Talk:History of Japan/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

The archive size

Why are the archives so short? With all these discussions, you would think the archives would have more bytes. Vivexdino (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vivexdino: Most of these discussions started in August. I don't know of any major disputes occuring on this page before then. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Tertiary sources for establishing the scope of this article

Sime users have been using Henshall and a few other general histories (mostly, it would seem, undergraduate textbooks for use in American and other western universities).

But wouldn't long encyclopedia articles with titles like "Japanese history", "History of Japan", "日本の歴史" or "日本史" be a much better guide for what gets mentioned than our random selections from 200+ page history textbooks? And if we're going for "general knowledge" as it is on the street in Japan, wouldn't elementary and junior high school social studies textbooks be better as well?

I'm not saying these are the sources that should be cited inline (if we're being honest, Henshall probably shouldn't either), but they would provide us with a good, objective and non-partisan outline as to what should be included in the article.

Hijiri88 (聖やや) 12:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

I did consult Encyclopedia Britannica, among a few others, and it seems to me we already cover all the topics it covers. Possibly thanks to hyperlinks, this article doesn't cover a number of subjects in quite as much detail as Britannica, but all the names and events from Britannica are in this article as well. Most of the material other users have asked me to add was not even mentioned in Britannica's article, so I would say this Wikipedia article already exceeds the scope of long encyclopedia articles, at least in terms of the number of events and people mentioned.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Incidentally, this idea was already brought up here.[1]CurtisNaito (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Suggesting we consult a multitude of articles in general reference encyclopedias and/or Japanese K12 textbooks is not the same as suggesting we consult one or more encyclopedias of Japanese history and/or copy-paste old public-domain encyclopedia material. (These are generally John Carter's solutions to everything, in my experience. Not that I always or even often disagree. Just that he sometimes seems to present these solutions without looking at the problems in question.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC) And by "Britannica", do you mean 1911? Yoshitsune at least is mentioned there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC) No, I was referring to the latest online edition of Britannica. This article already covers all the events in it, and then some. Britannica does mention Yoshitsune, but gives fewer details about his life than this Wikipedia article does. If you find a topic in an encyclopedia article which should be added, then we can add it, though for the record I already consulted many encyclopedia articles and I believe this Wikipedia article is more comprehensive than most of them.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC) The only details concerning Yoshitsune that I requested be included that Britannica 1911 fails to note are his relationship to Hiraizumi and the Northern Fujiwara (no doubt a symptom of the article predating the tremendous archaeological work in the region over the last several decades) and Yoshitsune's status as Japan's national hero (an obvious fault of the article that needed to be addressed). By "this Wikipedia article is more comprehensive" do you mean now or in mid-August? And how much longer in word-count is our History of Minnesota article than the "many encyclopedia articles" you "already" consulted? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Even in mid-August this article was comparable to Encyclopedia Britannica and more comprehensive than World Book Encyclopedia. Many of them were longer in word count, because they provided more detail on a few specific events such as World War II, but right now this Wikipedia article mentions more people and events than any encyclopedia article I consulted. It's a good thing this Wikipedia article already covers what it needs to, because the article is already nearly 11,000 words, which is technically too long according to Wikipedia policy. By comparison, History of Minnesota is only about 9,000 words.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC) The region now known as Minnesota appears to have first appeared in extant recorded history around 350 years ago, and our article on the subject devotes over 7,000 words to the last 230 years or so. Japan's recorded history, by contrast, goes back 1,900 years, with extensive records existing for roughly the last 1,300 years. Our coverage of the same period of time to which History of Minnesota devotes over 7,000 words is only about 4,000 words -- almost exactly the same word count devoted to the preceding 1,000 years. What's your point? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Word count limits are not based on years. Any given article is expected to cover a subject in a complete manner, regardless of whether it deals with one day of history or 10,000 years of history. Wikipedia word limits exist for a reason. According to policy, "4,000 to 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes." Even so, I told you before that if you know of any subject covered in an encyclopedia article which is not covered here, then we can add it. There is no such subject I know of which is not mentioned in this article. If you know of one, then we can add it.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC) "Comprehensive", not "complete". For "complete", we've got hyperlinks. