Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Curly Turkey (talk | contribs) at 13:20, 13 December 2015 (→I give up). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

	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 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: 03:09, January 24, 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.

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)

@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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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, " 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Dubious explanation of "cloistered rule"

"the reigning emperor would retire early to manipulate the nominally ruling emperor from behind the scenes"? What is on Totman 151-152 that verifies this? There was one controlling emperor (the 上皇) at any given time, who had usually retired decades earlier; the reigning emperors would retire early because the powers that be wanted to push him out, not in order to immediately move into a position of power himself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"a series of retired emperors converted the imperial legacy of abdication and oversight, which traced back to the days of Jitō and Genmei, into a century of dominance after 1050... after retiring in 1086 enlarged his insei structure and expanded the number of shōen it administered... this rule by retired emperors constituted a vigorous reassertion of imperial governance..." As was common during this period, Shirakawa did not abdicate with the intention of giving up power.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying is you made it up and put it in the mouth of your source. Awesome -- I didn't expect anything less. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No, read what I quoted above. A reigning emperor retired, but continued to exercise the authority of the imperial institution right after "retirement". This was called insei.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It's the exact same description you can find in any book of Japanese history. Henshall describes insei as follows: "As with the tactic of the Fujiwara regents a junior would be enthroned, but this time he was controlled by an abdicated emperor rather than a regent... It was used by retired emperors such as Shirakawa"CurtisNaito (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying is your description of the system as involving all reigning emperors retiring early of their own volition, in order to immediately move into positions of control behind the curtain, is directly contradicted by more than one of your sources? Keep digging that hole for yourself, Curtis. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, all I can do is quote the relevant material and it's up to you whether or not you read it. As noted above, emperors like Shirakawa retired in order to wield authority through the "junior" nominally reigning emperor.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I did read the quotes you provided. And I read the same information in dozens of other sources, years ago, and probably years before you ever even heard the name "Shirakawa". Your prose in the article, though, did not say the same thing as the quote you provided above, or any of those other sources. Anyone who looks can clearly see this. You need to stop this and learn to properly cite sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I also have read the same information in many dozens of sources. I certainly have no doubt about the accuracy of the information based on both the quotes above, and numerous other reliable sources. I've said before that I think you sometimes interpret sources in an overly loose manner, but in this case both of the sentences which were inserted into the article were equally accurate rewordings of the original text.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, please read WP:TALKNO. It doesn't matter whether the sources cited are accurate to the real world. Whether what you wrote is accurate to the real world is also secondary. All that we are supposed to be discussing here is whether what you wrote is accurate to the cited sources. It wasn't, and your projecting your own dubious interpretations of sources onto me is ... highly disruptive, to say the least. What did you mean by "the reigning emperor"? What did you mean by "would"? What did you mean by "to"? Shirakawa-in ruled from behind the curtain during the reigns of three separate emperors, the second of whom retired while Shirakawa-in was still alive -- did he retire of his own volition with the intention of manipulating the nominally reigning emperor? There were two living retired emperors for that six-year period -- who was "the" cloistered emperor? None of your sources contradict what I am telling you, but somehow what you wrote does -- please explain this fact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I had to summarize the source in my own words in order to avoid plagiarism. The source doesn't use words like "figurehead", "real power", and "retired predecessor", but even though you used your own vocabulary words like those, it doesn't mean that you are misinterpreting the sources. Asking me to define the word "to" is a little silly I think. If I adopted the same standards as you, I would have to conclude that all of your contributions to the article are blatant misrepresentations of the sources. However, if you check the quotes above, all I did was the same thing you did, rephrase the original text into a new sentence reflecting the meaning and intent of the original.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to define "to". I'm asking you to explain what you meant. You clearly said something different from what your source said. "to" implies that all emperors retired early with the intention of continuing to control the throne. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

In general they did. The term used in this article is "cloistered rule" which is insei in Japanese. During this period, cloistered emperors like Shirakawa had abdicated with the goal of continuing to rule, as you can see from the term "cloistered rule". Totman refers to it as "abdication and oversight". The phrasing I used held closely to the wording of the original, which is generally my goal when citing sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

During this period, cloistered emperors like Shirakawa had abdicated with the goal of continuing to rule And apart from the curious use of the past-perfect, I would have had very little to argue about. But your version of the article (1) didn't name Shirakawa anywhere, (2) implied that all emperors retired early for this purpose, (3) implied they did this of their own volition and (4) implied that upon abdication all emperors immediately became "cloistered rulers". This created a logical gap in the article: if the reigning emperor had the power to choose the date of his resignation and did so for the sole purpose of excercising the power of a retired emperor immediately on abdication, why did he not just excercise this power in order to rule the country? And an even bigger problem is what happened when there was more than one cloistered emperor at a time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A degree of summarization is always necessary when writing this sort of article. I was summarizing two pages in one sentence. The version I wrote didn't state any of the points above, though maybe if you are imaginative enough the implication might enter your mind. Your version says, "real power was held by a retired predecessor behind the scenes". Although I don't want to engage in pointless nitpicking, if I did I could point out that Totman says that other forces in the court gradually attempted to take power back from cloistered emperors. My version can take that into account, but your version seems to imply that the reigning emperor was entirely a figurehead even in the later period. I summarized the text, but you can't honestly say that I misread or misrepresented the text without engaging in a wild exercise of imagination. At any rate, if the content issue is settled we can move on to other matters.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that, but I don't think the content issue is resolved if you are still saying that your wording is better and mine introduces problems -- are you going to change it back while I'm not looking? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it may be true that my wording was a little better than yours, but what's in the article now is good enough that I don't see a need to change it.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever is left to do to bring the article to good level status, I think we can do it. If there's more to be done, let's just list off what's left now.TH1980 (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There hadn't been much discussion on the talk page recently, but I think the only two significant issues remaining are whether or not we should include separate sections on social policy and on the emperors. I'm not sure if there is any consensus to add these in prior to a good article review, but if there is consensus after all, then I will certainly add them in before the review is picked up. Alternatively, if someone else believes that there is consensus and wants to add these sections in, I suppose that would be okay.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A separate section on social history would be okay, but I'm less keen on the emperors. We've probably discussed this enough already to know what kinds of information should go into the article.TH1980 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to social history, a variety of drafts have existed for a month and no one has yet objected to any of them. It would take no time to move the draft back into the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There hadn't been much discussion on the talk page recently: because you've worn so many of us out. The issues have not been resolved—many of them have been entirely ignored. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't ignored suggestions. In fact, I attempted to add sections on social history and imperial institutions in accordance with suggestions. If you know of anything else that I can do, I will do it unless you would prefer to do it yourself. What we need now are the concrete ideas which should be implemented. Perhaps I was hasty in renominating, and I don't necessarily endorse TH1980's reverts, but if anything else should be done to the article, then what we need is a concrete list for implementation.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You've ignored the requirement that you seek and recieve consensus to renominate before renominating, and there remains a long list of issues that you've ignored. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you tell me an issue or two which you would like to see specific action on? I will listen to your advice.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You can go back through all the discussions and digest what's already been written. You're not going to get a bullet list because those aren't the issues, as you 've been repeatedly told. We have issues with structure, with weight, with focus, etc. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

But the issues discussed above have already been implemented. I'll withdraw the nomination, but just saying "structure, weight, and focus" is too vague to act upon. Something more specific is needed in order to make changes. What topics are missing from the article? The structure of which section should be modified?CurtisNaito (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

They are not vague; they are buried. By you. You've been warned far too many times about WP:IDHT. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should try to start fresh then. I know that you said that you didn't want to use a bullet form list, but surely we could outline something more specific than "structure, weight, and focus". A short description would be okay, but it should be more concrete.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's get this straight: attrition is not consensus, and demanding that everyone restate and re-restate and re-re-restate what they've already re-re-re-re-re-stated is not acceptable. Deal with the issues, or give up on renomination. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did add the social history section on a few occasions in response to requests. I also attempted to add in something on emperors, and I am willing to modify and reinsert that section if needed. If any periods need expansion, I can add in additional subjects if other users would like additional subjects, though I don't believe any specific ones have been mentioned yet.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there consensus to renominate this article for GA?

