic.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The way you phrased it was mistaken - not hugely perhaps, but the result was hugely wrong. If I hadn't changed it, since it was passed as a WP:GA, it would probably have just stayed that way indefinitely. zzz (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If that's the accepted standard of a WP:GA review then it's worse than pointless. zzz (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

GAN reviews are conducted by a single volunteer editor and are not nearly as rigourous as FAC. Substandard articles do get through, but we have GAR to take care of them. I've been trying to copyedit this article, but I keep running into issues that are not fixable through a mere copyedit. Perhaps we could propose a Collaboration of the Month kind of thing at WP:JAPAN? I don't have the detailed knowledge or time to help suss out the factual details in such a case, but I can contribute copyediting and feedback. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's worth pointing out that none of the material which you have copyedited so far was in the article during the good article review. All the material that you have copy edited up to this point was inserted AFTER the good article review.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Total bullshit. zzz (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No it's true. Curly Turkey has only edited up to the end of the Yayoi period so far, but the majority of this area is quite different now than it was during the good article review. Curly Turkey criticized the use of both BC and BCE, but the BCE was added after the good article review. Curly Turkey criticized the use of the terms "Emperor Showa" and "Hirohito", but that was an addition made after the good article review. He criticized the many easter egg links, but all but one of those was added after the good article review. Just look at any of his recent copyedits. These edits relate almost exclusively to material added after the good article review. It's natural for even good articles to be in a constant state of flux on Wikipedia, and almost none of the parts Curly Turkey has reviewed so far were in the article at the time of the good article review.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:05, 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)

I asked you if you were the one responsible for including the false claim that the Kaifūsō was an anthology of Japanese poetry. You responded by providing a direct quotation from your source that did not make this false claim, indicating that you had put words in your source's mouth. I'm inclined to believe you only provided the quote because you had misread my original edit summary and at this point still genuinely believed that the Kaifūsō was an anthology of Japanese poetry. When I pointed out to you that you had effectively admitted to distorting a source, you tried to revise history by claiming that what you had really meant was "the first collections of Japanese-made poetry". No reasonable reading of the wording you originally used could draw that conclusion, and you were just denying your own mistake. This is what I was referring to with "Oh, well I meant to [do]<!-- Sorry! Misspelled it as "day". >.< --> that from the start -- why didn't you understand me?" And then there was also this. Why can't you just admit you made a mistake, apologize for it, and move on? Everyone else does it. Why do you have to be the only one to consistently deny all the instances that every objective observer has remarked were OR/misrepresentations of sources? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

References

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)

I'm talking about referring to one emperor by his era name and the other by his personal name, obviously. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, is unifying the way the two emperors in the above-quoted discussion are referred to not what you are talking about? If not, then I'm afraid I'm not competent enough to edit this article, because I not only did not see the problem right away but still am failing to see it. Emperors Meiji and Taisho are almost never referred to by anything other than their era names -- calling them by anything else would be questionable; the Taisho emperor's son, though, is rarely referred to by anything other than his given name in English, and his son should not be referred to by anything other than his given name, out of respect if not for verifiability. It is highly offensive to refer to a reigning emperor as though he had already passed away, and I have not seen any source in English do this except for the above-cited poorly-researched action movie. Call every emperor up to but not including Meiji by their standard name, call Meiji and Taisho by their era names, and call Showa on by their given names -- problem solved, no? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:08, 4 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)

Some feedback

A lot of details don't belong in the article—rather, they belong in subarticles, not in the overview this article ought to be. Things like:

• "It has been widely assumed that the Jōmon people led mostly sedentary lives in settlements consisting of a dozen or so pit-houses, though this has been recently questioned."—if it's questioned, then perhaps it should be ditched at this scope (just how important arre these details, anyways?)—but is the questioning widely accepted? Is even mentioning it perhaps WP:UNDUE?
• "The date of the change was until recently thought to be around 400 BC but radio-carbon evidence suggests a date up to 500 years earlier, between 1,000–800 BC." Is the radio-carbon evidence disputed? If not, then 400BC should go—if it is, then there's probably a better way to handle this without getting into the details of radio-carbon dating.

These kinds of details just drag down the reading experience, and the article seems to be filled with them.

The lead really needs a good rewrite—I found even a thorough copyedit didn't deal with how unbalanced it is. The pre-Tokugawa shogunates are more or less skipped over, while Pacific War-related stuff gets 934B out of 3122B (nearly 30%). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm currently making a bid to rewrite the lead. Give me another fifteen minutes or so. I'm hesitant to change the other two sentences you mention because they were recent additions to the article and I wasn't the one who added them. Hopefully someone else will fix them.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Guilty. I added "but radio-carbon evidence suggests a date up to 500 years earlier". We don't need to mess up the article with so-called "evidence" - just leave it with the wrong date, like in the Good Article review, so as that way it's less confusing on Wikipedia and we can focus on improving the article. zzz (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Way to completely miss the point. Read what I actually wrote again, very, very slowly, and make an especial effort at comprehension. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh: You said we can't mention the date believed until recently and the new evidence, because:

"These kinds of details just drag down the reading experience."