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Curtis, at the time of the original GA review, this article completely ignored several key figures and events of Japan's ancient and classical history (the Tamuramaro campaign, the Former Nine and Later Three Years' War, the Northern Fujiwara, Minamoto no Yoshitsune, Fujiwara no Teika, the Jokyu Rebellion...). Attempts to include information on these events and figures have met with either direct opposition or constant disruption from you (e.g., your removing the source for the Jokyu Rebellion and replacing it with another source that didn't verify the material, and complaining that Fujiwara no Teika, Sakanoue no Tamuramaro or Minamoto no Yoshitsune isn't named in such and such source you have read). For all I know, the article is still completely ignoring critical figures and events for other periods of history with which I personally am less familiar. We need to resolve this issue definitively before renominating the page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC) No, all the sources I added verified content. I already explained that it was you who were misinterpreting the sources on the Jokyu Rebellion. I always made sure throughout to include in this article all the major events mentioned in other encyclopedia articles, though many, like Tamuramaro and Fujiwara no Teika for instance, were not mentioned in any encyclopedia articles, so at the time I left them out. What do we need to do to definitely resolve the issue? I have already checked the relevant encyclopedia articles that I have, and I found this article to be more comprehensive in its coverage than they are. I have said many times, "If you find a topic in an encyclopedia article which should be added, then we can add it", but you are ignoring that. If you can't find any topics from encyclopedia articles which need to be mentioned, and if I can't either, which does indeed seem to be the case, then this issue is in fact definitively resolved.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC) No, all the sources I added verified content. I already explained that it was you who were misinterpreting the sources on the Jokyu Rebellion. You can go on believing that if you want, but it's irrelevant. You have been disrupting my attempts to include more comprehensive coverage of the topic: that is my point. like Tamuramaro and Fujiwara no Teika for instance, were not mentioned in any encyclopedia articles We have hyperlinks, so we are allowed go into much more detail than other encyclopedia articles with word-count limits; finding a K12 history textbook that goes into detail on both Tamuramaro and Teika would not be a problem. I have said many times, "If you find a topic in an encyclopedia article which should be added, then we can add it", but you are ignoring that. And what do you think of my ES and/or JHS history textbook idea? You are honing in on one part of my proposal, explicitly equating it with a completely different proposal made two months ago by my wikistalker who followed me to this article while I was blocked, and not addressing my actual proposal. You are the one ignoring me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC) What I said before is that I favor we stick closely to the wording of the original sources. The personal interpretations you seemed to be imposing on the Jokyu Rebellion information did not seem in accordance with the principle of maintaining the intent of the original sources. I have never disrupted any attempts to expand the article, and I did try to include all the subjects covered in decently sized encyclopedia articles. However, if I had included every name and event from books large enough to mention obscure figures like Tamuramaro then this article would be ten times its current size. I will ask you again, however, what subjects from encyclopedia articles, which are not currently covered in the article, do you think should be added? If you don't know of any, then this issue has been resolved.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Personal interpretations"!? The hell? Stop making baseless accusations, now. I wanted to say "the Kamakura shogunate" like my source said, you replace my source with one that said "the Hojo regents" and didn't use the "Kamakura shogunate" wording, but left my wording as it was based on your personal interpretation that "Hojo regents" was a euphemism for "Kamakura shogunate" and didn't refer specifically to the Hojo regents. Your personal interpretation may indeed have been correct, but while both the statements "the Hojo regents increased their control over the shogunate" and "the Kamakura shogunate increased its control over Japan" are true, they are clearly not the same thing. Anyway, Britannica's failure to mention the topics I listed above is a fault. Tamuramaro is not "obscure" -- you are showing your general ignorance of Japanese history with statements like this. And you are still completely ignoring my proposal -- what do you think of using Japanese K12 textbooks? If you reply again without mentioning this I will be forced to collapse this entire off-topic thread and request outside input. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC) I don't think we need to refer again to the Jokyu Rebellion, though I think that your completely false accusation that my source on the rebellion did not verify the text was not helpful here. When it comes to a 10,000 word summary on Japanese history, it's hard to dispute that Tamuramaro is indeed obscure. Even most of the 600-page histories of Japan cited in this article don't mention him. I think we should use English language overview history books and encyclopedia articles by scholars as our primary basis for selecting events and people to include, rather than Japanese school textbooks. I myself doubt the article has any major gaps remaining, and I also doubt a Japanese school textbook would provide us with a unique topic that the sources I have already consulted are unaware of.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Okay, you clearly aren't interested in engaging in constructive discussion or improving the article. You have again ignored my proposal (which has nothing to do with "providing us with a unique topic that the sources I have already consulted are unaware of") and are still focusing on making off-topic, baseless and frankly bizarre aspersions about edits I made months ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: @Sturmgewehr88: @Nishidani: @MSJapan: @Signedzzz: What do you guys think? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The proposal is not very concrete though. You haven't named any specific tertiary sources or mentioned any specific topics from those tertiary sources which should be included. If another user says they agree with the above, what would that agreement actually mean? There's not a lot to agree or disagree with.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's simple: we check Japanese elementary or junior high school syllabi (it doesn't matter how) to see if there is anything else that every Japanese school child is required to know that we have thusfar completely neglected.

I've given several solid examples in the past (Tamuramaro, Yoshitsune, Teika, Masamune...), but they have all already been addressed.