CurtisNaito has attemtped to renominate this article for GA , despite not having sought consensus which was the precondition. TH1980 has tried as well. Does this article have consensus to be renominated? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment We should just find out if the good article reviewer thinks that the article is at good article status yet, not start a poll.TH1980 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, CurtisNaito is required to get consensus on this article before renominating, as per the conditions at ANI following the delisting. Conditions you are fully aware of. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Support renomination

Oppose renomination

• Strong oppose. This article isn't even close to GA quality, and there is yet a long list of unaddressed (ignored?) issues. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - It does not meet GA standards yet, although we are much closer than a month ago. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There really needs to be a checklist of problems to fix so people can spend time working on that rather than arguing endlessly on the talk page. Some progress has been made, but there is still a long road ahead if this article is to achieve GA status. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: we've tried the "list of things to discuss" route (check the archives), and the problem with that is that, rather than disucssing, CurtisNaito simply adds these things to the article without regard for appropriateness or due weight so as to rush the article through. For instance, I merely mentioned that many readers would probably CTRL+F for "ninja"—adding them was objected to on the grounds that ninja did not play a major role in Japanese history, and history books tend to skip them (no mention in Henshall, Tsutsui, Varley, Schirokauer, or the over 5000 pages of the Cambridge series), yet CurtisNaito has added two sentences to the article on ninja. One of CurtisNaito's biggest problems is his desire to get the article passed ASAP at the expense of actual quality, weight, balance, etc. CurtisNaito's approach will have to change if this article is truly to meet GA standards. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

During the good article review, I asked repeatedly for a checklist of problems, and all you told me, again and again, was "you are well aware of the very long list of items on the talk page of the article." I didn't really have much choice but to go with what was on the talk page, because no one was willing to list out the problems during the good article reassessment. There are a lot of proposed additions that I personally objected to on the grounds that they were not mentioned in any general purpose histories. However, I was the only one openly opposing them. I had to assume that they had consensus, because no one else was opposing them or making their own concrete checklists. In the case of ninja, I repeatedly said that I leaned against including it, but not a single person backed me up on that, so I had no choice but to add it in.

Naturally, I do support Nihonjoe's proposal for a concrete list of changes needed, which is something I myself have asked for a number of times.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Back on that treadmill: we've given you lists to discuss. You don't discuss them, thus the mess. If it were a matter of "X, Y, and Z are missing", then we'd simply add them (as we do) rather than give you a list so you could add them (it's not your article—we don't need to ask you to add anything). So back to the problem: your unwillingness to discuss things. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

so I had no choice but to add it in: Nobody asked you to put it in, so, yes, you had a choice. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, you can see from the quotes I provided that I cast doubt on the idea of including ninjas in the article. I suppose I was actually the only one discussing the issue, because no one agreed or disagreed me, or even commented on what I said in any way. However, when I asked you how the article could be expanded, all you told me was to check the talk page. Therefore I did check the talk page and I added all the suggestions from it. It was the only choice I had except for letting the article rot. The reason why I have been stepping up to the plate is because I can't assume other people have the time to work on the article. You yourself repeatedly said that "the article can rot." When you say things like that, I don't assume you are eager to make changes to the article. I have affirmed many times that you can change the article yourself if you want to add something, but if you don't have time then I can do it myself. However, Nihonjoe's proposal is the right idea. Those who oppose nomination should make a concrete checklist of problems and either make the changes themselves or else allow someone else to make the changes.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You know exactly the context of that "the article can rot" comment, and you can hardly claim I'm not eager to make changes to the article after the amount of sourced content I've added. But we're back on the treadmill of burying all attempts at discussion, aren't we, CurtisNaito? The article doesn't need lists for all the reasons you've been told over and over and over and over and over. the article needs discussion about weight and WP:DUE and balance and ... everything else we've tried to discuss but that you've buried. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Nihonjoe said "There really needs to be a checklist of problems to fix so people can spend time working on that rather than arguing endlessly". Right now we're still at the endless arguing phase. If anyone opposes nomination, then they should move on to the next step, creation of a checklist.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we're endlessly arguing because you refuse to discuss. A checklist is inappropriate, and the reasons why have been spelt out enough times. Nihonjoe, as I said, we've done the checklist thing. Is it not clear now that that's not going to solve the problems with this article? CurtisNaito has basically declared he will not deal with anything that's not in a checklist, which means he will not discuss issues with weight, balance, etc. that have been ongoing problems with this article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the checklist approach has been attempted much so far. There has certainly been page after page of discussion on various issues, but little of it has taken the form of a checklist. I'll naturally participate in discussion not involving a checklist, as I have been, but it seems to me that a checklist as proposed by Nihonjoe would be a clear and organized way to present the issues.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you expect to see on a checklist? As I've said, when "X" has been missing, we've simply added it. That leaves primarily structural and weight issues, which you refuse to discuss. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've discussed issues relating to weight and structure, but these sorts of things would be easier to both discuss and act upon if discussion was more structured. If a certain section is lacking appropriate weight or needs to be restructured in a certain way, then that could be noted in a checklist. Discussing "weight" in general is fairly vague, but if we have a list of sections which require more or less material, with indications perhaps of what sort of material, then it would move us forward in a positive way.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not that it's "vague", but that the discussion gets completely drowned out every time it comes up. Like now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think all we're discussing right now is whether or not those who oppose nomination should present a checklist like Nihonjoe proposed. I'm in favor of that, because it would make clearer what remains to be done. It would be better to "spend time working" than "arguing endlessly on the talk page".CurtisNaito (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Rather, it makes it easier to ignore everything that's not in list form and avoid any and all attempts at discussion. Remember when I first came here? I made a number of subsections of issues that I found while I was copyediting the article. They were either ignored or completely buried. You continue to refuse to engage in discussion over issues in the article, and this demand for a list is just another way to avoid discussion. What guarantee can you give us that the list will not simply serve you as a licence to renominate with consensus once you've superficially "checked all the boxes"? Because it's that behaviour and your attritional walls-of-words that are holding up this article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you give an example of "subsections of issues" which were "ignored or completely buried"? I've been following the discussion but I can't recall any. I think all the relevant problems were dealt with. I don't think the list approach has been seriously attempted, and since Nihonjoe believed that endless talk page argumentation was holding up article improvement, I figure that trying something different is a good idea.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

And you see what I mean? Both of you, Curly Turkey and CurtisNaito, can't seem to have a civil word between you. You each accuse the other of causing all the problems, yet you don't see the problems you are each causing individually. I suppose you will continue on your present course and never get anything done because you each seem incapable (at least here) of talking with each other instead of past each other. As it stands, both you are being a detriment to getting anything done. Maybe you both need to take a couple months off this article and come back when you can act like adults and not argue incessantly. That's the only way something will ever get done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I ever accused anyone else of causing problems. Incidentally though, if you have any ideas for changes which should be made to the article, don't hesitate to elaborate on them.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

you are being a detriment to getting anything done: I though so, too, when I first came here and saw an number of editors incessantly arguing with CurtisNaito—for the longest time I simply ignored it and focused on prose issues. It's easy to see it that way when you haven't gone play-by-play through the exasperating length of this talk page. When it got to the point of actually trying to engage in discussion with CurtisNaito that I realized the problems really are quite one-sided. I don't expect you to see that from your vantage point, and I don't blame you for not going through the evidence, but I can promise you that a few months off the article will not fix anything, as it will do nothing to fix CurtisNaito's approach to the article. Any "solution" that doesn't deal with that will inevitably fail. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A single example

So, the "Social" section was supposed to deal with social issues that could not seriously be handled in the main body (women's issues, burakumin, etc) because they were not clearly tied to the main sociopolitical narrative. During the course of "discussing" this (mainly an attempt to drown the idea entirely on CurtisNaito's part) it was never agreed that it would be desirable to move out social issues clearly tied to their times—the Edo-period social structure being a prime example. It was formalized at the will of the Tokugawa, played a key part in defining Edo-period issues, and dissolved with the dissolution of the Shogunate. In his rush to get this article through GAN CurtisNaito has resected this from its proper context and thrown it into the "Social" section, seemingly at random (the section is extremely poorly organized—I'm doing what I can to fix it). It's this "just-get-it-done" behaviour that's hurting the article, and is an issue that cannot be dealt with via a checklist. The "Social" section is a jumbled, disordered, poorly-thought-through mess that does not serve the purpose it was conceived to.

We need less haste and more consideration. Please throw the brakes on, CurtisNaito. There's nothing wrong with doing things right. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I believed that the section dealt with the significant social issues, but just in case further changes were needed, I also posted it in the sandbox over a week ago. I wasn't rushing at all. I could have spent a year on it and the version which I inserted into the article would have been the same. You yourself made some copyedits to it in the sandbox, and I included the copyedits in the version I just inserted, but you didn't make any further changes. If you had had objections, you could have brought them up in the sandbox a week ago. In the sandbox, the parts on social history which you yourself wrote did include substantial information on Tokugawa social classes, so I figured I would eliminate the redundancy by putting all the information there. Do you think it's alright to repeat the same information in two different sections? I thought that the section was fairly well organized, but if you can think of a better way to organize it, then you can make a proposal.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Structuring a path for improving the article...