I comprehended that. zzz (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I said no such thing---it's all right there in black and white . You comprehended precious little, and don't appear to be trying. At this point I have to wonder why you're even participating in the discussion, if not to derail it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You may not have noticed but this is the only discussion left around here such as it is. You said "Is the radio-carbon evidence disputed? If not, then 400BC should go" (it isn't) followed by the quote above. I don't see why it should go, except for the supposed "reading experience" reason you gave. Whereas adding specialist sources to correct nonsense you (apparently) dismissed as "political horseshit" for some reason. zzz (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The "political bullshit" was the head games you guys are playing that wasn't related to resolving the issues I brought up. If the radio-carbon dating isn't disputed then the 400BC date is invalid, is it not? Regardless, that sort of hairsplitting belongs in a subarticle, not in an already overlong article that is only supposed to give an overview of Japan's long history and point readers to more specific articles for details. Do you understand what "summarize" means? Do you know what "scope" means? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The strange thing is, if you'd bothered to look at the edit history, you'd see that all I've done is correct factual errors and add sources while cutting down on verbiage. Go ahead and check. So none of what your saying is relevant. Cheers zzz (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What a bizarre non sequitur. The edit history is irrelevant. I'm talking about what's there now and needs to be fixed and why. If you're not interested, then quit wasting everyone's time. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:POTKETTLEBLACK zzz (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The passages you question were defective and inaccurate, and specialist sources were adduced to corroborate a rewrite which corrected the nonsense. Your objections are pointless.Nishidani (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh ... come again? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll try re-writing the lead a little now. However, because some of this discussion here is focused on whether or not the good article review was detailed enough, I feel I should add that neither of the two sentences you are criticizing above were in the article at the time of the good article review. When it comes to clarifying those sentences, I'll probably leave that to be sorted out by the editors who added them not long after the review was completed.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Again, Total and utter bullshit. "Unlike earlier Paleolithic peoples, the Jōmon people led mostly sedentary lives in settlements consisting of a dozen or so pit-houses." was in the review version.
• "Japan's Jōmon culture endured over 10,000 years until a societal revolution began around the year 400 BC which inaugurated the Yayoi period" was in the review version, failing to mention the latest expert opinion pushes the date back by half a millenium. zzz (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The part of the first sentence that Curly Turkey mainly criticizes is the part reading "though this has been recently questioned". That part was not in the reviewed version. However, Signedzzz, why did you mention the sentence starting with "Japan's Jōmon culture endured..." Curly Turkey did not mention it, and it wasn't in the article when he started to copyedit it.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIR zzz (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

But you mentioned the sentence starting with "Japan's Jōmon culture endured..." My point is that this sentence was deleted after the good article review and was already gone by the time Curly Turkey started his copyedit.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This is pitiful. I can't be bothered any more. zzz (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the collapse box again. Assuming good faith on the part of Curly Turkey, a user whose edits are usually good but who might have a minor temper problem every now and then, he was reverted by Signedzzz, about the only user (and that includes me) who will likely come out of this without a black mark on their ledger. The box was only readded by CurtisNaito, in yet another attempt to undermine users who disagree with him and express his unilaterally declared ownership of this article, and with a somewhat snide edit summary that was clearly aimed at me, CurtisNaito, Signedzzz and everyone else who disagrees with him. If Curly Turkey still wants the box in place, we can talk, but I won't tolerate any more attempts by CurtisNaito to OWN this article and/or its talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• I do object to the box's removal—nothing in it was aimed at contributing to a disucussion about improving the article. It was made up of an aggressive attempt to discourage discussion on Nishidani's part and squabbling that belonged elsewhere between Curtis Naito and Signedzzz. Not that there's any chance a good-faith discussion will now ensue. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Um

Another dumb sentence.

The rich ecosystem of the islands fostered human development following the last ice age around 12,000 BC.

Japan's ecological system was highly diversified, and Jomon sites are not uniformly 'fostered' by it uniformly over the whole landscape. It is also a rather pointless statement. Man lived in the most inhospitable environments, and singling out a distintctive ecology as the reason for the 'human development' of earlier dwellers is.. Oh Jeezus, why does one have to explain the obvious here?Nishidani (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the lead is a summary and naturally doesn't go into the nuances and details. Jared Diamond noted in his article In Search of Japanese Roots, "Around 13,000 years ago, as glaciers melted rapidly all over the world, conditions in Japan changed spectacularly for the better, as far as humans were concerned. Temperature, rainfall, and humidity all increased, raising plant productivity to present high levels. Deciduous leafy forests full of nut trees, which had been confined to southern Japan during the ice ages, expanded northward at the expense of coniferous forest, thereby replacing a forest type that had been rather sterile for humans with a much more productive one. The rise in sea level severed the land bridges, converted Japan from a piece of the Asian continent to a big archipelago, turned what had been a plain into rich shallow seas, and created thousands of miles of productive new coastline with innumerable islands, bays, tidal flats, and estuaries, all teeming with seafood."CurtisNaito (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Reread the thread on Jared Diamond. We don't use him. You have failed to grasp that the objection is not to the fact that the late world ecological change rendered all countries in the northern hemisphere more ertile, etc., but to the silliness of the phrasing ('fostered human development' sounds like a phrase straight out of a pop psychology book.)