The problem is that if we know that at GA review the article was deficient in the areas I have already addressed (almost all associated with the ancient and late classical periods), then we can only assume the same problem remains in those areas/periods of history of which I am not so knowledgeable. That's where the elementary and/or junior high school textbooks come in. (The problem with anything above junior high school is that it is by nature more specialized and less useful for our purposes.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well okay, you can try that out, but I personally don't understand why Japanese high school textbooks are so much better as reference sources than the World Book Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, and overview history books which have already been consulted in a thorough manner. I don't think that topics which aren't included in those sources, like Tamuramaro, Teika, Masamune, would necessarily be mandatory additions just because a high school textbook mentions them.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The textbooks wouldn't be "better", but they definitely give a different perspective. They go much more into pre-Modern Japan, in my experience. People always seem surprised to learn that I know who Shōtoku Taishi is, though that's a name a high school student wouldn't get away with not knowing. I think it would be interesting to look through a few (no surprise, but there are a lot of Japanese history books in Japan), but they shouldn't get automatic preference. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88 and CurtisNaito: He already explained why we should use textbooks as a complement to the other sources we have, he never said we're throwing the other ones out. And Hijiri, just make sure whatever textbooks we use aren't whitewashed. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's only the one that's truly "whitewashed", but it's had a chilling effect on others, which might minimize certain events without actually burying them. I grabbed a discarded history book out of curiosity recently (high school, not sure what grade) that mentions the 南京事件 and 731部隊, but not 慰安婦 that I can tell. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the reason I am proposing this is because I think this article is tilted too much toward modern history. We know it definitely had deficiencies in its coverage of pre-modern history back in August, and I suspect it probably still does. So Curly Turkey's concern is actually, if anything, a point in my proposal's favour (I'm not suggesting we remove modern history that isn't covered in the textbooks). Sturmgewehr88's whitewashing concern isn't really an issue either, because my proposal is to add material that is covered in textbooks, not remove material that isn't, and also because the whitewashing controversy is mostly centered around the occupation of Korea, the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Greater East Asia War, all twentieth-century problems. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I said this before, but I think the problem is not so much that there's too much modern Japan, as too little pre-modern (although I've removed a bunch of RECENTISM, like "Cool Japan", etc). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right, of course. Hence why I propose expanding the pre-modern sections, not cutting down on the modern history sections. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

And whether Japanese people and language came from Korea or not. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC) To be fair, if that's not in the textbooks it's probably not so much for political reasons as because it's neither a consensus view nor even a mainstream view. The origins of the Japanese language are obscure, and while a common ancestry with modern Korean has been proposed and has considerable support, it's still far from consensus, and Japanese and Korean having a common ancestry does not equate to them both "coming from Korea" -- both would almost certainly have come from somewhere else at an earlier point. As for "Japanese people" coming from "Korea", our article already points out that the modern Japanese are of mixed ancestry, with some roots stretching back to the Jomon culture that existed in the archipelago millennia before "Korea" existed, and most of the rest coming from somewhere on the continent, at least several centuries before "Korea" existed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC) It's kinda like saying "We all came from Africa" and so on. In any case, I think the Japanese language is more related to the Chinese rather than the Korean language. It depends on how far back in the history we're looking. A lot of East Asian languages originated in the Sinosphere, for example: the Vietnamese language: Chinese and Vietnamese are from "completely" different language families, with unrelated origins. However, Vietnam historically falls into the area of Chinese influenced-countries, and as a result, a lot of Vietnamese vocabulary comes from Chinese. These Chinese loan words were once written with Chinese characters and are generally monosyllabic words or compound words, such as the Vietnamese "Dai hoc", which means university. Interestingly however, the Chinese loanwords often don’t match up with the modern spoken Mandarin. These words entered the Vietnamese language so long ago, that they came from Manchurian dialect. Today, only a very small number of native Manchurian speakers are still living. If you've ever studied Korea, you'd find that 60–80% of the Korean language vocabulary comes from the Manchurian, Chinese dialect, although the Korean and Chinese languages bear no similarity in structure or origin. The Vietnamese word "Dai hoc" is very close to the Korean "De Hak" because they both come from the same Manchurian root. Vivexdino (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Well, you're basically right, but I'm pretty sure the "the Japanese language comes from Korea" misconception originates in the theory that the Japanese and Korean languages are genetically related and share a common ancestor that may or may not have been spoken in the Korean peninsula 2,000 or more years ago (i.e., long before we have any written testimony to either language). The fact that they both have had far more influence from Chinese than from each other over the last 1,000+ years is not really a factor, and neither is the fact that we all came out of Africa -- we all came out of Africa, but as far as I know no language families or even hypothetical phyla like Altaic other than those of African languages can be traced back to people who lived in Africa. ;-) As an aside, my favourite "proof" that Japanese originate in Korea that I have actually heard Korean nationalist laymen make is "The Japanese word is yakusoku and the Korean word is yagsog! Proof!". I haven't checked, but since the Japanese word is just the Sino-Japanese readings of the two characters 約束, it seems pretty likely that both are just loanwords from Chinese. (Although I've heard people claim that the Japanese word for "thank you" comes from Portuguese, which is even more outrageous.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "obrigado"—I've heard that one. A Korean gyro-store worker who knew I spoke Japanese went on a rant about how everything Japanese came from Korea. One example I remember is the word "samurai" (though I don't remember the Korean word). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) But this is also beside the point, as no one is saying we should remove or reject material based on what isn't in these sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning of Monarchs

The death of Showa and the ascension of Akihito isnt mentioned in the text at all!? Oversight or anti-monarchical bias? The death of an emperor (and the end of an era) and the ascension of a new emperor (and the beginning of a new era) is a rather important fact that should be explicitly mentioned and not passed over, at least in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.48.182.208 (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you got us. We hate the emperor and all his toys. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@User:Curly Turkey I do think that if we are going to include section titles named after the imperial eras, we should probably mention that they are named after imperial eras, so there is some merit to the IP's suggestion. Obviously the IP is assuming bad faith, and it even looks like trolling given that CurtisNaito and his amazing friends apparently believe I cast the same aspersions of "bias against the emperor" on Talk:Emperor Jimmu last year. But on the substance he/she may well be right... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That's something I keep meaning to bring up, but keep forgetting: the Spansih FA has a section on the emperors, and I think a short section like that would be a good idea, especially if it explained briefly how the nengō work. Side comment: I was shocked the other day when my wife told my kids that the nengō before Meiji were based on the reigns of the shoguns. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea -- go for it.

