Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:24, 26 October 2015

	History of Japan was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 25, 2015 Good article nominee Listed October 20, 2015 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Japan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 28 days

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Japan: History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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: 09:42, January 11, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the History task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), 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 Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Archaeology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by Relentlessly, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 22 October 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Totman 199, 276 on Heike Monogatari and setsuwa

The connection is not very often made -- a connection between the Heike and earlier Gunki Monogatari (at least two of which were in literary kanbun and meant to look like historical chronicles rather than tall tales) would probably be more apt, and much more readily found in the best sources for this field. However I'm not sure -- I'd rather see a direct quote from Totman before simply removing the sentence and replacing it with a comparison Donald Keene and I feel would be more apt. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"A number of short battle narratives appeared in collections of setsuwa... Not until the fourteenth century, however, as we note in chapter 8, were these war tales embroidered and developed into the grand sagas epitomized by the mature Heike monogatari."CurtisNaito (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that date for the Heike is incredibly late, if what he really meant was that the tale was composed in the fourteenth century. That would make it contemporary with the Gikeiki and Taiheiki, which virtually no one accepts. Pretty much every specialist agrees that, whatever the Heike was, it was in a genre more closely related to the then-recent Heiji Monogatari and Hōgen Monogatari (the genre's name is gunki monogatari) than to the setsuwa. Furthermore, what was actually requested was that the article mention the Heike as Japan's national epic, which condition the current wording doesn't satisfy. I'll look up a better source later and rewrite the sentence accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you have another equally reliable source, then you can change the text, but I don't know of any source which says that Totman's views are "inaccurate and fringe". "Japan at War: An Encyclopedia" states that the first written versions of the work do date from the fourteenth century. Regarding setsuwa, I think the point is that the short setsuwa gradually expanded and evolved into more complex sagas.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources stating that the mainstream view of the Heike Monogatari is that it was mostly composed in the thirteenth century. Therefore, sources dating it to the fourteenth century are fringe. We don't need a separate source that specifically states "Scholar X's view is fringe" if Scholar X states that the letters to the Romans and Galatians were not written by Paul (or that the letters to Timothy and Titus were written by him) to say that this view is fringe. Also, please note that arguments made on the talk page do not require citations to reliable sources -- I am saying that in the article we should only discuss the accepted view and not even mention the view your wording states as fact. I am not familiar with Totman's work in general, and allI have to go on is the above quote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Working with the nominator

The article has been renominated to GA by the same nominator. This nominator is competent, has access to all the necessary sources, and is willing and able to work on the article; these are the three most important attributes a nominator can have and no one else can take those away from them. An ideal fourth attribute would be a willingness to work with others. I believe I see this willingness in this nominator, but occasionally the nominator has been accused of WP:IDHT. If this is true, will the nominator work on this, please.

The nominator has had a few challengers over the last several months. These challengers all care deeply about the article, and have access to many sources, but I don't think they have access to all the necessary sources that the nominator has. That means that, unless the challengers intend only to whine and complain, but instead if they wish to actually accomplish something, then it is important that they work with the nominator in order to get things done. It is true that these challengers have good ideas for the article and want it to succeed. However, I have observed these challengers become very frustrated with the nominator. The reasons are unimportant during this discussion, because I am talking about how they communicate: terribly disruptive, disparaging comments are pretty much the norm. I can tell you, it doesn't matter how frustrated you are, try to hold it back please, because no one is going to listen to you if you take that tone. I hope this message is getting through: If you want the nominator to listen, then communicate in a respectful manner. Please do not read this, become frustrated, then reply below with complaints about the nominator or me. Instead, please focus on yourself. Understand what I am saying. Try communicating with the nominator in a respectful way and see if that helps. It is possible to work together under mutually respectful conditions. Make it a rule to avoid being visibly upset with each other because that approach doesn't work. Remember: If you want the nominator to listen, then communicate in a respectful manner. Try it. Prhartcom (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom, why did you say the nominator is "competent" and "has access to the sources"? The former presents two problems: first that it assumes the nominator's repeated misquoting of sources is the result of deliberate misrepresentation rather than accidental misreading; second, it assumes that the nominators opponents will rely on ad hominem arguments rather than working to improve the article. As for sources, the nominator continues to assert that Totman is the best possible source for classical literature after being repeatedly told that Keene is much more reliable -- this indicates that he has not read, and is not prepared to read, the sources; if this is the case, whether or not he "has access" to them is irrelevant. He is very clearly putting the burden on us to build the article for him, as indicated directly above where he has refused to fix his own error (a case of him misinterpreting an earlier request to mention the Tale of the Heike in the article). He clearly intends to continue taking credit for the article on his userpage, despite doing none of the work.