...because there isn't a path, and I expect the same kinds of accusations about burying comments and failing to define article issues to persist here without it. And frankly, I don't want to see this matter come to ANI again, because it doesn't have to. Curly Turkey and CurtisNaito, it seems to me that there are some concerns with the article that a simple checklist (like this one) will not help. At the same time, I have found it extremely taxing to parse through the broader concerns with the article and why they are important for a GAN, and I imagine that is the case for at least some editors who are actively involved here. Some kind of structure is needed.

If you cannot reach agreement on some issue (and I suspect you will not on some matters), then you need to accept you cannot resolve it between the two of you and make efforts to bring in uninvolved editors and/or conduct an RfC on the relevant issue at hand. As I've said before, getting this article to some status or another is not a race. Your time invested in improving this article on Japan's history is valuable, so do not waste it trying to revisit the same arguments as though something will be different.

Having gone through the talk page archives and GA reviews myself, I've taken some time to identify and define proposals and concerns. A couple of important disclaimers:

1. This is not a checklist. Some items may be appropriate to implement, but other items may need to be changed or disregarded. The History of Japan is a challenging article to develop, because there is so much to consider when presenting a large body of information. Be bold in addressing these items, but accept that you may not get it right and that other perspectives may be needed before a concern is actually addressed.
2. Some of these items are specific and others are much more broad, and there may be multiple editorial approaches to consider in how to solve them. Discussion, especially with uninvolved editors, will probably be required for some of them.
3. This does not include every concern articulated. I encourage folks here to add and revise this list as needed.
4. Some of these items may have been addressed already, so please strike them if needed.

Please continue to use this table to highlight points of disagreement, proposed additions / revisions, policy/guideline concerns and where they exist, etc. I hope this will help move the discussion here in a more productive direction. I, JethroBT 07:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Table

Discussion

Starting a discussion section here to help guide additions and changes to the above table. I, JethroBT 07:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that the large majority, if not all, of the above issues have already been addressed. I suspect that future discussion will need to focus around new issues, rather than the old topics listed above.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@CurtisNaito: Some that I suspect have not been fully resolved are Proposal to use general reference works and/or tertiary sources to help make decisions and Disagreement on how to handle article section divisions, both of which seem rather fundamental to me as they concern the overall structure of the article. I don't see evidence that those issues were resolved so much as the discussions simply ended. I have not seen an attempt to identify an expert who could review the article, where they may be needed, or even if one is actually necessary. The Due weight / balance between 1) recent cultural & technological contributions and 2) political and cultural history has also persisted for some time now, and I haven't seen consensus on how to handle this based on available coverage in sources. I, JethroBT 08:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, if more work needs to be done in those areas, I definitely think that the checklist approach could work in those areas. For instance, I already consulted Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book Encyclopedia and made sure to include all major historical events and people mentioned in those tertiary sources. However, if more tertiary sources need to be consulted, other users could make a list of the specific tertiary sources which need to be consulted in more depth.

Concerning the weight and balance issue, in that specific thread the only propositions which were made were for new topics to add to the article. No one concretely proposed deleting anything. However, all the topics mentioned there have already been added to the article. In the future the balance of the article can be changed further through either addition of new material or deletion of existing material. If we had a checklist of possible topics to add or delete, then the gradual implementation of that checklist would cause the article's balance/weight to change.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I JethroBT Re: bring in uninvolved editors: this would normally be a great idea, but please take into account how many motivated editors have dropped out of this article already through attrition. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

If you know of any issues in particular which have already been resolved, you should consider striking them from list above as JethroBT suggested in order to reduce some of the clutter.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Sure, I get that. The atmosphere here is stressful, and folks will naturally disengage from that. But the last RfC I see from the archives is from 2009. Looks to me like it's high time for another one. I, JethroBT 08:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment External factors (in which CurtisNaito, despite his constant denial, has played no small part) may soon prevent me from continuing my involvement here, but my proposal to check Japanese K9 history textbooks to verify that there are no more super-important topics every Japanese schoolchild is required to know that we have completely ignored has yet to be implemented. (This is not the same as the earlier, impractical "look at my list of general reference works" proposal that the Warlord of Mars posted just about everywhere without examining the debate in question.) But no one has any problem with my proposal, it would seem, so why it was left out of the above list is confusing.

And the "general check needed for cases of synthesis and original research" still hasn't been done except by me on the few Henshall citations I could check. My check came up positive in almost every case, mind you, which only underscores the critical need for this check before any further GAN is made.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I have some general Japanese history textbooks, but not K9 in particular, so I haven't implemented that proposal myself. As I said though, I still think that Encyclopedia Britannica can basically do the same job. Until you yourself or someone else is ready to check the article with a K9 textbook, I think that general encyclopedia articles are more than good enough for our purposes. Concerning the check for source verification, a number of users have already done that, so it's unclear how much further we can go with it. I agree with Prhartcom who said back in October that source verification was already "done as much as possible." I certainly will continue to check the sources, as I have done already and as many other users already have done, but unless you know a specific source which needs verification, I don't see what more can be done here.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that general encyclopedia articles are more than good enough for our purposes But neither you nore anyone else has actually checked any long encyclopedia articles to verify that we didn't miss anything. You claim to have done this back in August, but while Britannica mentions Yoshitsune our article did not. And while every Japanese schoolchild knows Date Masamune, Fujiwara no Teika and Sakanoue no Tamuramaro, most of the encyclopedia articles to which you refer, by your admission, fail to cover them. These figures are not, as you called them, minor/obscure, and they absolutely need to be at least mentioned in this article. We should try to figure out who else belongs on this list before renominating; your own track record (you claimed you had already done this) indicates we can't take your word for it when you claim you've already done this, unless you provide the details (title/author/publisher/date) of the book/article you analyzed and give a complete list of every person/place/event named therein. No attempt thusfrmar has been made by you or any other user to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to writing such a brief overview of Japanese history, as we are doing here, then Date Masamune and Sakanoue no Tamuramaro would likely be considered obscure figures. Remember, this article has to be a lot shorter than the average high school history textbook. I noted earlier that very lengthy and critically acclaimed Japanese history books, like the 600-page one by Conrad Totman for example, never mention them. I did include them on your request, but in general we do need to focus on the most important figures and not the more obscure ones. Also, I don't know why you would say that I never checked any long encyclopedia articles. I did consult World Book and Britannica. Though even Britannica's article was longer than what is acceptable for Misplaced Pages standards, you can see from the current article that all the people and events are covered, so my track record is solid. If you can think of a specific book or a specific encyclopedia article which you think requires more attention, then mention it below and I will check or re-check it.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I said "elementary school", not "high school", and given the relatively narrow range of characters and events mentioned in elementary school social studies textbooks the distinction is pretty important. Why are you criticizing my proposal if you do not understand it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I understood it, but the point of it is only to make sure some of the most important events and figures in Japanese history are included in this article. There's more than one way to do that. If you want to move from just talk to actual article improvements, why not list below all the topics which you know of from elementary school textbooks that are not currently discussed in the article?CurtisNaito (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Post-War literature

In literature, science fiction emerged as a major genre. Leading authors of this period such as Sakyo Komatsu and Haruki Murakami used science fiction to explore complex ideas such as social alienation, excessive materialism, the dangers of technology, and environmental destruction.

I'm not an expert on J-literature, but is this really the legacy of post-War Japanese literature? Science fiction? No Nobel-prize winners (Kawabata, Ōe)? No Dazai, Abe, Mishima? The Japanese literature article doesn't even mention Komatsu. Note to CurtisNaito: I am not saying "add these names now"—if you do, I'll revert. I am saying that I seriously doubt the above is an appropriate summary of post-War Japanese literature and it needs to be re-researched (properly) and completely rewritten. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Haruki Murakami was on a list of suggested additions and I was told "Anything here not mentioned in the article should be added." Personally, I didn't want to focus too much on post-war literature, because it doesn't appear to be a typical topic discussed in Misplaced Pages overviews of national history. For example, History of France doesn't mention any modern literary figures like André Gide nor does History of the United States mention Ernest Hemingway, though both of those articles are much longer than this one. Part of the reason might be the difficultly in discerning which recent literary works will have lasting value. Which authors do you think should be mentioned in the article?CurtisNaito (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Your response is a perfect example of what exasperates people who try to communicate with you, CurtisNaito. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I gave you my opinion. The source I used for adding the information on Haruki Murakami was Totman, and Totman does also mention Mishima Yukio and Kawabata Yasunari (though not Oe Kenzaburo), so the same source could potentially be used to add in some of the other figures you mentioned. As I said though, I'm not really sure we have room for a full discussion of post-war literature. Therefore, in order to foster discussion, I'm asking you, which authors do you personally think are worth mentioning?CurtisNaito (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, do you seriously have no comprehension what the problem is? None at all? Because your responses are in no way addressing the problem. It's as if you didn't even read the parent comment. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the information on post-war literature, if needed at all, can be expanded or changed based on the same sources already used in the article. It just depends on which authors/works to include. Some of the books currently cited in the article, like Henshall and Perez, include no post-war literature section at all. However, there are others, like Totman for instance, which do include information on authors like Murakami, Kawabata, and Mishima. Do you have any opinion on which authors to include or are you neutral on the subject?CurtisNaito (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