Thinking about it a bit more, almost all of the other period names are "explained" insofar as we have a section titled "Kamakura period" where we mention that the shogunate in Kamakura held power, and so on, but we don't seem to explicitly state such except in the (obviously less intuitive) Jomon and Yayoi periods. The GA reviewer, along with several other outside commenters like Prhartcom and Dr. Blofeld, don't seem to be specialists in Japanese history, so I'm wondering how they felt about this. Were they able to find out what these terms referred to by clicking the wikilinks?

Your solution, though, is obviously better than asking our readers to click the links. How about ending the nengō discussion with something like Since 1868, each era has corresponded directly to the reign of each successive emperor. There have been four such eras: Meiji (1868-1912), Taishō (1912-1926), Shōwa (1926-1989) and Heisei (1989-present).

Regarding what your wife said: no comment. ;-)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why a separate section mentioning nengo is necessary when the article is organized by nengo only for the final four periods. Of those four periods, the first two are already evidently named after emperors. We can deal with the concerns of the IP user simply by adding a one sentence explanation at the start of the Showa and Heisei periods.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Read the proposal again: the "separate section"subsection of the "political history" section you were aggressively correcting me on not long ago would be on the emperors -- a presence in Japan since the dawn of recorded history, though with a shifting role and importance. Additionally, you are just plain wrong when you say "the first two are named after emperors". You should not be editing this or any other article on Japanese history if you haven't grasped the basic fact that the emperors are named after their eras, not the other way around. If the self-proclaimed principal author of this article can misunderstand something so basic as this, then obviously we should assume our readers will come away with the same misunderstanding, and this will need to be corrected; otherwise, we are knowingly feeding our readers false information. adding a one sentence explanation at the start of the Showa Umm... such a sentence is already in the article at the start of the Showa section. It just doesn't directly state that the "Shōwa period" refers to the reign of the emperor whose dates are given in that sentence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

We refer to them in the article as Emperor Meiji and Emperor Taisho, so it's clear who those two periods are named after. Potential problems exist only for Showa and Heisei. The emperors have not historically been Japan's most important political institution, so giving the emperors in particular a unique section in this article seems unnecessary.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