Furthermore, your ignoring the nominator's slapping everyone else in the face by renominating the page immediately after the delisting -- clear continuation of the IDHT behaviour that started this mess -- is troubling. Why this article was immediately renominated despite the clear and continuing problems is an important point related to article content, and should be addressed first before assuming bad faith on the part of everyone but the nominator. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the information you wanted on The Tale of Heike, and I recently changed the text in a way to deal with your concerns. It's true that I cited Totman, but if it's mainly the date you're concerned about right now, the date was never mentioned in the article anyway.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom, I appreciate that you're trying to be a neutral moderator here. I think we have conflicting interpretation of the word "respect". Some of us have been borderline aggressive in our manner of communicating (which can be interpreted as "disrespectful"), but it's entirely possible to be horrifyingly disrespectful while being entirely polite. It would be tedious to go through the lengthy talk discussions (especially given the verbosity of some of the contributors), but I have to say that CurtisNaito has shown an disrespectful attitude throughout—just look at how many times I've tried to begin a discussion about what content to add and in what manner, only to have it drowned out. The discussions never took place despite the number of bytes each thread was filled with. "Exasperating" somehow fails to capture the level of exasperation I feel. CN displays an absolute contempt for "discussion".

Look at how many editors have raised concerns about the article's balance. This article is not a game of Katamari Damacy—we don't just slap in anything anyone suggests. What if I suggest Pokémon? Will that get slapped in without discussion of weight or context as well?

There are many, many other issues involved—like CN trying to claim credit for an article that is mostly (almost entirely) the work of others.

There is NO DEADLINE for this or any other article. Let's stop rushing to get this very long and very important article to GA and focus on quality. Once it meets the quality it needs it can be renominated—if that's ten years from now, so be it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's partly because I had already added everything to the article which I had thought was necessary before the good article review had taken place. Since I had already added everything which I thought was important, I figured that one of the main things left to do was to find out what other people thought was important and then add it in order to complete the article. Therefore, I was just waiting for input from others. If you think anything should be added or deleted from the article, you should mention that. I can either carry out your suggestions immediately, or first wait to see if anyone objects. For the record, no one has openly objected to the inclusion of any specific topic I have added. For instance, you and TH1980 suggested including the 1964 Olympics, and while I don't know if a lot of others agreed, at very least no one objected to the inclusion of this topic.

I don't know how long it will take to bring the article to good article status, but I am aiming to do it as soon as feasible. We don't necessarily have to rush, but I do want it to be reviewed as many times as necessary to bring up its level of quality.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you intend to continue to avoid all attempts at discussion, and are not in the least concerned with balance and weight. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wait I totally missed this. It's completely out of line to say that the nominator has access to better sources than the rest of us for the following reason: when asked to expand the article to cover particular topics, the nominator didn't look for the best sources on those topics and summarize them appropriately; he took whatever happened to be written about those topics in the insufficient sources he had, and wrote these random factoids into the article, even when the inclusion of very specific information had been requested (the Heike developed from earlier setsuwa literature, Yoshitsune was a "fallen hero", Shunzei and Teika revitalized waka poetry after it was first popularized by Zen monks in the late fourteenth century, etc.); other users then had to correct these problems based on superior sources to which the nominator apparently does not have access. Saying that the nominator is best-qualified to save this article because he has access to the best sources is completely wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what one sees as being the best sources. The majority of people making suggestions did not explicitly tell me which sources they wanted me to us. From my perspective, the best sources for writing a general overview of Japanese history are books which themselves are general overviews. Using survey histories as sources increases our chance of only including the most pertinent information, rather than including excessive or unnecessary details which the more specialized sources have in abundance. In fact, John Carter was suggesting earlier that we use encyclopedia and dictionary overviews of Japanese history as our main reference for information, including the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, and in that case the material which we would include would be even more restrictive. Survey histories by expert historians such as Totman and Henshall are reliable sources and they include only the most important details.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Expert historians of what? None of them serm to be classical literature scholars, and while they don't fail to mention Yoshitsune, Teika or the Heike, the details you chose to derive from them were either radically inaccurate (the dating of Teika and his father) or super-obscure, irrelevant factoids (the Heike and other gunkimono derived from early setsuwa literature). The inaccuracies were not the fault of Henshall et al -- you misread their bare-bones, ambiguous descriptions and didn't verify them against clearer sources -- but it is nevertheless true that your lack of access to the best sources (most of which aren't in English anyway) has hindered you from improving the article. And while you weren't explicitly told which sources to use, you were explicitly told what information to add; when you could not locate this information in your limited sources, you added different information rather than finding more appropriate sources. I think you should limit your edits to providing quotations from Totman, Henshall and the others that verify what's already there. The rest of us can then check that these quotes match not only what is in the article but what is in other equally reliable or more reliable sources on the individual topics. Your doing this in the section immediately above was most helpful -- please keep it up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I really have to concur with Hijiri on this one. CurtisNaito just slapped the battleship Yamato in a random section as a vague factoid "... Was sent on a mission without enough fuel to return to Japan " when the ship was actually on its way to Okinawa and should've been mentioned with the Battle of Okinawa. And is that source you added one of these "survey histories" or the general histories? Either way it was an inadequate description that I have fixed (although I should add a better source).