Improved ecological conditions following the last ice age facilitated population growth and a flowering of culture. ref Mark Griffiths, The Lotus Quest: In Search of the Sacred Flower, Random House, 2011 pp.144-146 Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

On/In

• Sri Lanka Tamils, who have lived in the archipelago for centuries
• People have lived in this archipelago for at least 10,500 radiocarbon years
• Those foreigners who lived in the archipelago were subject to the prevailing political and social powers

Please don't copyedit if you cannot grasp the elementary distinction between 'living on' and 'living in'.Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• All in the context of Japan, to boot:
• "a population of Paleolithic humans, known as Akashi man, had lived on the archipelago"
• "Clarifying the as yet poorly understood process by which the lives of all who have lived on the archipelago have"
• "and localities on the archipelago, has continued on into the present. Clarifying the as yet poorly understood process by which the lives of all who have lived on the archipelago have molded ..."
• Not that you care, because you're obviously out for a fight. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

(a)First, learn to format your links correctly. (b) exclude evidence of usage that derives from non-native speakers, which you fail to do. (c) your original revert edit summary reads:'you live on, not in, an archipelago'. This assumes as standard English usage what is no such thing. (d)I provided 3 precise readable links to academic works showing that, whatever the status of 'on the archipelago', it is easily verifiable that 'in the archipelago' is perfectly normal English usage, so your dismissal of it as 'crappy' and confident assertion are based on unfamiliarity with English usage. (e) The distinction in locative nuance between 'on' and 'in' escapes you: on has a vertical nuance, the other implies greater horizontal extension. As is normal in idiom, these shade over and are often ignored. No one says 'live on Japan' which would be the logical extension of 'live on (the archipelago of) Japan', whereas if the topological area is very large, you can use either ('live on the continent', 'live in Europe': to 'live on Europe' as 'live on Japan' is solecistic, also because it produces an ambiguity (as if one lived on European welfare, as in 'live on a subsidy'). All of this escapes you. Bullheadedly, you went back, notwithstanding the evidence I provided, on the basis of the 3 snippets you googled, without reflecting on the issue I analysed in the sequence of edits (here) and the emendation here. Since your second revert provides no justification for preferring one idiom over the other, it is vindictive or merely one motivated by pride, or getting one's way. Remember, this is a global encyclopedia, idiom varies in Anglophone countries, and presuming that one's own instincts are enough to guarantee precision is inept. Your original edit merely shows you were not familiar with the varieties of English usage, and your second showed you don't stop to analyse the problem. Got that?

I will revert back because I have an example of the usage referring precisely to the period referenced.Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You can stop lecturing now---your last incompetent piece of WP:POINTy "referencing" has demonstrated that improving the encyclopaedia is not what you're here for. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I.e. you have no answer (cf. this edit summary is empty of meaning, and full of sentiment). Thanks for telling me on my page I lacked communicative skills.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Answer to what? That you can't comprehend the difference between geographical and political entities? Or do we live "in" islands and "in" continents now? Listen, Nishidani, I'm not your English teacher, and I'm not here to play these mindfucking games on the talk page. I'm here to improve the article; go play on 4chan if you're not. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk about "empty of meaning"–stop disrupting articles to make shallow, empty WP:POINTs. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it's "in". You don't say "I live on the Ryukyu Islands". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, we've already demonstrated and agreed both are used and moved on (though you would never say "There's a mountain in the island." would you?) That particular issue has been resolved—what hasn't been resolved is Nishidani's disruptive editing: This is never acceptable under any circumstances. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the lead.

In my opinion there are two problems with the lead:

1. No mention of Shinto, and
2. The old age, continuity and political/cultural importance of the imperial dynasty should feature more prominently.

86.56.81.143 (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

• Really, this was really haphazard. How about we slow down and work out what the lead needs first, like I already suggested below? Just slappin' in more info is only going to create a mess. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to leads, my first instinct is to keep it short. I am constantly told during good and featured article reviews to shorten the lead, but as of yet I have never been told to lengthen the lead. Still, this is a big article, so the lead could still be expanded. I did mention the imperial dynasty and Shinto. What do you think that the lead needs?CurtisNaito (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about lenghthening the lead, this is about stepping back and working out how best to summarize the article in a balanced way. You guys can figure that out, though—I'm done with this article. Have fun duking it out with the warriors who haunt this talk page. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. Perhaps we should make a list of things that should be in the lead and then build a new lead here from that list instead of just trying to tweak what's there already. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

(3) 'The earliest known pottery found in Japan dates to the Jōmon period of roughly 13,000 to 400 BC.' Pottery in Japan predates that by more than 1,500 years (Junko Habu p.42) Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should stop adding stuff to the lead, its already pretty long. Maybe it would be a good idea to write a completely new lead like curlyturkey suggested. First we make a list with the most important things/facts we want in it, then we put them in chronological order, and then write the new lead. 89.16.133.80 (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

Regardless of who was right or wrong regarding the "(in|on) the archipelago" kerfuffle, this edit is inappropriate in all situations and contexts on Wikipedia.

To support the usage of "in the archipelago", Nishidani found sources in which such a construction is used—fine. Then he added one of those sources to the opening line of the lead as a "citation" supporting usage of "in the archipelago". Not a source calling the usage correct, nor a citation for any information in the sentence fragment it was attached to. That Nishidani would disrupt article space over something so trivial calls into question the rest of the sourcing he has added the article recently: how much of it is biased POV chosen to prove some other point, one that's perhaps politically charged?