My opinion, which I've repeated more times and in more situations on this talk page than I care to count, is in the parent comment: if it's needed at all, do the research, and stop half-assing it—the quote above is an embarrassment. Now stop making me repeat myself. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, what sources would you prefer that we use for research? When it comes to the structure of a general overview of Japanese history, why not use the books listed above? If you think we shouldn't use the sources above, then I suppose we could use other, equally reliable sources, but do you have any specific ones in mind?CurtisNaito (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

why not use the books listed above?: did I say not to? I said the garbage there needs to be fixed. Until it is, it is yet one more example why this article will not meet GA standards. If you're not going to fix it (properly, adequately, not slap-dashedly), then let someone else do it—with no deadline. Perhaps I'll do it myself when I have the time and motiviation, as I've fixed other broken pieces of the article, but if I do I'll do it at my own pace. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I told you my proposals, but I got the impression that maybe you objected to the research I was doing. I wasn't sure why you objected to my research, but I thought maybe you didn't like the sources I was using. However, if you actually don't have any objection to the sources, I suppose I can go ahead and make some changes based on that.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Most of the most notable "post-war" (as opposed to "contemporary") writers were dead by the time Keene wrote his history of them, and so are covered in some detail there. His introduction (which is only eight pages) notes (p. 8) Despite the prominence given to the various schools by critics of modern Japanese literature, the most popular and important writers, with only a few exceptions, did not belong to any school: Nagai Kafū, Tanizaki Jun'ichirō, Akutagawa Ryūnosuke, Kawabata Yasunari, and Mishima Yukio are remembered as strikingly individual writers. The number of post-war authors not in this list who we need to mention in the article could probably be counted on one hand -- Dazai Osamu springs to mind; calling someone like Shiga Naoya a post-war author would be ... questionable. Additionally, the best-known contemporary writer, who is already mentioned in the problematic section in question, listed in footnote 1 to his introduction to this book the modern authors he thinks the Japanese citizenry would nominate as the top ten. (The note isn't visible in the free preview, and my paper copy is still packed away somewhere in one of about a dozen boxes following a somewhat messy move last summer.) As for contemporary authors -- I'm sorry I can't be of much help here, but I think characterizing Murakami Haruki as one of a wave of "science fiction authors" is pretty ridiculous. I don't know exactly what we should be saying about these authors once we've decided who deserves mention, but Keene's description quoted above is pretty good, and allows us to also namedrop the schools in question -- on the previous page he specifically lists the Naturalists, Shirakaba, Proletarian, and New Sensationalist schools. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Totman refers to Murakami Haruki as an "author of sci-fi works" and mentions him prominently in that context. We could add in Nagai Kafū, but most of Keene's list is already included. Tanizaki Jun'ichirō and Akutagawa Ryūnosuke are already mentioned in an earlier section.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, please tell me you are joking -- Nagai Kafū is also already in here, and how Totman describes Murakami is not important because hundreds of critics who specialize in this area have commented on him, and thousands have commented on what "science fiction" means; this isn't the place to debate whether Star Wars is "science fiction" or "space fantasy" or just plain old "speculative fiction", but Murakami's best-known works are in my opinion even more remote from the conventions of this genre than Star Wars, and I'm confident the majority of scholars would agree with me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, MSJapan and Sturmgewehr88 wanted Murakami Haruki to be included, but among general purpose histories of Japan, Murakami was mentioned only in Totman. Totman deals with Murakami under his section on science fiction, and refers to him as a representative author in the field of "sci-fi". You've been stating your own opinion above, but in this case the article should represent the view of the scholars cited. Assuming that you want to include all the authors in Keene's list as well, I think they are all included in their appropriate context except possibly Nagai Kafū. Yes he is mentioned, but only in the Kamakura period section. Whatever we do, we need to keep it brief. As I noted, most encyclopedia articles on the History of Japan and most general purpose histories mention no twentieth century literary figures at all, in spite of the alleged bias towards recent events that such sources are said to have.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So in other words you completely disregarded what I said: rather than doing the research, you simply name-checked Murakami in the closest work you had to hand and called it done. That would be incompetence even if you hadn't already been to repeatedly never to do that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Totman does talk about Murakami in a paragraph that begins with sci-fi, but he doesn't "refers to him as a representative author in the field of 'sci-fi'". He calls him an "inventive" writer of the "Shōwa Genroku" period. The preceding page won't display for me, but the context appears to be popular literature, not sci-fi. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The start of the paragraph in question says, "Science fiction flourished mainly as popular literature." He then goes on to list off typical authors of popular science fiction.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

He does no such thing. What are you trying to tell us? You're illiterate? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, you did this same thing with Yoshitsune and Teika months ago, and I asked you to stop back then. If you have determined that someone or something deserves mention in this article, you don't find and add whatever random factoid is given in a source you already have -- you should figure out why it belongs in the article and write that, citing an appropriate source. Why did you think Murakami needed to be added? Just because User:MSJapan and User:Sturmgewehr88 said so? Did you think that your including a completely random factoid about him would encourage them to support this article's being renominated? That's not how this is supposed to work... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I said before that my opinion was that we should focus our attention on how general purpose histories of Japan present the facts, and then emulate their style. The article is called "History of Japan", so it makes sense for us to present our information in a similar way to other books dealing with the exact same subject. As I said, I personally didn't want any postwar literary figure in the article, in accordance with common practice both on and off Misplaced Pages, but a fair number of users wanted Murakami mentioned. Naturally, I had to go with the consensus, and it just so happened that Totman's book on Japanese history, which is regarded by scholars as one of the best overviews available, mentioned Murakami as a representative writer of postwar Japanese science fiction. If you believe that Murakami is not known for his science fiction, we could still change the text, but it would be useful to know what source you plan on citing for that, because in your last post you only mentioned your opinion. You didn't mention which source you wanted to cite.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

my opinion was that we should focus our attention on how general purpose histories of Japan present the facts: I think a better approach is what Sturmgewehr proposed: use the general histories to figure out what should be included, and then use specialized sources to figure out how to srite it accurately. This has been brought up numerous times and you've ignored it each time. Your presentation of Murakami is case in point—you are apparently so unfamiliar with his works that you would present him as a sci-fi author. This is after being told that you need to do the research or step out of the way so someone competent can handle it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It was Totman who said that, not me specifically. The relatively little attention that Murakami receives in general histories focuses on science fiction. Do you believe that we should continue to mention Murakami in reference to non-science fiction works, or do you think we should not mention him at all?CurtisNaito (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Totman did not call Murakami a sci-fi writer. I've already quoted what he did say. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if Totman had called him a sci-fi writer (which he didn't), if no other source agrees with him, then you've failed to do the research that you are required to do. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

When I read it didn't seem very ambiguous. The section was called "Science fiction and business novels". Murakami was included under the paragraph about "Science fiction flourished mainly as popular literature." Murakami was included as a representative, not of the business novel genre, but rather, of the science fiction genre. Regarding article content, I'm not sure right now whether you are arguing in favor of deleting Murakami entirely, or whether you want him included but with reference non-science fiction works.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So; you didn't do the research and thus badly screwed up. Yes, you don't need to keep telling us that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Murakami was included as a representative, not of the business novel genre, but rather, of the science fiction genre: no, no he was not. Stop saying this. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure right now whether you are arguing in favor of: I cannot comprehend how you do not understand that I am arguing in favour of you doing the research before messing up the article. CTRL+F to see how many times I've said this already. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did do the research, but I still believe that Totman's opinion of Murakami can be considered reliable. Naturally, I'm willing to wait for you to complete your own research as well, but if you're planning on taking your time with your research, we might want to iron out some of the details now in advance of you completing your research. If you don't think we should be citing Totman, I suppose we can start looking for a different source now. I get the impression that other users want to delete references to science fiction in favor of some other genre.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You did not do the research, and you badly misread Totman. Digging in your heels will not fix this article. What you wrote is wrong from every perspective.