@CurtisNaito: as I've said once before, use these general histories as a guide and use more specific sources for the actual text. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The battleship Yamato was sunk well before reaching Okinawa, so we didn't necessarily have to include it as part of the battle. None of the general histories I consulted mentioned the battleship, so in this case I was forced to use more specific sources. My goal was to mention the battleship in a part of the article where it would not seem out of place and tacked on. It was mentioned in the article that the Japanese Navy was resorting to kamikaze tactics by 1944. In other words, the Navy was becoming desperate. This seemed like a good place to mention that the very next year the Navy sent Yamato on a mission without enough fuel to return to Japan.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying, Curtis, is that you agree with me and Sturmgewehr88 that your sources are inadequate and you're not willing to use better sources constructively? Because that's what the above looks like to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't know of anyone who says that Totman, Henshall, and the other books that I am using are poor sources. My personal opinion was that this article should not delve into many topics which are not important enough to be mentioned in general overviews of Japanese history. Therefore, my personal opinion was that we should not mention the battleship Yamato, because it is not important enough to be included in most general histories. However, because it was explicitly requested of me to add in information on the battleship Yamato, I decided that in this case I would delve into more detailed sources in order to ensure all requests from other users were included.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said Totman or Henshall were "poor sources". I said they were inadequate for the information that needed to be added to this article. However, I can't be completely sure of that. I have not read them, and know only what you have selectively quoted for me. The fact that your quotes and other actions have indicated quite clearly that you do not understand these books indicates that perhaps they are sufficient but you have been quoting the wrong passages by accident. If this is the case, then I was wrong in my claim of them being "inadequate", and I apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And apparently the Ryukyu Kingdom, the Battle of Okinawa, and the 1972 Reversion are also "not important enough to be included in most general histories" since there was no mention of them until I brought them up/added them myself. And Yamato was about 100–200 miles SW of Kyushu when it was intercepted, well within the Northern Ryukyu Islands and about halfway to Okinawa. The planes that sank Yamato came from the US fleet surrounding Okinawa. The ship was supposed to be beached on Okinawa. It is obviously tied to the battle. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A couple of those topics were mentioned in the overview histories, but keep in mind that even the overview histories are 400-800 pages in length, containing vastly more material than what we could put into the article. I had to select the topics which seemed most important to me, though after I had selected these topics, I openly asked for more suggestions on other ways to expand the article. If you have any more ideas on how to expand the article, I'm open to suggestions, though as I said, my preferred topics are those which are mentioned in one-volume overview histories and I am less favorable to details which are only discussed in specialized works. The place where I had initially mentioned the battleship Yamato made topical sense, because the previous sentence dealt with the desperate tactics of the Japanese Navy. It wasn't in strictly chronological order, but your version also is not in strictly chronological order, because you put the information at the end of the section on the battle when in fact the Yamato was sunk some distance from Okinawa just as the battle was starting, and not after it. At any rate, either version is acceptable.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyediting comments

Hi. I'm enjoying this read. It's a well-written article and I have learned a lot about the subject. I wasn't previously familiar with Japan's history, so I'm very glad to have taken it on. Most of the copyedits I have made myself. I'll put any others here.

• Is it "shogun" or "shōgun"? Either is fine, but be consistent. The former is an anglicized word, I think, so doesn't need italicising, but shōgun does.
  • We're told it has to be "shogun", though "shōgun" is more accurrate. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I personally am fine with either. I went to check on the Misplaced Pages article shogun, and I noticed that it didn't have a macron. However, either way is fine by me.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The MoS requires no macron. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It's a tough question. The broader Anglophone culture probably knows the word primarily from the eponymous TV miniseries and the James Clavell novel on which it was based, and the for former at least the official title had a macron. However, if we are going to use "shogunate" (which IMO should never have a macron) instead of or as well as "bakufu", then perhaps uniformly avoid the macron. MOS just says that we should use the macron unless the macronless form is common English, and in this case (thank you Clavell) that is ambivalent. The examples listed in MOS are not great and probably still need work -- I haven't been following that page much recently, but it has a nasty history of being prescriptive when it was supposed to be descriptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
        • You sure it was Clavell? This Google NGram seems to disagree. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant that it was Clavell who introduced the term to the wider culture. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to terms that only Japanese history scholars know, and I suspect (I don't know, as I wasn't alive) that Clavell's book and the subsequent TV show are responsible for COMMONNAME applying, if it does. If COMMONNAME doesn't apply, we use our internal guidelines, because that is what the scholars do. Again, I don't feel strongly about it either way, and I might be wrong about whether one is more common (please see the 2013 RM at Talk:Empress Jingu for why I don't trust GBooks on the macron:no-macron ratio). The one think I really think would be a bad idea is "shōgunate". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• One sentence I'm unsure about my edit to: Henceforth the Minamoto shōguns became puppets of the Hōjō regents, who were samurai of Taira descent and who wielded actual power. Is this correct?
  • It is accurate. There was some question over whether the article should claim "every member of the Taira clan was killed", but that has been resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Good. The original sentence was ambiguous: I'm glad I got the right sense out of it when copyediting! Relentlessly (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Inconsistency between "General Sakanoue no Tamuramaro" and "general Ashikaga Takauji". I don't know which form is correct, but the article should at least be consistent.
• The article uses "which" restrictively very frequently. I haven't changed this. My understanding, however, is that the restrictive use of "which" is not normal in American English and that "that" is preferred.
  • This external web article explains the correct way to handle this: Grammar Girl "which" vs. "that"
• There are one or two referencing issues as well, including SOME VERY SHOUTY AUTHORS.