it's clear who those two periods are named after Curtis, you can't be serious. I corrected you on this point immediately above and either (1) you completely ignored me or (2) you doubled-down to avoid admitting you were wrong on this very basic point. The emperors have not historically been Japan's most important political institution And as a religious/cultural/symbolic institution? Their dynasty has been around a lot longer than any of the other families that have wielded more political power than they have over the last 800 years or so. Would you rather we created a separate section on "cloistered emperors" since they historically wielded more political power? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the point I was making was that it's easy for the reader to see that the Meiji and Taisho periods have those names because the Emperors themselves are called Emperor Meiji and Emperor Taisho. Those are names applied to them in Japanese and English. The difficulty lies with Hirohito and Akihito because in the article the reign names are not included within their own names. You yourself said that you did not want any separate section on political history. If the new section proposed above isn't going to include any political institutions other than the imperial institution, then it won't be very long, but why isn't it sufficient to cover the Emperors within chronological periods whenever they happen to be relevant? Cloistered emperors, for instance, were more relevant than other emperors, but they are already covered in the Heian period section. Though the Spanish language version of this article does have a separate section for political history in general, including the Emperors, most Wikipedia history articles on countries do not have such sections. History of the United Kingdom, for instance, does not have a separate section on political history or the monarchy.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, it doesn't matter what you meant, because when you say things like REPLACE it makes me doubt your competence to continue editing this article or even express opinions on this proposal. Making mistakes is fine -- I've made my fair share of them on this project -- but when a person corrected flat-out, and they still continue to dig deeper, essentially claiming that they were not wrong, it is extremely difficult to work with that person. Popular American films like The Last Samurai may have told you that "Emperor Meiji" was "his name" and the era was named for him, but this claim has no basis in actual history; no one called him that during his lifetime, because that was not his name. Why are you not understanding this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, but I wasn't wrong. Rather than twisting my words, we should focus only on issues relating to article content. I was saying that it is easy for the reader to understand why the Meiji and Taisho periods are named as such, in accordance with the common English names of the monarchs being Meiji and Taisho. The content-based issue relates to whether or not we should include a separate section discussing the Emperors. I am in favor of adding a brief explanation of the terms Showa and Heisei into the article, but what I want to know is why that should be in a separate section. Why not at the start of the Showa and Heisei periods? If the separate section on emperors is only going to include an explanation of nengo, then I don't see why it's necessary. The only ambiguous nengo in the article are Showa and Heisei, and that sort of information would at best fill a footnote, not a whole separate section.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, the emperors were (posthumously) named after their eras, not the other way around. It is inaccurate to say that "the reader knows where the eras got their names", because this article doesn't explain how and why these era names were selected. I had thought it implied that the emperors were name after their eras, but apparently I was wrong. You, one of this article's principal authors, have misunderstood this fact, as you have now stated at least four times that you think the eras were named after the emperors, when in fact Emperor Meiji was only named "Emperor Meiji" 40+ years after the Meiji era was thus named. If "Emperor Meiji" was his name, him frequently being called "the Meiji Emperor" wouldn't make any sense, and the 40+ years people were referring to the then-current era as "Meiji" no one thought they were referring to the emperor, because they weren't. It didn't become his name until he died. The fact that you have misinterpreted it is the best evidence we could ask for that we need to clarify this in the article, because if one of the authors can get such an inaccurate picture from our article, we MUST assume our readers will as well. It therefore needs to be clarified inline that the Meiji through Heisei eras have been thus named because of the successive emperors' four reigns -- not because of the emperors themselves -- and that these era names subsequently became the posthumous names of the emperors themselves. @Curly Turkey: Can you back me up on this? You don't address the issue in your post below, and I'm fighting a losing battle trying to explain this to Curtis; I would just cite a source, but for Japanese this fact is just so blue that none of the dictionaries I have access to at the moment found it worth clarification. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I never misinterpreted anything, though you seem to still be misunderstanding me. The names of the reigns of Meiji and Taisho and the names of the emperors are the same, so it's clear to readers why the periods have those names. A detailed explanation of nengo is unnecessary, because we can hyperlink the term. We don't really need to explain why the Meiji period, when Emperor Meiji reigned, is named as such. Rather than repeating ourselves, we should be making concrete recommendations about the article text.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Nor did I misinterpret anything. I know exactly what you are saying. Yes, the emperors and eras have the same names -- I already clarified this before you even posted in this section. But your (somewhat off-topic) comments indicate that you think the eras were named after the emperors, when in fact the emperors were named after the eras. You are still making this mistake when you say "it's clear to readers why the periods have those names" -- you should be saying that it's clear to readers why the emperors have those names. And I think that if you can make this kind of mistake, then we should definitely be clarifying the issue for our readers. Please indicate to me whether you still think the eras were named after the emperors or vice versa. And if the former, please explain why the term "the Meiji Emperor" exists. Please also explain why the names sound so much more like descriptions of periods (enlightened reign, luminous peace, etc.) than descriptions of people, and why they look more like the earlier era names than the early emperors' names. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I told you in my last post we should make concrete suggestions for the text of the article, but you're still ignoring the content-related issue. We could mention that Meiji and Taisho are posthumous names, but the name of the emperor/name of the reign is selected at the beginning of the new Emperor's tenure. Ultimately, what we use for the purposes of the article is the common name from our sources, and you can see in any of the cited history books that the name of the Emperor and the name of the reign are the same, which presents no confusion to the reader. This is the actual content issue that I keep on pointing out to you, so I hope you now understand what I mean.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have presented concrete suggestions -- do what Curly Turkey says. I also gave a solid reason for this -- you, and therefore likely the majority of our readers, grossly misinterpreted a key aspect of modern Japanese history, and our article currently contains no safeguards to prevent us misleading our readers any further. We should be specifying that since the Meiji era modern emperors have been given posthumous names based on the eras. This would be best accomplished a separate section that clarified that this was not always the case, and summarized the role and function of the emperor and the court, and perhaps the shoguns and the prime ministers (and by that I mean 総理大臣, not 太政大臣 or 左大臣) down through history. It could also touch on the cloistered emperors -- the stuff I added on that to our discussion of the Heian period is a bit clunky, and could easily be moved out to a section on the emperors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I never misinterpreted the issue of naming the emperors. You misread what I was wrote, but I won't question your competence based on that alone. Though I still don't think a separate section on Emperors is necessary, I presumed that there was consensus for it. However, I was assured that the section would be "no more than two paragraphs total (maybe even only one)". I think delving into all aspects of political history would take more than two paragraphs, and therefore we should keep it limited to the emperors. The cloistered emperors are already mentioned in their relevant section, so I don't think we need to mention them a second time.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't be delving into "all aspects"—that's what links are for—but we do need to give a general overview, and I think we can probalby fit everything into one or two paragraphs. I'm predicting this before it's been written, so please don't interpret that as "it must be kept to two paragraphs or less"—how long it will be will depend on turns out really needs to be there. We should avoid any details we can reasonably get away with avoiding without misrepresenting the facts. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There' s more to it then that:

1. meiji's reign covered two nengō, beginning with the tail end of Keiō
2. the nengō derive from the Chinese example, except that the Chinese eras were the reigns of the emperors. That this was not true in Japan should be explained.
3. there were nengō during the split of the Northern and Southern Courts