I didn't get very far with my copyediting, and I'm going to cease. The problems with the article are "so big and so deep and so tall" that copyediting is not the solution, and this sourcing issue has convinced me to stop wasting my time. This article should be sent to WP:GAR and either demoted or have its sources examined one by one by a knowledgeable third party to ensure they've been used in an appropriate manner. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So far the only sourcing problems you have pointed out relate to sources which were added just within the last week after the good article review was already complete. Nishidani came to edit this article after the good article review. I have already verified the accuracy of all the sources which were added before the good article review, and if needed I could certainly also check the sources which were added recently. Alternatively, we could just revert some of the text back to where it was at the time of the good article review. Regarding the edit you mentioned above, maybe there was a sourcing problem, but there were also some issues simply with style. For example, it's normal for a Wikipedia article to start with the title of the article in the first sentence, so I don't think that the title of the article should have been deleted there. Even so, 90% of the text of the article has not changed since the time it passed good article review, so we are only talking about problems with maybe 10% of the text.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Any citations provided by Nishidani need to be double-checked—he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand the how or the why of sourcing on Wikipedia. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Please give me another day to personally examine this matter. I will check the sources and perhaps also make the text a little more readable if possible.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh ... well, you're not really a third party, are you? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I may not be a third party to the material added prior to the good article review, but that material was already checked prior to the good article review. I'm offering to check and streamline the material added since the good article review, which so far is the only material which you have objected to.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Generally the sources check out fine. There was one sentence, "Environmental changes contributed to a rise in Japan's population during the early Jōmon period from a few thousand to an estimated 260,000 in mid-Jōmon times according to Koyama", which mostly failed verification to its source, so I replaced it with a different one. It was more an issue of trying to make the prose more articulate and concise. Some additional copy editing might still be needed.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Haven't checked the source in question, but if Nishidani did add a "source" to the article to verify a grammatical point rather than a factual claim in the article ... he is still only the fourth or fifth most disruptive user based on adding V-violating material to the article in the last week. But I do agree with Curly Turkey that the article should go to GAR. I checked most of the citations of Henshall that could be accessed on the GBooks free preview, and virtually all of them contained a degree of "interpretation" of Henshall's somewhat barebones description. 10:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Who added Henshall? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito did. I checked one place that cited him, and it failed verification (that's what started this whole mess). I then went around checking all of the cites to him that I could based on the GBooks preview: they all contained original readings of things Henshall never wrote. I therefore think it's highly likely that all of the citations of Henshall (including the ones I can't check myself without paying to import a copy of his book on Amazon) are original interpretations not backed up by Henshall's own words, and a full review should be performed. My location means that old and obscure Japanese books can be accessed for free in any library, but American and British books are relatively hard/expensive to come by. I'm currently searching around for a copy of an unrelated book by Hayase Toshiyuki, by the way; should have it by the end of the weekend, and might chime in on a certain FA review with my findings. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, GAR it already, then—this is no GA and it won't become one any time soon given all the tendentious editing by multiple editors. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Curly Turkey You keep promising to leave, but your still here, and still eagerly casting aspersions. How about you make good on your promise? Just a suggestion. zzz (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Scroll up—I said "I didn't get very far with my copyediting, and I'm going to cease."—and I did. How about you quit baiting people? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) CT, unless you're willing to guarantee not only that you will immediately show up and support removing the article's GA status, but that CurtisNaito's attack dogs -- and the attack dogs of various other users who don't like me and recently made a massive push on ANI for me to be site-banned -- will not start harassing me again (something you obviously can't guarantee), then you should not tell me that it's my responsibility to start yet another broad community discussion and invite more harassment and hounding so soon after all the other bullshit I have had to endure over the past few weeks. If you start the discussion, I will support de-GAing as soon as I get the opportunity, and post all of my findings disproving the article's GA status. If any other editor starts the discussion, I will do the same there, too. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that CN may be intending to use the GA status as a bludgeon to keep restoring his version, so it certainly should happen. Should be a formality. I can't stand forms tho. zzz (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@zzz: How dare you state the blindingly obvious like that!? Who the hell do you think you are? Don't you know that pointing out that other users are doing what they already admitted they are doing is a blatant violation of WIKIPEIDA POLISY???

Sarcasm aside, I also hate forms. That's just another reason I don't want to be the one to open the GAR.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri 88: I didn't say it was your responsibility and I didn't mean it to come across as so. Somebody should GAR this, but I won't since I have no intention of working on the article any more as long as I keep getting trolled. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

CT: Who was trolling you? I saw a very small and frankly petty dispute between you and Nishidani over whether one lives "in" or "on" an archipelago, and one potentially POINTy addition of an irrelevant source arising out of that dispute, but not trolling. I defended you in your recent dispute with another user on ANI, because if that case you really were being trolled by a user with a creepy tendency to ... troll. But here you have a very minor content dispute with another user, which you should both just get over at this point. Looking at Nishidani's talk page it looks like he tried to get over it already, and you kept trying to get him to admit that his addition of that ref was POINTy. I think Nishidani needs to reread WP:V (something I'm sure he's read dozens of times over the years already, and just needs a reminder) and you need to read WP:HORSEMEAT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Nishidani, although he's one reason I've given up on this article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito's large, unilateral change

It's already been reverted but this was not a good edit and should have required consensus on the talk page first, especially considering how many times CurtisNaito has told other users that their edits require prior consent.