I recognize that there have been some disputes over this article, particularly with regard to sourcing. I have not addressed that at all in my editing.

Relentlessly (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that thorough copy-edit. I will address the remaining issues, though I believe that the sentence about the Hojo regents is accurate.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Relentlessly, we all greatly respect and appreciate the work of the Guild of Copy Editors; thank-you very much for your objective work. Prhartcom (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Relentlessly: Technically, this edit introduced a minor factual inaccuracy that I didn't notice until now. Only one of the three emperors was exiled to Oki Island, which is why I had used that slightly awkward wording of Go-Toba being exiled to Oki and two other emperors also being exiled. I had been trying to avoid cluttering the description by listing all three of the exile destinations by name, only naming the best-known and most notably one. But it's fixed now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Glad it's now correct. I've modified it slightly to make it read more nicely. Relentlessly (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Heike edit

For the record, I changed "The Tale of the Heike" to "the Heike Monogatari" so the similarity of title to the two "prequel" works I added would be obvious. I don't suppose anyone else minds this?

Furthermore, I removed the reference to Oyler because (1) it made the random author who happened to have written the article on the Heike for an encyclopedia that is not about classical literature one of the relatively limited number of figures who are named inline; (2) it was to an encyclopedia article rather than a specialist work our readers can check up for more details (see also ); (3) Keene works better in context and actually uses the words "the Japanese epic" (637: "Although it was not composed in poetry, in theme and execution The Tale of the Heike merits being considered as the Japanese epic"), which is why I suggested a reference to the work be included in the article; Nagai Kafu is a noted novelist and essayist who might very well merit being specifically mentioned as an important modern literary figure in his own right, so specifically naming him inline kills two birds with one stone; (4) it's pedantic, but "which recounted the key events of the Genpei War" is almost as bad a description of the Heike as "Gather crystals to stop warlords." is of Zelda; I don't have easy access to Oyler, so I don't know if she directly supports the much better description "which recounted the rise and fall of the Taira clan", so citing a different source was a technical necessity per WP:V.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Taira survival sources

@CurtisNaito: Could you provide quotes for Perez 27 and Farris 109? IMO, it seems very excessive, bordering on WP:SYNTH to put together three sources that each support a small portion of a sentence this long. You think we should break the sentence down so that it reads better? Please note that the main thing I want are quotes from your two sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Louis Perez says "virtually the entire Taira family was hunted down and murdered". I think the fact that the Taira clan was exterminated is really the only pertinent information that the article needs, but since you wanted clarification about the Ise branch, I tacked on Farris as well, since he says "Almost all the Ise Taira... perished."CurtisNaito (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito stop saying that right now or this continued IDHT bickering will be brought up in the ANI case. None of your sources say the Taira clan were exterminated, and even if they did I would have already falsified that claim with reference to other sources. According to the quote you provided from Perez indicates that his inclusion does nothing to verify the text, so I'm removing him. Farris should be enough, but ideally we should have one or two scholarly sources, and no encyclopedia articles, to verify the material, so I'm restoring the tag. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I advocate that we just use Farris to say that the Ise Taira were annihilated. Then we can get rid of the dictionary article. The important point is the extermination of the Taira. The fact that, for instance, the Hojo clan were involved in the Kamakura government is something which is already pointed out later in the article and doesn't need to be repeated.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, please do not call an article from Encyclopedia Britannica a "dictionary article". And no, I don't approve of removing reference to the Hojo's Taira ancestry from this sentence, as that would likely lead to our readers drawing the same inaccurate conclusion you did that "the Taira clan" had been exterminated. The fact that it is also mentioned later is immaterial. Also, it would appear that the Hojo were in fact descended from the Ise branch specifically, so the issue is even muddier than I thought, and my wording ("extinguished") is also potentially problematic... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If the information is so important though, why isn't it mentioned in any general surveys of Japanese history? I eventually found some sources which might work as citations, but I'm concerned that these details are unnecessary. In order to find this information, one must consult awfully detailed history books. By contrast, Totman, Perez, Henshall, Farris, Weston, and Mason/Craiger simply say that the Taira clan was wiped out, without bothering to mention the genealogical detail that the Hojo had some Taira ancestry.CurtisNaito (talk)