I'm not suggesting anything involved—a brief overview of the emperors (the article doesn't even mention 660 BC—where else would that fit? Not chronologically!) and a brief explanation of the nengō, perhaps no more than two paragraphs total (maybe even only one). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure that you want to mention Meiji's reign overlapping with Keio, even in a potential separate section? It seems like a rather minor piece of trivia to me. I suppose part of the problem is that the article, as it stands now, mentions no nengo prior to Meiji. We don't really need to explain something which is never mentioned in the article. If we plan on adding such information later to the chronological portion of the article, then an explanation might become more significant. As for 660 BC, I think that can be mentioned in the Nara period. If we managed to mention Japanese creation myths in the same sentence as the Kojiki, I believe we can mention 660 BC in same section as the Nihon Shoki.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we want to talk about nengō—it's a pretty big deal in Japanese history, and I think "not mentioning it" is not really an option. The Meiji bit is kind of trivial, but stating that Meiji's was the first reign to correspond to a nengō wouldn't be true, would it? I think it's a matter of wording, and if questions are left hanging in the air over the details, we have all these wonderful hyperlinks to click for those who are curious. We could mention 600 BC in the section with the Nihon Shoki, but it's not really a chronological thing, is it? Putting it in a separate section allows us to properly contextualize it: "legendary accounts assert the line of emperors began with Jinmu in 660 BC, although the consensus of scholars ..." Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

For nengo in particular, do you think a footnote would be sufficient? I think it's a little dubious just how important the concept is. I know you have a copy of A Companion to Japanese History, which is 550 pages long, but notice that it does not mention the word "nengo" even once. The large majority of the books currently cited in this article make no mention of the word.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Most English sources I've come across never use the term nengō, but rather era name or somesuch. We've been using the term nengō here because that's what the Japanese article name is. Companion uses terms like "Genroku era" and "Kenmu era", sometimes without the "era" (so just "Kenmu"), and sometimes uses "year period" (as with Ōnin). No, the sources don't ignore the periods, and I don't see any reason to hide it in a footnote when it fits so nicely into a paragraph or two on the imperial family. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add something like that, but I think one paragraph should suffice.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Okay, I'll add something like that":

Curtis, I'm sure you will call this an off-topic remark, but I don't know where else to put it (past experience has taught me that if I try to address issues with your behaviour by contacting you on your talk page I will be met with either a string of aggressive personal attacks or you lying about me to the admin corps by calling my peace offerings "threats").

You seriously need to stop and listen.

You don't own this article or its talk page. Not every comment here is a specific request either for you to do something to the article or for you to allow us to do something to the article. We are perfectly capable of making our own edits. What we are trying to do here, though, is have a discussion about what the best way forward is. Even if we were all already 100% and in agreement, the edit would be ours to make. Setting aside for a moment whether you are the most capable of determining the consensus on these points and formulating the best wording (you aren't), the fact is that this isn't a GA review: other users are allowed discuss general improvements to the article without meaning explicitly "this should be", and your unilaterally adding your own version of the "consensus" wording is highly disruptive, as it has the effect of shutting down whatever constructive discussion might have taken place.

Your recent article edits have all been to this effect, and your talk comments have not helped.

Please stop acting like the arbiter of what does and doesn't belong in this page, and start adding your opinion to the pool like everyone else is trying to do.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, your above comment has little to do with article content, but is full of obviously false aspersions. It's fine to discuss things on the talk page, but it can't be all discussion. We shouldn't waste our time with discussion just for the sake of discussion. Eventually edits have to be made to the article as well, and I have a proven record of making high-quality edits to this article. I won't assume that you have the time or secondary sources necessary to implement a certain specific change unless you clearly say that you do. I assume here that discussion takes place in order to produce edits, and therefore I will be editing the article based on what goes on in the talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

full of obviously false aspersions Hello, Kettle? This is Curtis. You're black.

Pointing out the facts of the situation is not the same as expressing an opinion on how to address those facts.

Both are perfectly acceptable.

Your attempts to interpret others' statements of fact as either "off-topic" failures to present concrete proposals, interpret others' opinions as agreeing with your opinion, and then inserting your opinion into the article as though it was a consensus are ... not ...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've never done anything like that though. Anyone is free to edit the article as long as they have high quality secondary sources at their disposal. The information I inserted was accurate and took into account the views of other users. If you want the consensus to be clearer, it would help if you made more posts about article content and less posts like the one above.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone is free to edit the article Yes, except that you always jump in and make other users' edits for them, usually messing something up and occasionally even "interpreting" that they want you to make the edit when they said nothing of the sort, with the effect of shutting down an ongoing discussion. And then sometimes (usually in the early days of a dispute) you outright revert any edit you don't agree with it because it isn't supported by "consensus" (read: your opinion), and then if they resist you go to ANEW and request they be blocked. All this while your edits, include the massive unilateral rewrite in August, are never supported by consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that isn't true. Even in August, I announced my intentions on the talk page and waited for consensus before editing. One other user may disagree, but I edited in accordance with the overall consensus. Just reverting for no reason is not useful. If you revert you should say what you disagree with about the text.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"that isn't true" is a bald-faced lie. Anyone can Ctrl+F either your contribs or this page's history (or, for example, the history of the Emperor Jimmu article) for the word "consensus" and see you reverting any unilateral (or even popular) edits that you happened to disagree with.