• Adding "prehistoric" before "Jōmon period" in place of the dates is problematic because it implies that "the subsequent Yayoi period" is not also prehistoric. (CurtisNaito has indicated several times above that he believes that the Yayoi period is historical enough that we have extensive historical documentation of the era to the point we don't need archaeology to study it, and that the precise nature of the society and polity of Japan has been established based on this documentation.)
• Removing the Easter egg link to "Zen Buddhism" was a move in the right direction, but wikilinking Shinto and not Buddhism is not great; I changed the link to Japanese Buddhism.
• Ancient Jomon of Japan of (from what I can see in the GBooks preview) far too technical and scholarly a source for me to trust CurtisNaito's interpretation of pages that I can't see. Since CurtisNaito called his changes "recommendations", I checked on the talk page, and it seems the only time Habu was quoted here was in relation to pottery.
• "Today historians generally believe that the Yayoi culture was established by new arrivals from the Asian mainland." CURTISNAITO, STOP SAYING "Today historians generally believe" WHEN YOUR SOURCES DON'T SUPPORT THIS. YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD COUNTLESS TIMES BY NUMEROUS USERS TO STOP THIS. IF YOU VIOLATE CONSENSUS ON THIS POINT AGAIN, SAID USERS WILL BE FORCED TO SEEK OTHER SOLUTIONS. Additionally, referring to your own opinion as a "recommendation" (from yourself?) is highly inappropriate and will get you blocked if you don't stop doing it.
• "the unified state" and "during this period" were good grammatical corrections. If CurtisNaito limited himself to fixing grammatical errors made by users with better sourcing standards, the whole project would be the better for it.
• As for removing the dates from my citations of Keene: As far as I am concerned, all citations should include dates. CurtisNaito, who thinks it is appropriate to cite a source and not name the authors of the source anywhere on the page, should not be changing citations written by other users.
  

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC) (Edited 13:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC): Sorry. Forgot to add the diff showing CurtisNaito's refusal to credit the authors of his sources anywhere on the page.)

• I have nothing to add to this, except to point out that the chronology of the Jomon period is a minefield. I would not be comfortable at present with saying any more than something superficial along the lines of "no one knows". The section awaits someone with access to a wide range of - scholarly - sources (and the ability to correctly interpret them). Curtis's edit restoring his already amply discredited version en masse is obviously unacceptable. zzz (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Zen Buddhism link was from me, just pointing that out in case of a misunderstanding. Anyway, @CurtisNaito: please stop misinterpreting sources (again), it's the main reason you get into so much conflict with other editors (not just Hijiri). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: I assume your thanking me for changing the Zen link was an indication that you don't disapprove of me reverting you? As my spat with Nishidani over Levy, Miller and Okura a few months back indicates, I don't generally look at who made edits and speculate as to their motivations: I look at the article and edit accordingly. Sometimes when certain errors appear around certain users over and over again, it's pretty inevitable to guess who made them, though.

I don't suppose your saying "not just Hijiri" is a subtle request to CurtisNaito to stop requesting that I be site-banned for disagreeing with him, and requesting (possibly off-wiki) his friends to rampantly attack me, when so many others also disagree with him? If so, thank you very much for pointing that out. However, I think the record indicates CurtisNaito doesn't get subtlety. That's probably why I so often find myself having no choice but to use so much capitalization and boldface.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Well yes, but also just thanking you for correcting my mistake. And no I wasn't being subtle, I simply meant that you aren't the only one that has confronted him about his sourcing issues. But, while I don't think he's having any off-wiki contact, showing up at ANI with no interest in understanding the issue in that one instance and !voting for an indef anything is in bad taste. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think he was having any off-wiki contact either, until Calvin999, a user with whom he has apparently exchanged favours regarding GA assessment (without ever colluding to do so on-wiki, CurtisNaito suddenly started GAing a bunch of pop music articles all written by Calvin999), suddenly appeared and started accusing me of hounding CurtisNaito across multiple pages, citing in particular an incident that occurred in May. It seems pretty unlikely that Calvin999 went back and looked at my contribs, since anyone who did so would have actually seen that what happened in May was not me hounding Curtis, but rather the other way around. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I made the changes is because Curly Turkey was saying that other users are too busy criticizing him rather than implementing his recommendations. My edit was focused on implementing all his recommendations, including the two sentences he criticized above. He said that he was concerned with "details [that] just drag down the reading experience" so I changed the sentences he found to be problematic. He was concerned about the verifiability of Nishidani's sources, so I swapped the source which did not check out. I went with "historians generally believe" because all the sources do indeed make this clear. The article already notes that this is supported by "genetic and linguistic studies", but it doesn't say it is refuted by anything. It's like Curly Turkey said above about radio carbon dating, either the radio carbon dating is universally supported and therefore should be used in the article exclusively, or else we are bogging down into the details of an historical controversy. If the article just says that "genetic and linguistic studies" support this, but there is no contrary evidence, then we might as well just go with what the studies say. The sources which I cited made quite clear that the invasion theory is the only one with clear evidence to prove its validity.

The reason why I added prehistoric is because Nishidani wanted the start date of the Jomon period raised by two thousand years, which I thought was problematic for the lead. Most sources did not give such an early start date and including a potentially controversial date in the lead could provoke conflict. Therefore I decided to delete all the dates and just call it "prehistoric" instead. If Nishidani wanted, he could add in discussion of the possible start dates of the Jomon period into the body of the article, instead of the lead.