I get the impression that other users want to delete references to science fiction in favor of some other genre.—this is gibberish that has nothing to do with anything anyone has said here. You are not giving the impression that you are here to make this the bast article you can. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I still think that when Totman refers to Murakami as a sci-fi writer in a paragraph about science fiction in a section dealing only with science fiction and business novels, then it leaves little doubt that he is known for science fiction. Another user said that, "Murakami's best-known works are in my opinion even more remote from the conventions of this genre". In other words, other users prefer that Murakami not be mentioned in the context of science fiction. Personally, I favored Totman's approach of including him as a science fiction writer, but we could use a different source if a different perspective is needed. There's still some ambiguity over what sort of information each user would prefer to have in the article, but if you're planning on conducting your own research on the matter I could wait until you finish your research before asking you any further questions.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I still think that when Totman refers to Murakami as a sci-fi writer—Once again: Totman does not refer to Murakami as a sci-fi writer. Stop this now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There's still some ambiguity over what sort of information each user would prefer to have in the article—no, there's not. You are being told repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly to do the proper research or move out of the way. You refuse to do the proper research, so please move out of the way. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, as Prhartcom said, "This nominator is competent, has access to all the necessary sources, and is willing and able to work on the article". I believe that I did the research in a careful and accurate manner. However, we still have a disagreement over what Totman is saying, and I suppose that if there is no consensus on what Totman is saying then I'll use a different source instead.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

we still have a disagreement over what Totman is saying: no, we don't. He objectively said nothing like what you claimed he did, and you did not do the "research" you claimed to have done. If you're dragging Prhartcom into the conversation, then at least have the courtesy to let him know. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't quite understand why Totman's reference to Murakami as a sci-fi writer is regarded as ambiguous, but in the absence of agreement, I'll use a different source. If it's okay with you, I could also put back the information on Mishima Yukio and Kawabata Yasunari. If we are going to include a post-war literature section, then re-adding this will at least allow us to link to all the major names, though the details of what additional information to include on each person might still be subject to debate.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Both Henshall and Tsutsui (both of which you have access to) mention Murakami, and neither say a word about sci-fi. So in light of your extensive research you believe that in the History of Japan article Haruki Murakami is most appropriately presented as typical of Japanese science fiction? Okay—please keep your hands off the article and let those of us who know what we're doing handle it. You have demonstrated that you lack even the most basic competence. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The editors of the Misplaced Pages article on Murakami Haruki apparently didn't see any problem with mentioning science fiction as one of his genres of writing. I suppose some sources, including the ones I cited, view science fiction as somewhat more important than his other genres, but I can understand that there is more to his career than that. I certainly have demonstrated my competence, but with this section all I was trying to do was make a brief summary, not an in-depth analysis. I'll try to make the coverage a little broader by using different sources. I hadn't yet read Tsutsui at the time I initially added the information, and Henshall only mentions Murakami in the context of the 1995 sarin gas attacks which are not referred to in the current version of the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The Murakami aritcle does not call him a scince fiction author and does not mention science fiction in the body. Are you going to continue to insist he is a science fiction writer, that he represents Japanese science fiction, and that you have extensively researched this fact and put it in an appropriate context with due weight? Seriously, just get your hands off it. You can't handle this. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I consulted the relevant sources and inserted a basic summary of those sources. I think you're more so disagreeing with the sources I mentioned than with me personally. Having said that, I think I understand your concern that Murakami perhaps should be mentioned in a broader context. I'll look into making some modifications using different sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You did not "consult the relevant sources". Stop saying that. You completely botched that paragraph and have demonstrated you have no understanding of what is wrong or what is required to fix it. Please, please, please leave it alone. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I believe that I did consult the relevant sources, though I understand that we disagree on which sources to use. If you discover a good alternative source to use, don't hesitate to say so. Nihonjoe of course told us both to leave the article, but personally I think it would be better for everyone to work together. I'll try modifying the text to deal with the concerns.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you didn't consult the relevant sources, nor do you believe you did—you've been told what's wrong so many times and in so many ways that I cannot believe you are working in good faith. Regardless, you are damaging the article. Stop this now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

personally I think it would be better for everyone to work together And this is why you are the one requesting ArbCom not to ban me from editing this page? Because I could have sworn you opened two ANI threads requesting that I be banned from the page, and the result was an ArbCom case in which you again requested that I be banned from the page, and at the moment looks set to do just that, and you were the only one here not opposed to that possibility... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The article talk page is for discussing article content. Arbcom cases are a separate matter. The best way to move forward is to deal, one at a time, with issues directly relating to the text of the article. Recently I have swapped the sources for Haruki Murakami and have presented an alternative version of the text.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) So let me get this straight: it's okay for you to make the off-topic and untrue claim that you are in favour of everyone working together to improve the article (your unilateral reverts of any edits with which you disagree say otherwise, mind you), but my pointing out that your off-topic claims are untrue is off-topic and inappropriate for the article talk page? Seriously? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I was saying that we should talk about article content on the talk page. Arbcom isn't article content. I do think we should work together to improve article content, but it would be easier to do that if we discussed only article content on this talk page. We already have three different versions on Murakami to choose from. We can select one of those three versions or else someone can write up a fourth.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, it's not enough to say you are in favour of people working together to improve the article. When you (1) make a mistake, (2) refuse to acknowledge your mistake, (3) aggressively defend your mistake as an acceptable reading of your source, and then (4) claim that you are the one trying to edit cooperatively, it is a slap in the face of all the other editors who wish to improve this article. You need to back down and admit you were wrong; otherwise you are making it extremely difficult to work with you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

My original version mentioned science fiction. My second version mentioned postmodernism. TH1980's version mentioned magical realism. These are all fine to mention. Ideally I would just chose one from a representative source to prevent the section from getting to long, but I guess we could combine all three or a selection of these three.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The idea is to summarize post-war Japanese literature, not to provide a long list of every genre one particular writer has ever kneaded into his published work. Both the summary of post-war Japanese literature and the description of the particular writer have been a complete botch in every conceivable way. Dealing with your messes is exasperating. Stop it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't mentioned what problems you have with either my own version #2 or TH1980's version of the Haruki Murakami information. Both of them were fairly short and only mentioned a few characteristics of his work. Also, you didn't mention what problems you had with the references in the article to Kawabata and Mishima. A variety of well-researched proposals were inserted into the article, and while we might be able to reach consensus on one version or another, more clarity is needed on how specifically the text can be improved. If you have any ideas we can discuss it, or alternatively, if you're still conducting research we can wait for you to finish your research first. If you're planning on spending more than a month on your research though, we might want to insert a basic outline into the article now, which could be fleshed out after you finish your research.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You're only incriminating yourself when you say "A variety of well-researched proposals were inserted into the article". It was not well-researched—stop saying that. It was half-assedly slapped together in a manner that demonstrated a gross disregard for the subject.

You still haven't mentioned what problems—yes, I have. Repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind "One contemporary author of popular fiction who has received broad recognition both in Japan and internationally is Haruki Murakami." Just about any source giving an introduction to Murakami in English will likely support this. This would mean mentioning the distinction between "popular" and "pure" literature and naming some producers of the latter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess you could try that. Some of the sources I consulted did mention him as an author of popular fiction, though incidentally, the last source I used in the article, "The Columbia Companion to Modern East Asian Literature" states that his works "fall outside the parameters of established categories such as 'serious' and 'popular'". Thus, the Columbia Companion argues that his works are neither popular nor pure. Still, you could try inserting your own proposal. What source were you planning on using?CurtisNaito (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

known as the "Meiji leaders"

It seems to me that we shouldn't be using this wording with the quotation marks unless we can say who knows them as that on the talk page -- is this a term used exclusively by western scholars, and if not what is the Japanese term? I looked a bit into it and the closest I could find was ja:明治の三傑, which refers to three specific individuals (not something our article currently implies), and if that is what is being referred to then we should probably wikilink our article on the topic. The problem here is that the sentence in question where known as the "Meiji leaders" appears does not have a source, and the succeeding sentence cites two different sources. Henshall doesn't use this wording; can we get a quotation from Weston? The Weston citation is attached specifically to the claim that the Meiji leaders are "regarded as some of the most successful statesmen in human history", which very obviously does not refer to the three men in the above-linked article but to the broader group who spearheaded Japan's modernization in the Meiji era. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Each statement in the article is sourced to the next citation following it in accordance with the suggestions I was given earlier. That particular statement is cited to Weston, who says "The three dozen samurai who started Japan's modernization are known today as 'the Meiji leaders'". If you prefer we could change it to Meiji oligarchy, the name of a Misplaced Pages article, because the two terms appear to be used synonymously.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not what was suggested. Having one statement with no source, and the following sentence citing two separate sources, is highly confusing. But yes, I would prefer if we somehow linked the Meiji oligarchy article; it would be better, however, if we could find a source that specifically discusses the hanbatsu, and drop the Weston citation that apparently doesn't use that term. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I was specifically told that each portion of text should cite back to the next citation listed. The next citation goes to Weston, so there is no ambiguity regarding which source it was cited to. The term Meiji leaders is fairly common, also used by Totman for instance, but I think we can just link "Meiji leaders" back to the "Meiji oligarchy" article, because they appear to refer to the same thing.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

each portion of text should cite back to the next citation listed How do you define "portion of text"? One portion is a sentence and a half, and the next is a half? That's confusing. I prefer to add at least one citation to each sentence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The term Meiji leaders is fairly common It's ambiguous, and I'm confident that at least half of the instances of its use in English are not referring to a specific closed list of people. If it is the WP:COMMONNAME for the hanbatsu in English, then our article on that topic should be renamed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been told many times to not do that though. Each statement or set of statements is supposed to be sourced to the next citation. This is apparently Misplaced Pages's policy on the matter.