Well, you included a random claim you made up. I tried to correct it based on other reliable sources that are less ambiguous than yours. I don't think you are the densest person on earth -- if your sources were ambiguous enough that you misinterpreted them, then us using the same ambiguous wording as your sources will result in other people misinterpreting us. Better be careful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why you think I made it up. I quoted the relevant passages to you, and they clearly said the same accurate information which I put into the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources said "Taira family". You changed it to "Taira clan". None of your sources said the Taira clan was wiped out, because it wasn't. You made that detail up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Jokyu sourcing

Curtis, could you quote the relevant text from this source? While an encyclopedia article with a named author, who appears to at least have studied this area extensively (unlike most of the article's sources) is certainly better than the previous source, it is still an encyclopedia article and so doesn't fully resolve my concerns with the previous source. The previous source was certainly at least adequate as it directly verified the material and is generally reliable, so if the current source does not directly verify the material then the previous source, with the tag, should be returned.

Note that I'm not giving an opinion on whether or not it does directly verify the material -- I have no way of knowing how in-depth your source's articles are. I just want a quotation.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Henshall says, "The Hojo shogunal regents became particularly dominant after 1221, when they survived a challenge to their power from the retired emperor Go-Toba". "Japan at War" says "As a result , the shōgunate gained power at Kyoto’s expense".CurtisNaito (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that doesn't verify the article's text. The power of the Hojo regents over the shogun is an entirely separate issue from the relative powers of the shogunate (shogun and regent) and the court.

The fact that the Jokyu disturbance was roughly coincident with the extinction of the line of Yoritomo also makes what Henshall was saying somewhat complicated and likely outside the scope of this article.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, Curtis, I know it's nitpicky, but could you format your edit summaries the way everyone else, with the name of and a link to the section you edited or commented in? It's been going on as far back as I can remember, and is really bizarre. I've never encountered any other user who systematically removed this formatting from all their edit summaries, and it frankly looks like you're trying to make it difficult for others to see what you're doing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The text which I quoted does verify the article content, but if you're concerned about the use of an encyclopedia article, it looks the like same sort of information is also included in Totman and Mason/Craiger. I'll add in Totman.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What do they say? Do you understand the difference between the Hojo regents solidifying their control over the shogunate and the shogunate solidifying their control over the court? They are not the same thing, even if they both happened at around the same time for similar reasons, and if I wanted a source for the former I would have just used Keene, but Keene, like apparently Henshall, Totman and Mason/Craiger, doesn't explicitly connect the power of the shogunate over the court with the Jokyu disturbance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources mention the Hojo regents becoming more dominant over the shogunate during this period. So far every source I have cited deals exclusively with the Hojo-controlled shogunate's relations with the imperial court. Henshall says that the Hojo-controlled shogunate increased its power by defeating a challenge from the imperial court. I thought the initial quote I provided was sufficiently clear, but here is a little more, "The Hojo shogunal regents became particularly dominant after 1221, when they survived a challenge to their power from the retired emperor Go-Toba... Following his unsuccessful challenge the shogunate based a shogunal deputy in the capital to help keep a check on the court." I am also citing Totman who says, "after shogunal leaders had crushed the imperial insurgents and exiled Go­-Toba to Sado Island, they deepened their control of both the city and western Japan. During the next several years the Hōjō further strengthened their position..."CurtisNaito (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, please stop edit-warring. There is no rush to improve this citation, and the Britannica article satisfied all the necessary criteria. It's my OCD telling me that the source could be better. The first part of the Totman quote you provided directly above here should be adequate, though. Thank you. Please remove the Henshall citation, though, as none of the quotes you have provided from Henshall bear even the slightest resemblance to our article's text. But if you want to cite Henshall as you quote him above for including a reference to the Rokuhara constabulary being established to monitor the court and police the capital, I would support that -- is that what you are suggesting? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

But please tell me you were joking when you said "None of the sources mention the Hojo regents becoming more dominant over the shogunate during this period." It's pretty clear that all of the sources, including both the quotes you provided above, say this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want two sources, we could cite either Henshall or Totman exclusively. They both say the same thing. As you can see from the quotes, I'm not aware that any of these sources mention the Hojo increasing their power over the shogunate. Each of these books deals only with the relationship between the Hojo-controlled shogunate and the imperial court.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "the Hojo-controlled shogunate"? How and when did the Hojo come to control the shogunate? I know the post-1221 shogunate authority is often referred to interchangeably with the Hojo regents, but assuming the two are synonymous in texts discussing the period before the Jokyu disturbance, the death of Sanetomo or even the death of Yoritomo is clearly problematic. Especially when, as in all the sources quoted, the Hojo regency as opposed to Yoritomo's descendants is clearly what is being referred to. Could you please quote the sentences immediately before and after the above Totman clipping, so I can be sure I'm getting the context correct? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