I also wanted the citations to be in a common style, which I don't think should have been reverted. Apart from that, what I was doing was implementing talk page suggestions. The reason why complaints have been made about this thread on the administrators' noticeboard is because there are too many personal attacks and rants on this talk page and not enough action on the article. I decided to go ahead and take the action which was recommended instead of just allowing the few real suggestion for change on the talk page to die amidst a sea of ranting.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito: I brought up those points to initiate a discussion on how best to improve the article. You reacted by "implementing" those undiscussed changes, and Signedzzz and Nishidani reacted by trying to derail the discussion. No wonder this article's such a mess—nobody wants to discuss things. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I posted an explanation directly above of several of my implemented changes, and yet, none of the posts which were made below it had anything to do with what I had said in my initial post. Without any actual discussion, I didn't think I had much choice but to go ahead and implement the recommendations. If you have an idea on how to fix the issues which you outlined above, maybe you should just go ahead and fix them. The only alternative is to discuss things, but that was already tried and it didn't work. My proposal to fix the issues is already on the table because I already attempted to implement it. No one else has a proposal on the table right now, because no one else is actually presenting anything on the talk page. With my proposal reverted and without any new proposals on the table, I can only assume that maybe the majority of users commenting here are happy with the article the way it is.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, The only alternative is to discuss things, but that was already tried and it didn't work. is completely out of the pale. You can't claim that you are trying to "discuss" things, when in fact what you are trying to do is force your views on everyone else by any means necessary. Everyone else has been trying to discuss this article with you, but you have been completely unwilling to work with us. It is not the responsibility of other users to fix all of your mistakes: it is your responsibility to make the mistakes in questions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, I have posted many messages trying to open discussion, and every time you just ignore them and post the exact same personal attacks which you are again posting above. You have made more mistakes than me, but instead of continuing to dwell on that, I have been trying to initiate productive discussion. There is no point in you continuing to make baseless personal attacks on me in this talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, everyone can see you ignoring the majority of the content of my messages and posting your own non sequiturs with no real relationship to the dispute. On one occasion I asked you if several pages you cited from Henshall verified what you attributed to him, and you changed the Henshall citation to include another page in a completely different part of the book that is not available in the free preview; when I asked you what exactly on that page verified your claims, you posted several quotations from the other pages I had already read, which didn't verify the material! How on earth is this "trying to open discussion"? That's just one example, but they all went pretty much like that, except that sometimes your responses were so immediate that I find it hard to believe you even read my messages before responding.

Also ... "You have made more mistakes than me"!? Don't make me laugh! Where on this page -- or on any other page where I have disputed with you -- have I made even a single mistake!? You accuse me of making personal attacks -- which personal attacks, exactly? WP:WIAPA clearly defines making unfounded accusations against other users as a personal attack, so if anyone is making personal attacks it is you.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I said, the reason why the article passed good article review in the first place was because I took the time to improve the article with accurate and reliable sourcing. In the talk page, I have been reasonable in pointing out to you your misreadings of the Henshall text as well as the gaps in your understanding of the horserider theory. All I can do is explain these things to you, I can't force you to listen. What I do keep on telling you though, is that the talk page is for discussion of article content, not personal attacks. I have pointed out your many, many mistakes, as have other users like TH1980, but only as was relevant to article content. Once an issue relating to article content is dealt with, you're supposed to move on. I posted a lengthy explanation of my edits above, and yet your responses completely ignored all content issues in favor of false accusations and personal attacks. As I said, there is no sense in continuing to repeat allegations which have been debunked so many times by so many other users. Just stick to discussion of article content and don't bother with any further personal attacks.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the reason the article pass good article review was Calvin999's utter failure as a reviewer to check the sources and see if they said what you claimed they said. Subsequent investigation and thorough discussion has established that they did not. The article's GA status would likely have already been revoked, if it wasn't for users like you and Calvin999 making me want to avoid calling attention to myself for the time being. My "allegations" have not been debunked: you misrepresented sources on this article; in the case of Henshall, it looks increasingly possible that every single citation is a misrepresentation of the source; you included false or misleading OR in the article that was not even hinted at in any of your sources. You and your attack dogs have thus far been completely unable to debunk these, because they are blatantly true. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I ain't touching this article anymore. Just today a certain someone made this edit in a transparent attempt to bait me. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the sentence starting with "Environmental changes contributed to a rise in Japan's..." is not properly cited. The book pages cited don't say anything about environmental changes or an early population of a few thousand. Why was a source which failed verification re-added to the article?TH1980 (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Because the user who removed it had been told multiple times by numerous users to refrain from large, unilateral edits. He claimed that he was doing so in accordance with "recommendations", when in fact most of what he was doing was reinserting his personal opinion into the article when it had already been removed by others. If in the process of reverting this hideous violation of consensus, some good stuff (like the grammatical errors I fixed) happened to be undone as well, it cannot be blamed on the reverting party. Now, having only access to the free GBooks preview, I have no way of knowing what it says on page 49, so I can't say you are right or wrong on the substance. Koyama's "260,000" estimate appears at the very bottom of page 48, so if environmental changes are mentioned they would almost certainly be on the page I can't see. TH1980, are they? I won't remove it if I don't know it fails V. One other thing I noticed, though, while checking Habu, she actually does say (p46, eleventh line from the bottom of the page) that the Kofun period lasted until the start of the Nara period, so CurtisNaito's original research a few sections up has once again been proved incorrect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No, my changes were in accordance with talk page recommendations. It was suggested that I cut down on "details [that] just drag down the reading experience", but even the specific sentences which were mentioned above as being examples of that were still reverted to their earlier version. Regarding the source mentioned above, the part about the environmental changes and the initial population of a few thousand are not mentioned on the pages in question, and incidentally the end date of the Kofun period is also not mentioned.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, if you can't understand that where it specifically states "the Haji period (usually called the Kofun, Nara and Heian periods, ca. AD 250-1150)" it is stating that the Kofun period ended when the Nara period started (as did one of the encyclopedias I quoted above), then you are clearly not capable of reading the source properly, and so I cannot trust you when you say the pages I can't see say or don't say something. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, you should focus talk page discussion on issues relating to the article, not other users. Many users including myself and TH1980 have pointed out your many errors in reading sources, but I won't insist that I mistrust you just because you have made many mistakes. This talk page is not for discussing other users. I'm aware that there are a great many different ways of periodizing Japanese history, including perhaps an expanded Kofun period, but most of the sources I consulted which mention the Asuka period consider it an era which succeeded the Kofun period or else a subset of the Yamato period. On the page in question, the author does not state if he supports the existence of an Asuka period, nor does he say when he believes the Kofun period ended. I'm not going to assume the things that the author in fact leaves unstated. If you have a concrete proposal to change the periodization you can put it forward. As I said before, my first choice is to leave the periodization as it is, and my second choice would be to combine Kofun and Asuka into Yamato. Based on the Kodansha Encyclopedia and many other sources cited in the article, I think this would be most reasonable, though I'm aware many other ways of periodizing Japanese history have been tried by various historians.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, when have either you or TH1980 ever pointed out any of my "many" errors in reading sources? I did not say that most sources date the end of the Kofun period to 710 (they don't); I said some do, and so your arbitrarily picking a beginning and end date for the Asuka period (a pair of such dates that is not backed up in any of your sources individually) is not necessary because any date up to 710 could be picked for the end of the Kofun period. I don't think many date the end of the Kofun period to "538". The fact that I have now found a source that explicitly says not only that the Asuka period doesn't exist, but that most sources (presumably in the field of archaeology) don't recognize it, and you have once again failed to read it as saying what it does, makes me quite convinced that you should limit your activities on Wikipedia to fixing spelling and grammatical errors, since it seems to be the only thing you can do without introducing factually-inaccurate OR into the articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet, somehow I managed to bring this article up to "good article" status before you did. I was able to achieve this because my focus is the writing of accurate and reliable content, instead of making personal attacks on other users in the talk page. The accusations you are making against me have been debunked enough times so there's no gain for you in repeating things about me on this talk page which are known to be untrue. I went ahead in this article and included a periodization which is well supported by reliable sources. If you have a concrete idea for changing the article also based on reliable sources, you can put it forward and maybe build the article from good level to featured level.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Bull. Shit. You got the article to GA status because GA status doesn't mean anything. You added at least one citation to each paragraph and lied to the GA reviewer as to whether the source backed up what you said. Everyone here thinks there should be a reassessment in light of the poor sourcing. The only reason it hasn't happened already is because you and your cohorts (and others with whom you have expressed sympathy but who are not your cohorts) have been putting me through so much crap lately that I don't want to open a broad community discussion. (Why User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Signedzzz have not done so yet is not clear, but the latter dislikes forms, and Nishidani is indifferent to the whole affair.)