Obviously both Meiji oligarchy and Meiji leaders are very common terms. I don't think that it matter much which of the two common names we select.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have been told many times to not do that though Curtis, I really hope you don't split infinitives like that in the mainspace... Normally I wouldn't bring up grammatical problems with other users' talk page comments, but you used the non-standard/slang-y phrase "based off (of)" in both the talk and article spaces, and when corrected you didn't acknowledge your mistake and did the same thing again later. I really think you need to consult some kind of English writing style guide.

As to the substance, who told you not to do that? Statistically speaking I've probably been here longer than they have, and I am telling you now that either you misinterpreted them, or they are wrong.

And if that's the case then can we find a different source and wikilink to our article on the topic?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I never use slang, but naturally there are different styles of English and split infinitives are very common nowadays even in formal writing. I've been told that "You can read the policy for yourself at WP:CITE; nowhere does it state that every sentence needs to be cited and I've even had objections from some other reviewers that once per paragraph isn't strictly required either." He told me that if anyone ever asked me to cite every sentence then I should ask them to "show me the exact source of their onerous requirement". Though Meiji leaders and Meiji oligarchs are equally common terms, if you prefer the word oligarch, I can change the article based off a source which uses that word.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes Curtis, I know "to boldly go where no man has gone before" is perfectly acceptable in modern English and "boldly to go where no man has gone before" sounds awkward. I also know "the school I went to was on the outskirts of town" is more natural English than "the school to which I went was on the outskirts of town". That's why I said "split infinitives like that" (emphasis added); the way you used a split infinitive was informal and slang-y, and while it is acceptable here you should refrain from using it when editing articles, as you should refrain from saying "based off (of)". And I didn't ask you to "cite every sentence" (sic); I asked you not to use a confusing style where one sentence is cited to a ref halfway through the next sentence, not the ref at the end of the following sentence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"Meiji leaders" and "Meiji oligarchy" contain grammatical overlap. I believe both terms could be used interchangeably if need be.TH1980 (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No. If our source says they are known as "Meiji leaders", and we are following the source in doing so, we can't change the word given in quotation marks to something else. One solution would be to remove the phrase "they were known as" entirely, and just say "These Meiji leaders were...", although I would prefer some verification that Weston is actually discussing the same people our article is about. What does everyone think of this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Weston refers to the Meiji leaders as the key former samurai leading the Meiji government. Most of the sources currently cited in this article use the expression "the Meiji leaders" in a generic way to refer to all the key figures in the Meiji government. In general Meiji oligarchs is used to refer to the same people. Admittedly, Stephen Large says that the term "Meiji oligarchs" only refers to a group of seven late-Meiji figures, but in general I think most authors used the term Meiji oligarchs as broadly as they use the term Meiji leaders. I changed the article's source to one that uses the word oligarchs.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I never use slang

• 02:27, 6 May 2015: You use the non-standard/slang-y "based ... off" on a talk page.

• 11:12, 11 May 2015: You use the non-standard/slang-y "based off" on a talk page.

• 04:08, 12 May 2015: You use the non-standard/slang-y "based off" on a talk page.

• 22:21, 12 May 2015: Nishidani tells you on the talk page that this is not correct English

• 22:48, 12 May 2015: Nishidani reiterates that this is ungrammatical.

• 20:23, 15 May 2015: You insert the same bad grammar ("based off Korean models") into the article in question afterengaging in discussion with Nishidani over this.

• 15 May 2015: You and TH1980 edit-war with Nishidani and Ubikwit to keep this ungrammatical slang in the article.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't use any slang, but if you favor one form of English over another, like the split infinitive for instance, you can go ahead and try to insert your preferred version in the article. However, I don't think that this particular expression is used anywhere in the article, so discussing your preferences in style on the talk page is in this case not relevant to article content.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"based off (of)" is slang, whether you want to admit it or not. I am giving you a general caution not to write ungrammatically and/or informally in the mainspace, as you have done both in this article and in many other articles. Your "good" version of this article did indeed feature the equivalent and equally-slang phrase "modeled off" -- and you were the one who added it -- so it isn't off-topic. I would provide these general cautionary messages on your user talk page instead, but last time I posted there I was met with a string of very aggressive personal attacks/threats so I'm somewhat reluctant to do so again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically, it's an issue of stylistic preference. I suppose you can use the method that you prefer, but the point you brought up above wasn't even in the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) No, it's not an issue of stylistic preference. Misplaced Pages articles should not be written in slang. You have inserted non-standard, slang wording into this and other articles, and when told to stop you have either ignored us or insisted that what you were writing was standard written English. You will never see any piece of formal writing in English (and that includes encyclopedia articles) that use wording like "The new capital city was constructed in a grid pattern modeled off Chang'an", because this is slang. I am not saying it is "wrong" or that you can't use it in talking with your friends or even posting it on talk pages, but please learn to stop writing it into the article space. As for "the point you brought up above wasn't even in the article" -- what point? Everything I accused you of adding to the article space was backed up by diffs indicating that you did add it to the article space -- multiple times, after being told that it was wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell "based off" in the Korean influence article was originally added by TH1980. This may be common usage, but I wouldn't have stopped you from changing it to the alternative version if you had done so. Ultimately, the issue was not highly relevant because the expression is not used in the article at this point.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The one Nishidani discussed (with you) was TH1980's, but the one you later edit-warred over, the one you added to this article, and the half-dozen I just removed from articles linked on your user page were all apparently yours, and you are still now arguing that it was acceptable ("This may be common usage"). This is relevant because you are essentially threatening to continue adding this ungrammatical slang to the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that. I just didn't think there was a point in discussing an issue at length which doesn't exist anywhere in the article. It would be more useful to discuss the article itself.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Earlier in this thread you said "I never use slang", and immediately above here you said it "may be common usage". You can't seriously think you can get away with denying this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I used any actual slang. However, if you have any problems with the language currently used in the article you could certainly bring it up.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You've used the phrase "based off" dozens of times in the article space -- how much more evidence do you need? Or are you actually arguing that "based off" is not WP:SLANG and you should be allowed continue using it in the article space? Because if so you definitely need to stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it has just been brought to my attention that Nishidani and I are not the only ones who consider "based off (of)" to be ungrammatical. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Timeline still screwy; this article NEEDS thematic sections/subsections

In the last week or so, CurtisNaito has placed (twice) Murakami Haruki in the post-war period alongside Kawabata Yasunari, and TH1980 has placed him in the same era. In their edit summaries both of these users have explicitly referred to Murakami as a "post-war" author. Murakami's first notable publication (for which he won a new author prize) was in 1979, and he is still active today -- he is NOT a novelist of the post-war period, but rather a contemporary author, and placing him in the same paragraph as Kawabata is ridiculous. I don't think either of these users have ever read any of Murakami's writings, or any detailed secondary literature on him. CurtisNaito took an off-hand reference to Murakami in a book on an unrelated topic that he had already cited dozens of times and wrote it into the article; TH1980 misspelled his name as "Murikami" and apparently found his source by Googling a free GBooks preview. (The fact that TH1980 only chose to join the dispute after I did should put up red flags given that he has been hounding me for months, but that's beside the point.)

Anyway... both of these users have been consistently arguing that this article should and already does discuss the history of Japan in a strictly chronological fashion, but both of them also seem to want to place discussion of Murakami Haruki in the Showa period, four lines down from the words Among cultural developments, the immediate post-occupation period became a golden age.