All the sources I've been using regard the Hojo and the shogunate as synonymous after Yoritomo's death. Totman says, "In following years Yoritomo’s own lineage failed to survive the savage personal rivalries of the day, his second and last son being murdered in 1219. Instead, the Hōjō, the natal lineage of his storied wife Masako, provided effective leadership by selecting titular shogun from Kyoto while controlling affairs themselves through a sort of regency (shikken) for the shogun... Court leaders had accepted Yoritomo’s arrangements as the least awful of unwelcome choices, but they did not intend to let the bakufu become a permanent ruling center. In particular Go­Toba, a grandson of Go­Shirakawa, resented these bushi inroads on imperial authority, and he maneuvered to revive insei control of the realm... after shogunal leaders had crushed the imperial insurgents and exiled Go­Toba to Sado Island, they deepened their control of both the city and western Japan. During the next several years the Hōjō further strengthened their position".CurtisNaito (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

How much text was in that ellipsis? Because reading the passage as you present it very clearly looks like the Hojo grew stronger after the death of Yoritomo, stronger still after the death of Sanetomo, and finally cemented their position following the Jokyu disturbance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the sources don't mention that. As I said, the particular sources I have only dealt with the shogunate's relations with the Imperial court, though it is mentioned that the shogunate was controlled by the Hojo after Yoritomo's death. I cited all the portions which contained relevant information, so I think the text in the article is adequately sourced at this point.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, unless your sources explicitly say "Following the death of Yoritomo the Hojo regents seized complete control of the shogunate. Hereafter we shall refer to the shogunate as "the Hojo regents".", your above claim is OR, and you should drop it immediately. Your persistent violations of Dennis Brown are putting you on the fast track to getting blocked, as constantly trying to convince you of obvious facts is certainly not making editing a pleasant experience for the rest of us. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I have been very careful throughout to stick to the wording favored by the sources cited and I advised you to do the same. The sources do believe that the Hojo fully controlled the shogunate after Yoritomo's death. As Totman says, the Hojo were "selecting titular shogun from Kyoto while controlling affairs themselves", or as Henshall notes, Hojo Masako "reduced the position of shogun to a nominal one, real control being exercised by the Hojo." If you had access to these sources yourself, I think you would understand that the facts which I have been summarizing in the article are actually more accurate and faithful to the sources than the interpretations you have been favoring. At any rate, the best way to move forward is to focus on article content. I said in my last post that I think that "the article is adequately sourced at this point", which is what matters. In your response, you never addressed this point, but that is the only point that matters. As long as the article is sufficiently sourced already, there is no need to talk about anything else.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I have been very careful throughout to stick to the wording favored by the sources cited Except where you changed "the Hojo regents" to "the Kamakura shogunate" and changed "the Taira family" to "the Taira clan". It seems you only follow the sources' wording (in the form of direct quotes that look like scare-quotes, mind you) when the sources give either inaccurate or unfortunately vague wording and quoting them makes the article worse ("tragic hero", "setsuwa"...). Those are just the edits I specifically requested you make after the GAR finished; we still haven't even begun spot-checking the parts of the article you screwed up back in August. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that when personal opinions of users conflict with sources, we should just try to stick closely to the wording of the sources, which is what I did do as you can see from the quotes I provided. Even if you have personal objections to expressions like the ones above, for the purposes of this article it's still better to follow the sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that when personal opinions of users conflict with sources, we should just try to stick closely to the wording of the sources Yes, except that's the exact opposite of what you did -- when the wording used by your sources conflicted with your personal opinion that, for instance, the entire Taira clan was wiped out (an outrageous assumption supported by no primary or secondary sources), you used different wording; when your sources used unfortunate wording that agreed with your personal opinion but would not improve the article in any way (which is why I had asked you to include that specific information in the first place!) you stuck to quoting the sources directly. That's the opposite of what we should be doing -- when the sources are right and what they say can be used to improve the article, we shouldn't change what they say; when they don't provide the information we need but instead include only random tidbits, we should not include the tidbits, and should go and try to find better sources that do support the information we need to improve the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I already explained these issues to you, and as I showed you from the quotes, my preferred wording was more faithful to the original, reliable sources than your preferred wording. Just repeating personal opinions on the talk page isn't very useful at this point. If you have any new, specific suggestions for improving the article we should focus on that instead.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Are we still talking about the Hojo regents/Kamakura shogunate? And how dare you claim what I wrote is "your wording"? I wrote the sentence in question and provided a source for it, but my source was not ideal; I tagged it in the hopes of improving it with a better source that said the same thing; you came back with a better source that didn't say the same thing. But you never changed the wording -- the wording is mine, and I have had quite enough of you taking credit for this and other work that was done by others in spite of your interference. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the issue which you brought up in your previous post. However, regarding the sourcing for the information on the Hojo regents/Kamakura shogunate, I quoted the source above and it did verify the text. After that, I added another source which I also quoted above. At this point, it seems like the section is adequately sourced, which was the issue to begin with, and we should be able to close this topic and discuss other areas for improvement now.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources said either "the Taira family was wiped out" or "the Ise branch of the Taira clan was wiped out"; these are not conflicting claims -- "Taira family" was clearly shorthand for "the main (Ise) branch of the Taira clan that formed a single extended family which we are referring to as the Taira family". While I wanted to say "the Ise branch of the Taira clan was wiped out", you wanted to say "the Taira clan was wiped out". Even though none of our sources say that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was indicating before that I don't think it's a good idea to make such sweeping assumptions about what sources are allegedly actually referring even when the sources don't say any such thing. I quoted the text to you directly in the talk page and the article, and there was no reason to believe that the information was inaccurate. But I've already expressed my concerns to you about your occasional inaccurate summarization of cited sources in the article text, and all I can do is continue to encourage you to do better in this area next time. If there is any need to eliminate ambiguity, we can cite Farris and say that the Ise Taira were exterminated, but I still don't think we need to provide the rest of the obscure details about other clans which happened to have Taira ancestors.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was indicating before that I don't think it's a good idea to make such sweeping assumptions about what sources are allegedly actually referring even when the sources don't say any such thing. Curtis, do you really not see the irony of that statement? YOU are the one who reading his source's "the Hojo regents" as "the shogunate, not just the regency". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, you just posted four times in four sections, so you must have been clicking the "edit section" buttons. This means you actively chose to remove your edit summaries. Why did you do this? And why did you ignore my previous request that you stop? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't delete any edits summaries, I just didn't add one. This is just the talk page, so I don't really think it's a big deal whether or not I insert an edit summary. If you still have any ideas for expanding the article then from now on let's stick to discussing article content.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No matter what device I edit from, when I click the section edit button the edit summary "/* Jokyu sourcing */ " is generated automatically. Assuming good faith, I went into preferences to check whether this was the result of some setting that is set to the on position by default and 99% of Wikipedians haven't switched off yet. I found no such setting. What do you mean by I just didn't add one? I have half a mind to take this to the Help Desk to see if I'm missing something here? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I just used the edit source button and then posted in the correct section. Let's focus on article content here.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Why did you do that four separate times for four separate sections? Anyway, I would love to focus on improving the article. Let's start doing that, shall we? You can start by not ignoring all content-related discussion and honing in on the conduct stuff. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I already asked you (quite some time ago) to start providing quotes verifying all the material cited to sources Sturmgewehr88, Curly Turkey, Signedzzz and I don't own. They look like decent sources so I'm not out to replace them, but we need to be sure they verify the claims of the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What did Henshall write immediately before The Hojo shogunal regents became particularly dominant after 1221? In this context in particular it seems almost impossible to read "the Hojo shogunal regents" as being a synonym for the shogunate itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It won't be possible to provide quotes to you verifying that much material. This article has hundreds of unique citations which I added, and to verify them all with quotes on the talk page would be a copyright violation, even assuming I quote only the basic facts. Usually I quote the essential facts and then you ask me to provide even lengthier quotations for some reason. I can provide you with some specific quotations here and there on specific request, but remember, it's up to the person who has the sources to verify them. TH1980 and myself have access to the sources and have verified them. Providing quotations for every single citation here is against Misplaced Pages copyright rules and, at any rate, seems unnecessary since you haven't yet found any examples of information in the article which was inaccurately cited. If I want to check your citations to Keene, I'll get the book myself. As I noted, so far you have been considerably less than careful than I have been in ensuring that the text of the Misplaced Pages article is faithful to the cited sources. Furthermore, Prhartcom has already repeatedly told you in no uncertain terms that the issue of source verification is finished and resolved. I advise you to listen to him. Regarding Henshall though, before "The Hojo shogunal regents became particularly dominant after 1221" he says, "One of the devices used by Masako was the institution of a shogunal regent. This reduced the position of shogun to a nominal one, with manipulable court nobles generally being appointed as shogun and real control being exercised by the Hojo." In other words, the shogun was already a nominal position long before 1221.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Jōmon dates