Next time you accuse me of misrepresenting sources without providing evidence (even after it is requested) it will be taken as the personal attack that it is, and I will request that you be either blocked or otherwise restricted.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Also, your periodization ("Asuka=538-710") is not supported by your sources, as you yourself explicitly stated in the relevant section of this talk page. It is acceptable only because I went ahead and found some sources that do actually (appear to) support it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I would provide evidence, but that's not what we're supposed to be talking about on this talk page. By contrast, you haven't put forward any evidence of my alleged misdeeds. This article did merit good article status, and, though some have objected to the material added to the article since the good article review, that is clearly not enough to warrant the article be downgraded. If you have any suggestions to improve article content, you should just stick with that and not bother with senseless attacks on other users.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This page is also not for making personal accusations with no evidence. It is not my responsibility to fix all of your mistakes: I'll fix what I can and then request that the articles still rampant with those of your mistakes that I couldn't fix be taken off the GA list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, please keep the discussion limited to article content. Your personal attacks, false accusations, and generally nasty remarks are going way out out of bounds.TH1980 (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

So basically, on seeing me making some entirely relevant, on-topic and easily verified points that CurtisNaito's recent edits to this article have been misrepresentations of sources and are consistent with his previous misrepresentations of sources, not only elsewhere but in this article within the past week, and CurtisNaito responding by making bogus, off-topic and completely unjustified accusations against me of the same in some other, unnamed articles at some indeterminate date in the past, TH1980 decides to accuse me of "false accusations and personal attacks". Didn't see that one coming at all... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, if you have the slightest interest in discussing article improvement in a serious manner, then knock it off with the personal attacks on CurtisNaito and I and try actually talking about article content instead. You are the one who is proving to be an obstacle to discussion. We are putting up with you patiently, despite your constant misreading of sources and personal attacks.TH1980 (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