As for content-based argument that you shouldn't be the one to write the "consensus" wording because you already mucked it up once ... be careful what you wish for ...

"The earliest works of Japanese history" --> "The early historical works Kojiki and Nihon Shoki"

Reason: They are the earliest extant works; scholars are unanimous that they used earlier works of Japanese history that we no longer have.

"the legendary emperor Jimmu" --> "the legendary figure Kan'yamato Iware-biko"

Reason: "the emperor was born and became the Emperor" looks silly, and the name "Jimmu" was invented out of whole cloth by Omi no Mifune half a century after the historical/religious works in question were completed. Wikilinking our article Emperor Jimmu should make up for the relative unfamiliarity of the modern Tokyo pronunciation of the older term.

"descended from the sun goddess" --> "descended from Amaterasu, the sun goddess"

Reason: Why not name her in the text?

"became the first Emperor of Japan in 660 BC" --> "became the first Emperor of Japan"

Reason: It is absolutely unacceptable to say "the earliest works of Japanese history say ... in 660 BC", as this simply is not true. If Farris said this, he may have been referring to the Shoki and some later work, as the Kojiki is not generally treated as a work of "history" so much as "religion" or "literature"; this is acceptable for Farris to do --his readership know what he means, but I don't think we should follow as our readership do not. I would also be amenable to clarifying that "the Nihon Shoki, not the Kojiki says this".

"Many modern historians consider Sujin the true first Emperor" --> "Scholars have speculated that the tenth canonical emperor, Sujin, was the first historical emperor"

Reason: I don't have the names of the scholars in question on hand (Henshall neither names them nor calls them "historians"), but if I were a betting man I'd say most are not 歴史学者 but rather 古典文学研究者 or 神道学者 who apply historical method to their research, and write about "stuff that happened in the past"; most specialists in the Kojiki are. I have no problem with calling Bart Ehrman and Donald Keene "historians", but I know some Wikipedians do. And mentioning Sujin's canonical number is key here. And "first true emperor" is ambiguous: our source clearly isn't saying Sujin was the first "true emperor" as opposed to prominent chieftain. Also, I'm posting from a phone but the emperor's name should conform to MOS-JA.

"318 AD" --> "318 CE"

Reason: I'm sorry if I've forgotten the policy on mixing CE and BC (as opposed to BCE) but the confessional implications of "AD" make it obviously much more problematic than BC.

"most of Japanese history" --> ？

Reason: This article's interpretation of "history" (stuff that happened in the past) makes this statement practically a given. But also, given the power wielded by former emperors throughout much of the Heian period, and the lack of any centralized government for most of the Muromachi period, this statement seems like an oversimplification that requires elaboration so as not to be misleading.

"Since 1868 each era, including the Meiji, Taishō, Shōwa, and Heisei, have corresponded to the reign of one emperor." --> "Since 1868, each era has corresponded to the reign of one emperor. The four eras since 1868 have been Meiji, Taishō, Shōwa and Heisei."

Reason: It's nerdy, I know, but the commas and lack thereof were kinda weird, the verb conjugation was wrong, and most of all we shouldn't say "including" and then list all of the included items.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, please don't take the above as an indication that if you implement all of my proposed alterations I will automatically support your addition. Your addition had, for instance, completely neglected most of my earlier suggestions, and my criticisms above do not address this. And even if you did include everything I want, I still want to hear from some of the other contributors before anything of this sort is included in the article. We need to discuss. Let's start doing that, shall we? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I went with what the reliable sources said. Farris refers to him as Jimmu, not Kan'yamato Iware-biko, and according to Farris he was said to have ascended the throne in 660 BC. The sun goddess is not named by Farris, and while I could have called her Amaterasu, I didn't think it was necessary. Henshall calls Sujin, "the first verifiable emperor", and the history books which are cited for this material are certainly written by historians like Jonathan Kidder. Weston says "In Japan's long history, [figurehead status] has been the emperor's usual role." Also, I think we are obliged to use BC/AD unless you want to change all references to BC/AD in the article to BCE/CE which are not currently in use in this article. We might as well bring back the section. It's better to modify the existing proposal then blow it up and start again.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Farris refers to him as Jimmu No, Farris referred to him as "Emperor Jimmu", which is his canonical name; saying "Jimmu became Emperor Jimmu" sounds silly. And that his name was not "Jimmu" because this name was invented in the latter half of the eighth century is an easily verifiable fact (by sheer coincidence, I wrote this into Wikipedia three minutes before you added this to this page).

according to Farris he was said to have ascended the throne in 660 BC What on earth does "he was said" mean? Farris has not spoken to anyone alive in the eighth century! You surely mean "it was written that he ascended the throne in 660 BC"? And where does Farris say it was written? Please explain, as I already asked you to. You are making off-topic commentary while the rest of us are trying to discuss article content in a concise and direct matter.

The sun goddess is not named by Farris, and while I could have called her Amaterasu Per WP:BLUE, calling her by her name even if your source does not is acceptable. This also applies to "Kan'yamato Iware-biko", by the way.