I haven't read the article in a while, but I got my hands on a copy of Tsutsui's Companion to Japanese History and thought I'd scan a couple of things (though I have no intention of doing an actual source check or getting into developing any of the content of this page).

I came across the following:

The Jōmon period (縄文 時代 Jōmon jidai?) is the time in Prehistoric Japan from about 12,000 BC (in some cases dates as early as 14,500 BC are given) to about 800 BC.

I thought I'd purged the article of this kind of crufty, hairsplitting shit writing but wasn't going to do or say anything until I looked at the sourcing:

in some cases dates as early as 14,500 BC are given: this is not what the source says—the source says 14,500 BC. Which date is most accepted and which is "some cases" is not mentioned in the sources. Hudson's essay "Japanese Beginnings" in Tsutsui says "most archaeologists begin with the first appearance of pottery around 16,500 years ago". I'm not in a position to judge the acceptance levels of whatever date, but the judgement dispayed here is not backed up by the sources. That, folks, is what they call WP:OR, which of course is a much more important issue than the shitty quality of the writing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This section was copied from the Jomon period article. The Habu source is at least accurately cited as giving the date of 14,500 BC as the start of the period, whereas Henshall's book uses c. 13,000 BC. Therefore, if we want to continue to include more than one opinion, we could change it to "The Jōmon period (縄文 時代 Jōmon jidai?) is the time in Prehistoric Japan from about 14,500 BC or 13,000 BC..."CurtisNaito (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't want to include more than one opinion—that stuff belongs in the subarticles. What we want is something that accurately reflects the sources without committing any sort of analysis not in the sources. If the sources conflict, we don't get to pick & choose the numbers we like best, nor only the numbers we happen to have access to, and we don't get to present them in the light of our own POV. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I see a wide range of dates given. This one says 12,000 BP (or roughly 10,000 BC), and this one as late at 10,000 BP (so about 8,000 BC). This one's old, but at least acknowledges that scholars don't agree. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you think only one opinion would be best for this article, I suppose it might be better to use a source giving a wide range. Habu gives about 14,500 to about 300 BC, which is one of the broadest ranges I have seen in a book, so I recommend we use this in order to cover all our possible bases.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you think only one opinion would be best for this article: How could you possibly get this from what I wrote? That is pretty much exactly the opposite of what I said. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The more I search around, the less confident I am that there is a generally agreed-upon start date—skimming through EBSCO I see also the dates 14,000 BP and 15,000 BP in recent articles. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I thought you said, "No, we don't want to include more than one opinion". How many specific opinion should we include then? So far you have listed three in your last post, and I have listed two.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So we have piles of dates, and no indication that any of them are the "most accepted". The first step would be to hunt around for sources that talk about this, and if none can be found, then we start a discussion about how best to resolve it. We don't simply include all the dates we can find, or we end up with a situation like at Nanjing Massacre, where the low number would end up being an unacceptable "zero". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I advocate that we use the broad range of dates provided by Habu's book (about 14,500 to about 300 BC). Most of the general secondary sources consulted did not give dates quite so early for the start or quite so late for the end, but these are approximate dates anyway, and I think a wider range is more likely to be less controversial.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"shogunate"

As the article stands right now, the word "shogunate" is introduced without comment and without indicating that it means "bakufu", the term introduced the sentence before. "Shogun" isn't introduced until two paragraphs later. This needs to be thought through carefully—the writing is confused and is not taking the reader into account. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It depends whether you wanna count the intro, but I see your point. A bigger problem as I see it, though, is that I asked CurtisNaito to add a reference to Sakanoue no Tamuramaro, the first seii-taishougun, and he completely missed the point by using the translation "General". I'm sure he will again say, despite our repeatedly telling him to stop, that "the three or four books I arbitrarily decided would be this article's principal sources don't make this connection", but that's why we should be using other sources like Sansom, who I'm 80% certain said this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You didn't tell me that you wanted the article to mention that he was the first person granted the title of seii-taishougun. The Cambridge History of Japan is fairly detailed but it did not mention this as being significant. However, I found another book which does refer to this.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Great. Then don't use that book. And I most certainly did. The fact that you didn't ask me for clarification before inserting the wrong information and bragging about it says a lot. By the way, did you see Prhartcom's proposal on ANI? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you just said to include Sakanoue no Tamuramaro, and then later mentioned that an overview history book ought to mention him both by name and rank, though the Cambridge History is a good but lengthy history of Japan and it didn't mention him being the first person with the title of seii-taishougun. I inserted the information in the way you advised.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for my vagueness. I assumed you would take me saying that X should be in the article you would either ask the reason or try to figure out the reason. I didn't assume you would just add some random factoid that you happened across in some random book you Googled. Would you like me to start assuming that? It probably wouldn't be an AGF violation given how many times you've already done it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well all you said was that it should be included, without saying in what way, and it seemed to me that a reputable source like the Cambridge History would mention him in its article text in a way fitting enough to include in the Misplaced Pages article. If you had wanted such a specific factoid, it would have been preferable if you had told me in advance instead of just giving me his name.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at other-language versions of the article?

Perhaps it would help to take a look at some other-language versions of the article for organizational tips? The Spanish version (an FA) for example opens with a periodization table, as do a number of books I've flipped through. They also separate out the governemet systems into a separate section. What does everyone think of these ideas? What about separating out certain aspects of history into different sections (governement, social organization, arts, economy ...)? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I love that idea. es.wiki's inclusion of a breakdown of the "Kofun period" is also much better than ours, in that they actually explain the divide between historians/archaeologists, the fact that Asuka/Hakuhou are occasionally considered subperiods (read: their main periodization table neglects these, but they are at least wikilinked somewhere in the article body). Their articles is much longer (24,000>10,000), though... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

In the past there was a periodization chart at the end of the article, but I didn't feel it was necessary because it used the same periodization as the one which the article was already organized by. It seemed like it was just a repetition of the article's table of contents. I think it would be difficult to organize the article both by period and by topic. I think the only good way of doing that would be to subdivide each period into political/economic/cultural sections, though some of the time periods which the article currently uses like the Nara period are probably not lengthy enough to warrant division into subcategories.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class history articles
• Unknown-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• C-Class Japan-related articles
• Top-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• C-Class Archaeology articles
• High-importance Archaeology articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors