Talk:Ainu Revolution Theory

Japan: History / Politics / Ainu Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 20:22, May 15, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the History task force.

This article is supported by the Politics task force.

This article is supported by the Ainu task force.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

edit
history
watch
purge

Peer review: Kako River (Japan)
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Ainu Revolution Theory is not a theory of ethnic self-determination originating from the Ainu people."[edit]

Shouldn't the explanation of what the topic is start with describe what it is, rather than what it isn't? And even if such an arbitrary blanket statement makes sense in its place and context, shouldn't it be immediately followed up with such an explanation? It may be a difficult subject to explain, but I don't think the approach currently in use helps matters. Bearsca (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearsca, I agree. I removed it (after several unsuccessful attempts at trying to rewrite it), I think the history section makes more sense and reads more smoothly without it altogether. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]