"the first verifiable emperor" Yes, so you are admitting you misquoted your source then? "verifiable" and "true" are different, and when historians frequently talk about the early Japanese "emperors" (even the ones who existed and are "verifiable") not being "true emperors" you should use a less ambiguous term.

history books which are cited for this material are certainly written by historians like Jonathan Kidder That's a lie. He cited two works, one an article by Kidder, the other Philippi's translation of the Kojiki. Have you checked these sources? Which one is relevant to the text you wrote into our article? Philippi, a historical linguist, is the very definition of what I meant when I said scholars who write about "the past", applying critical historical method, but shouldn't be called professional "historians".

Weston says "In Japan's long history, [figurehead status] has been the emperor's usual role." Again, you are avoiding the question -- why did you not include a comprehensive summary of the emperor's shifting position throughout Japanese history, like I had already said would be preferable? What your source says here is completely irrelevant, because you free to choose a different source that supported the text you should have added to the article.

I think we are obliged to use BC/AD unless you want to change all references to BC/AD in the article to BCE/CE which are not currently in use in this article "BC" is used in the article five times, and "AD" six. It would not be that big a deal; shall we have a discussion on this point? WP:ERA says that we should not change it without a content-based reason -- does the fact that the majority of Japanese are not Christians and would find the era designation "Anno Domini" odd count?

the existing proposal What existing proposal? You added an error-laden, poorly-written mess to the article, and are now trying to use it to shut down discussion of what everyone else thinks should be in the article -- that's not a "proposal".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

These are quibbles, but not errors. You don't appear to have found any mistakes at all. However, I didn't want to plagiarize the sources, so I had to use my own words. I could have quoted the source and used the word "verifiable", though the word "true" carries the same meaning in this context in contrast with legendary figures. Farris doesn't exactly call him "Emperor Jimmu", he says, "[In the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki] The presumed 'first emperor' Jinmu supposedly ascended the throne in 660 BCE." Kidder and Philippi are both authors of many works of Japanese history, so it's unclear why anyone would object to them being called historians, among various other possible titles. However, I don't think that "a comprehensive summary of the emperor's shifting position" is appropriate because that's already covered in the chronological history. The separate section on the emperors was not supposed to exceed two paragraphs. You yourself called a section on political history a "non-starter", but going over the evolution of the imperial institution step-by-step is political history.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Referring to the oldest extant works as "the earliest works" is an error. Stating that these "works" said something when only one of them said that thing is an error. I have found probably close to a hundred errors and mistakes (or perhaps deliberate misrepresentations) in your edits to this article and the other articles you followed me to -- you just refuse to acknowledge them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Henshall called the Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki "the first real books produced in Japan". I'm not refusing to admit mistakes, I just believe that the views of scholars are more valid than the personal opinion of Wikipedia users. I believe I have probably identified a hundred errors or so with your edits, but I'm willing to accept that many of those were more differences of interpretation than outright errors. Even so, there are some cases like this where Wikipedia users simply need to be humble enough to admit that their personal opinions are not as valid as those of credentialed scholars.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"The emperors have not historically been Japan's most important political institution" --> That is just wrong, in fact one could argue that the emperor has been (and maybe, to some extent, still ist) the most important political institution, even if the actual person itself had relatively little direct political power: those who controlled the emperor, controlled the state, because only the emperor was, because of the descent and ancient age of the dynasty, the legitimate ruler and only he could officially appoint a steward to rule in his name and therefore, through his prestige , lend credibility to those who ruled in his name. The prestige and importance of the institution can not be stressed enough. Its also the oldest japanese institution, predating every written text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.48.176.176 (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

IP, I'm sorry; I sympathize with anyone who is trying and failing to argue with Curtis, but on this point he was technically correct. While I don't think being "Japan's most important political institution" is what should determine what gets a section and what doesn't (none of our other sections are named for important political institutions -- most of them are named for the places where important political institutions were located), he is technically right; throughout almost all of the middle ages and early modern period, and even a fair amount of the late classical period, the emperor was a powerless figurehead who was enthroned, manipulated and dethroned entirely on the whims of non-imperial regents, shoguns and others. The latter may have required the emperor to confer on them legitimacy, but if he didn't they could always get rid of him and put someone else on the throne. The one fairly-lengthy exception was the 院政期 (at least until Kiyomori and Yoshitomo), when retired emperors were the most powerful people in Japan. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I do not think that we disagree that much. I merely differentiate between the Institution of the Emperor (that was of paramount importance, and in fact, culturally, religiously and politically the most important institution, at least in my opinion) and the actual person occupying the throne (which had in fact relatively little personal power and could be deposed or overruled). I do not think that the emperors should get an extra section, no other history-article has such a section for the head of state, but at least the deaths and ascensions of the more recent emperors (since Komei or Meiji) should be explicitly mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.48.181.22 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• 645 is traditionally called Taika 1: well, no, the first year is normally (always?) called 元年, is it not? Are there exceptions? "Taika 1" is what we say in English, not what they say in Japanese. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Beasley meant in Japanese style. He wrote, "Years are identified by their serial place within them: thus Taika 1=645, Taika 2=646, and so on until the nengo is changed."CurtisNaito (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)