if you have the slightest interest in discussing article improvement in a serious manner, then knock it off with the personal attacks on CurtisNaito and I and try actually talking about article content instead ... says the person who has yet to make a single constructive edit to the article, or post anything on this talk page that isn't either an ad hominem against me, or a non sequitur accusing Signedzzz for having accidentally reinserted one small problem to the article in the process of reverting CurtisNaito's massive, unilateral and destructive rewrite. Seriously, you people need to read WP:KETTLE. When I spend days on end trying to discuss article content on the talk page, and am met with nothing but non sequiturs posted within minutes of my comments implying that my comments have not been read and blank reverts because I do not have "consensus" (from users who themselves have never received consensus for any of their edits to any article, I might point out). It is not a personal attack to point out that "you need consensus for your edits but I don't need consensus for mine" is hypocritical. It is not a personal attack to point out that CurtisNaito and his attack dogs are misrepresenting sources and engaging in OR on this page. It is not a personal attack to point out that the same thing has happened with the same users on several other articles (i.e., 100% of the articles on which I have interacted with them). Both of you keep accusing me of making "personal attacks", without providing any evidence. The irony of this is that doing so is itself defined as a personal attack on the relevant policy page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm totally uninvolved but eminently qualified, as I've got multiple degrees in Japanese Studies (for better or for worse). The CurtisNaito edit is bad, period. "Jomon" and "prehistoric" are not synonymous, and "Cengage Learning" anything isn't legitimate; because they're custom-printed textbooks for specific classes. Therefore, if you're not in the class with that professor you will never see or be able to access the content, so it can't be verified easily. You need scholarly sources, I've got an entire library of stuff by established scholars published by large university presses and mass publishers. I've even got chronology tables. Especially for history, there shouldn't be fringe anything. Let me know where I can help. MSJapan (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who added in the Cengage Learning source, I merely didn't delete it. Signedzzz was the one who added it. The only reason why I described Jomon as prehistoric was because a previous user had wanted me to include in the introduction the approximate time when the Jomon period took place, but no consensus could be reached on the talk page about exact dates. Since I was supposed to approximate when the Jomon period took place without being allowed to use any specific dates, I figured I would just go with "prehistoric". The period was prehistoric, and using that word allows us to avoid having to insert a controversial date into the lead.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@MSJapan I just happened to have a copy of Brief History of Chinese and Japanese Civilizations for some reason, so I used it at first to correct some blatant mistakes. (I absolutely agree it's not ideal). I've added better sources as I find them. The article needs a chronology for the Jomon period, but as I said above, I am not comfortable with claiming any dates at all, as expert knowledge is definitely required (every source seems to give a different estimate, and what they mean by the "start" of the period also seems to differ). Any help would be greatly appreciated. And the paragraph about the prehistoric period still partly relies on the 'Brief History', which worries me.

@CurtisNaito The version of the article you nominated for WP:GA stated in the lead section "The earliest-known pottery found in Japan belongs to the prehistoric Jōmon period of 13,000 to 400 BC". The edit you made, under discussion here, as well as deleting new material without discussion, and again labelling the Jomon period "prehistoric" in the lead section, restored the specific date of 13,000BC to the Jomon section, which I had already removed for the reason stated above. zzz (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think there was any problem with stating an approximate start date in the body of the article, in accordance with the sources cited. We could even include a few different possibilities. However, I had been told by another user to not mention any periods of Japanese history in the lead of the article without telling the reader when the period took place. Generally, leads shouldn't include information which is under dispute, so I changed the disputed date range to a simple word, "prehistoric", which by contrast is not in dispute.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Your attempt to claim consensus for the edit is errant, and no one told you to do anything. zzz (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A broad-based survey article on history really shouldn't be mentioning specifics in the lede unless absolutely necessary - in particular, a period with a 12,600 year spread isn't terribly useful. I mean, that's literally the span of the majority of human technology in any civilization period. Even Britannica is better than that. However, we are going to get bogged down if we get tied up in Jomon, and especially in Jomon. 300 BC, by the way, is also at odds with the History of Japan template, which says 400 BC. I would suggest we change it here and not in the template. The lede is also really off-kilter; it covers 14,000 years of history in two paragraphs, 90 in the third, and 60 in the last.

I'll get some sources together by the end of the week, some of which will be literary - Nihongi is considered to be "fabricated" (insofar as there's no other record) to a certain point, but is still factually accurate past that certain point, and tends to be a starting point for a lot of jumping-off. In the meantime, use the sources in the individual period articles - this is a rollup summary article, so RS there is RS here. JSTOR should have articles on this; it was always particularly good with the Asian Studies journals, and the actual Journal of Asian Studies is definitely RS. Is there anyone here with that access through a library, be it a real one or through the WP Library? MSJapan (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, implement those changes. However, if you're suggesting that we use 400 BC as the end date of the Jomon period, I think we should put that only in the body of the article and not the lead. The date is too controversial to include in the lead. Also, are you suggesting we cite Nihongi as a source? That might be okay in some circumstances, but in general I think it's fairly dated as a history book. I do have access to Journal of Asian Studies, but what specific articles are you planning on using?CurtisNaito (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@MSJapan: If you need anything, I have full access to JSTOR, granted through the The Wikipedia Library. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Nihongi is the basis of what the Japanese view their "prehistory" as. It's "dated" because it's 1200 years old, but that doesn't make it any less useful because sometimes there are no other records, and it was considered an official history. We're writing an encyclopedia, so we're compiling, not researching or critiquing sources, and we're going to be light on detail to a certain extent because this is like an encyclopedia article of encyclopedia articles. That doesn't mean we can't add detail to other relevant articles, though, so I'd like to be as wide-ranging as possible. I'll figure out what needs to be found from JSTOR and JAS once I figure out what's actually missing that can't be sourced to anything else. MSJapan (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless using the Nihongi will raise a lot of eyebrows as it may be considered a primary source. I've also got access to Project MUSE and Questia if you see anything useful there. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as the Jomon period goes, the Britannica article linked above seems usable, as it does actually take into account the problems I mentioned. zzz (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yoshitsune?

This article should probably mention the hero of the Genpei War and Japan's national hero at some point, but Henshall's discussion of his death is inaccurate -- almost no one claims that Yoritomo had Yoshitsune's assassins killed "for good measure"; he wanted to conquer the north, entirely aside from the Yoshitsune issue. Hell, Hiraizumi and the Oshu Fujiwara don't appear to be mentioned anywhere either! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)