What's wrong with this picture?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Kawabata won the Nobel Prize in 1968, so I think it was fine to put him in the Showa period. Murakami was active during the postwar period extending to the present day. The general chronological structure has been maintained. If you look at other general history articles like the featured level article History of Minnesota, you can see that thematic subjects can be easily discussed within broad historical periods. There is no reason why we can't group trends in postwar literature into the Showa period.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Kawabata won the Nobel Prize in 1968, so I think it was fine to put him in the Showa period. Curtis, this is completely beside the point. "The Showa period" is not what we are talking about, and I never said I had a problem with where you placed Kawabata. It's Murakami who was placed problematically in the timeline. Murakami was NOT "active during the postwar period" -- he was BORN during the postwar period, and his first books were published at the very end of the Showa period. And again, nowhere in History of Minnesota is a thematic subject for an entire very broad historical period crammed into a single paragraph under a heading that implies a much shorter historical period. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Postwar refers to 1945 to present, so I would call Murakami postwar. Incidentally, Misplaced Pages's article on Japanese literature also classifies him as a postwar author. Totman includes Murakami in a chapter entitled "THE CULTURE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL JAPAN (1945–1990)". Totman's book is considered one of the most reliable overviews of Japanese history in English. Since this method of organization suits Totman, it should suit us as well. I disagree with your assessment of the History of Minnesota article. That article is in general chronological order, but it does include thematic subheadings that are actually somewhat broader or shorter than the period they are included under. This is a natural way to organize a high quality national history article.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You didn't classify him as "postwar", you classified him as a representative Shōwa-period sci-fi writer—and attributed that to Totman, who wrote no such thing. If you are more interested in keeping the article chronological that in making it as accessible and comprehensible as possible to readers then perhaps you should step aside so the rest of us can do it right. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Postwar refers to 1945 to present Umm... citation needed? "Postwar literature" as a term is almost never used to refer to "1945 to present"; it refers to the two or three decades following the end of the war -- Donald Keene's chapter "Postwar literature" covers this period almost exclusively -- and Murakami came on the scene 34 years after the war ended. You will not find a single history of Japanese literature that defines "postwar literature" as "1945 to present". And the reason Misplaced Pages's article on Japanese literature does that is because it is a practically-unsourced mess that I never got around to fixing -- you should not be using it as a source, especially when I am citing the best and most reliable sources on the topic and they don't agree with you.

Totman's book is considered one of the most reliable overviews of Japanese history in English Emphasis on "one of"; Keene's book is the best regarded overview of Japanese literary history in English. And we don't use the term "entrepreneurial Japan (1945-1990)" in this article.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's natural to consult the works of historians to determine our organization though. Totman puts Murakami in the 1945-1990 period as a sci-fi author, so obviously this is a legitimate way of organizing it. If Keene puts Murakami in a different period, then we can consider both points of view, but we shouldn't create an organization based solely on our own opinions without consulting scholarly sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You're not "consult the works of historians". You've been called out on this far too many times now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I consulted the works of many historians, but most of the general overviews did not include much or anything useful on Murakami. As I noted, Totman puts him in the 1945-1990 period, but if you know of an encyclopedia article or book which suggests he should be included in a different period, it would be worth mentioning that.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear -- you are actually making the "Donald Keene is not a historian" argument? Anyway, Keene doesn't discuss Murakami since his history was written in late 1970s and early 1980s and largely ignored authors who were still active at the time; this means, of course, that if "postwar" referred to "1945 to present", one would expect him to conform to that definition. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Since Keene doesn't discuss Murakami, what is the objection to including him in the same period where Totman does? From Totman we have clear evidence that this form of organization is acceptable. When it comes to overviews of Japanese history or encyclopedia articles, do you know of any which use a different style of organization for postwar literature?CurtisNaito (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Keene doesn't discuss Murakami in his 1994 volume (I assume that's the one we're talking about?), but he does in his Britannica article:

For more than 20 years after he won the Akutagawa Prize, Ōe was considered to be the youngest writer of importance, and critics lamented the dearth of promising new writers. However, a new generation, represented by Nakagami Kenji and Murakami Haruki, found favour not only in Japan but abroad, where their novels were translated and admired. ... Murakami’s novels, though looked down on by Ōe because he perceived them to lack intellectual concerns, drew critical acclaim and sold remarkably well. This popularity was due in part to his familiarity with American popular culture, an integral part of the lives of young people all over the world, but also to his skill as a highly accomplished storyteller, able to mix real and unreal events convincingly.

But CurtisNaito is ignoring a serious issue I keep bringing up—why are we obsessing over Murakami? We still do not have anything like an appropriate summary of developments in post-war J-lit. Let's stop talking about "post-war literature" as we don't have a "Post-war" section anyways. Having an "Arts" section allows us to get around the fact that developments in art and literature don't neatly fit into the socio-political sections (and stop saying they do, CurtisNaito. You've been shown you're wrong far too many times now.) Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you come up with your own concrete idea of where to put the subsection(s), it would be worthwhile to mention it. If we were to follow the pattern used in that article, we could at least keep the literary developments of the Heian, Kamakura, Muromachi, Azuchi-Momoyama, and Tokugawa periods together, as Keene does. The only major literary developments which Keene does not put into our chronological periods is the literature from Meiji and onwards. In that case, maybe we should keep literary developments in their respective chronological periods, per Keene, except for the 1867 to present period which can be a separate thematic section.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, it would be really helpful if you didn't track down an obscure source written by an author whose better-known works had been cited dozens of times in this dispute and start referring to it simply its author's name. "Keene" (the one that has been cited thoughout, not the one you Google half an hour ago) does the entire history of Japanese literature in loosely chronological order, with individual chapters on different genres for each "period" (Nara, Heian, Kamakura, Muromachi, Azuchi-Momoyama, Tokugawa, Bakumatsu-Meiji, Taisho-earlyShowa, late-Showa), the only kinda-sorta exception being that prose fiction of the modern (Bakumatsu and later) period being in its own volume separate from poetry, theatre, criticism etc. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Keene's article is useful for seeing how an encyclopedia article on Japanese literature can be organized. Obviously, it would have been better if the article was entitled "History of Japan", but unfortunately all the History of Japan articles barely talk about literature in general, and they say nothing at all about postwar literature. The point is that Keene demonstrates that an encyclopedia article can and should sort literary developments into their relevant chronological periods, except for the period from 1867 and onwards. We can move forward by using a similar style. Per Keene, let's consider a separate thematic section on modern literature from 1867 to present, but put the rest within the chronological periods provided.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As this is the "History of Japan" article and not the "History of Japanese literature" article, J-lit should be very briefly summed up. This can be done more efficiently and with better context in a separate section than having literary developments pop up pseudorandomly in the cracks between battles and palace intrigues. It would be easier to follow, easier to understand, easier to see how it fits into the big picture, and probably take fewer words. See how I handled the burakumin? That is far easier for a reader to get a grip on while presenting all that's relevent at this scope in a single short paragraph of three sentences covering developments from the 15th to the 21st centuries, rather than splitting it up crammed into several paragraphs throughout the article and relying on the reader having an infallible memory. I still have to fix the rest of that section.

Besides, splitting off only the modern period would be bizarre and difficult to justify. Please focus on what best serves the content to the reader, not on what's most convenient to the editor. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if we put literature alongside other cultural developments of each period, then the literature alone might not need to be discussed at length. If we were to put developments in literature, painting, and music all in individual subheadings for each period, then it might become long, but if we grouped them all as cultural developments then it might be easier to manage. That's one idea, and I think it's the one I favor. If we need to have one separate section on modern literature, it could possibly be a section placed on the same level as the chronological periods. We already have a separate section on "Literary developments of the late-Heian and Kamakura periods", but that one is ranked alongside the chronological section, rather than at the end of the article.

However, as you know, I am favorable to keeping things brief, as you stated above, but how brief were you thinking? We already have five paragraphs and 500 words about Heian and Kamakura literature alone and the amount of information we have on all literature easily fills a number of subheadings. When you say "brief", roughly how many paragraphs are you thinking?CurtisNaito (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it should get long, as the article shouldn't dwell on the arts in the first place. It should give a general summary of trends, naming only key players (Murasaki, Bashō-level names) and naming key genres (waka, haiku, Yamato-e, ukiyo-e, manga, etc). I'm not going to give a number of words or paragraphs—it'll be as long as it needs to be. But it should be kept minimal. I imagine literature will be the longest portion, followed by the visual arts, and recent artforms like film and comics would probably get no more than a couple of sentences (that's a guess, not a promise). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I don't think anyone has yet proposed separate headings for film, and even for visual art I haven't heard a proposal yet for a separate heading for anything but Azuchi-Momoyama art. It seems like what you're proposing is something like a culture section.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are you acting like this is new? It's been the proposal all along. Having sections just for Azuchi-Momoyama art and modern lit would be ridiculous. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's hard for me to think that a whole section on culture, including everything on film, comics, and music, would end up being brief, though I guess it depends on how we define "brief". We already have enough on literature alone to potentially create many subheadings within a wide variety of chronological periods. Discussion of film and comics as separate categories is fairly new, but I would think that those at least could easily be discussed within the most recent chronological periods.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The section itself wouldn't be brief, but wouldn't come anywhere close to the length of the main sociopolitical narrative. Coverage of the individual arts themselves would be brief. Comics is another perfect example of something that doesn't fit at all into the main narrative—its development does not follow the main sociopolitical narrative: it arose during Meiji, grew throughout Taisho and early Showa, saw rapid sustained growth and diversification in the immediate postwar decades, and saw its highest sales and international breakthrough in Heisei. Not all that needs to be touched on, though: what needs to be touched on are a brief description of its typical manifestations and its phenomenal share of the print media market (perhaps two sentences would adequately cover it). I wonder whether its recent international success is even worthy of mention—international sales are a fraction of domestic sales and may yet prove to be a fad. Regardless, I don't see how comics fits neatly into either Shōwa or Heisei, or how it would serve the reader to try to. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, in Henshall's book manga is mentioned in the section entitled "The Heisei Years", so there is some scholarly precedent in overview histories for briefly discussing manga in this period. As always, I'm considering the way that mainstream history books and encyclopedia articles have chosen to organize such information. However, if our discussion really is boiling down to either a single, fully separate section at the bottom of the article called "Cultural History" versus distributing cultural events into the main text in some manner, then we at least would have a clear choice which we could put to request for comment to ensure consensus. If there are two clear alternative options, then request for comment should work as a means of determining consensus.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

in Henshall's book manga is mentioned in the section entitled "The Heisei Years": And here's his description (p. 204): "Manga can trace their origins back to humorous medieval scroll depictions of animals and humans, and in modern times they began to become popular in the early 1950s, starting with Tezuka Osamu’s Astro Boy of 1952. Manga then became ever more popular, down to the present. Even some educational texts are put out in manga format. Tezuka also contributed to animated manga, namely animé, from the 1960s ..."

So yet another of the many, many, many examples of you badly misrepresenting your sources and refusing to allow your botches to be corrected. This article will not improve as long as you stand here barricading it with your Totman and Henshall at hand to be instantly misquoted. You need to step aside. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was the initial reason why I put manga into the Heisei period. It was simply what the scholarly sources like Henshall also did. I figured that if published histories didn't find this format unsuitable for readers, then Misplaced Pages wouldn't either. At any rate, if we are only working with two choices for organization, and if we are only dealing with the broad theme of "cultural history", then what do you think about the possibility of a request for comment?CurtisNaito (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I consulted the works of many historians: no, you did nothing of the sort. You could not possibly have done that and ended up classifying Murakami as representative of Shōwa-period sci-fi. Nobody calls him that, including Totman. You do not have the competence to handle this. Drop it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I know we disagree about Totman, so I changed the source to an article by Matthew Strecher. Right now, it seems we are discussing organization more than content. In what way would you like to incorporate Murakami into the article?CurtisNaito (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

From Totman we have clear evidence that this form of organization is acceptable. do you know of any which use a different style of organization for postwar literature? Oh, for the love of ... Curtis, please give the IDHT act a break just this once. Keene doesn't discuss Murakami, but he very clearly defines "postwar literature" as the literature of the decade or so following 1945, and by your own admission you don't have a source that defines it as "1945-present" -- you have a source that uses the rare term "entrepreneurial" to refer to the period 1945-1990. If no source refers to Murakami as a postwar author, we shouldn't either. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The Columbia Companion to Modern East Asian Literature includes a section on "The Postwar Period" (pages 33-34), which goes up to the 1990s and includes Haruki Murakami. The problem with Keene's source is that he doesn't mention Murakami, so we can't be certain whether or not Keene views him as a postwar figure. Those sources which do mention Murakami do categorize him within in the postwar period.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The work to which you refer is not a systematic, periodized review of the history of Japanese literature; it is an arbitrary section title in an essay entitled "The Problem of the Modern Subject". None of the other arbitrary section divisions are named for particular periods in literary history, and even the section to which you refer does not imply that "postwar literature" as it says is a standard "period" in Japanese literary history. Orbaugh also doesn't describe Murakami (Haruki) as a "postwar author" -- she includes him in a list of authors who attempt to "depict the fragmented, decentered experience of postmodern subjectivity"So yes, while in that one very specific context Orbaugh does use the word "postwar" to refer to the arbitrary period "1945-present", it doesn't mean Murakami Haruki can be helpfully described as a "postwar writer", except in the (extremely obvious and therefore unhelpful) meaning of "after 1945". And you have not read Keene, so don't tell me what "we" can and can't be certain Keene thinks -- he clearly defines postwar literature as the literature discussed in his chapter entitled ... "Postwar literature". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't categorize Murakami based on sources which make no mention of him. It would be better to categorize him based on sources which actually do mention him. The Columbia Companion to Modern East Asian Literature actually does mention him as belonging to the postwar period. The Japan Times calls him a "Titan of postwar literature". My point is that the sources which actually do mention him, do categorize him in this manner. CurtisNaito (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, that's not how it works: we shouldn't read periodical categorization into non-chronological essays and claim that they treat Murakami as a "postwar author". The only source either of us has cited that discusses "postwar literature" as a meaningful categorization of Japanese literature clearly refers to only the period before Murakami appeared on the literary scene. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Keene also appears to believe that Murakami can be categorized as postwar. In an Encyclopedia Britannica article written by Keene, Murakami is put into the section entitled "The Postwar Novel".CurtisNaito (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

So what you are saying is we should interpret the clear with reference to the obscure? Stop taking articles that use the word "postwar" to mean the (unhelpful for thematic purposes) period 1945-present. "Postwar literature" as a term has a meaning, and it is one you clearly have yet to grasp. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Your source was more obscure because it never even mentioned Murakami. As I said, we should favor sources which actually mention Murakami in order to categorize him. According to Keene, Murakami was a writer of "postwar novels". At any rate, I noticed from Keene's article that Keene does manage to group Japanese literary developments mostly into the same chronological periods we use. The Heian, Kamakura, Muromachi, Azuchi-Momoyama, and Tokugawa periods are all there (Keene mentions Fujiwara Teika, Saigyo, and Fujiwara Shunzei in the Kamakura period). The exception is the period from 1867 to present. In accordance with Keene's organization, perhaps we should put literary developments in their respective chronological periods, except for the period from 1867 to present which can be put into a separate thematic section.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course Keene (1984) doesn't mention Murakami, because the book was mostly completed before Murakami's literary career started! But Keene still thought it appropriate to write about "Postwar Literature" as a phenomenon of the 1940s-1970s. You are just grasping at straws trying to find sources that use the (descriptively useless) epithet "postwar" for anything after 1945. Why don't we just refer to Murakami and Kawabata as a "post-Genji writer", since his work all post-dates The Tale of Genji, arguably the seminal work of Japanese literature? Anyway, please provide the bibliographical details for "Keene" as you keep describing it, so I can go and find out exactly what he says and prove you wrong once again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, if Keene's Britannica article places Shunzei and Saigyo in the Kamakura period, then he is oversimplifying for his general audience; his thorough history of Japanese literature in 4,000 pages, which was aimed at an undergraduate and/or specialist audience, places both of them in Heian period where they belong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Keene might not have been able to judge accurately when postwar literature ended. His book was written in 1984, and it would be difficult for a book written in the 1980s to say that a distinct phase of postwar literature ended in the 1970s. The events were too new then. Keene's Encyclopedia Britannica article is more recent, and it includes Murakami in the field of "The Postwar Novel". Keene's article does put Shunzei and Saigyo in the Kamakura period, but I wouldn't say that he is oversimplifying. It's a convenient way to summarize and organize the data. We, like Keene, are writing for a "general audience". At any rate, he includes far more information on Japanese literature in that article than we could ever fit in this article. Whatever degree of simplification Keene deemed necessary, we will necessarily have to go even further to keep this Misplaced Pages article relatively concise. If consensus on Keene's credibility can be reached, it would allow us to possibly find a sensible solution here.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't have a "postwar literature" section, and we are not describing anyone as a "postwar writer", so let's stop this. An aside: Specialists will rightly think of the "postwar" period as something like the late 1940s until the 1970s, and that will not stop the Japan Times from calling Murakami a "titan of postwar literature", using the term in a sense that is not incorrect, but neither is it helpful, and we should not be confusing readers with a term that can be interpreted in multiple ways. By the way, CurtisNaito, your every word on literature is only more deeply convincing me that you utterly lack the competence to handle the subject, and your involvement is only increasing the workload of those who have to clean up your mess. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It was proposed that we put a subheading on "postwar literature" into the Showa period section where we could possibly incorporate Murakami and others. That suggestion is still on the table, amongst dozens of other suggestions. If we were ultimately to include a literary subsection under the Showa period section, we would need to think up a title for it. Per Keene, Orbaugh, Japan Times, and many other specialist sources, a title like postwar literature does make sense. How far we need to take this particular discussion depends on whether or not we use this organizational style. Alternatively, if we go with a separate modern literature section, or some other proposal, we might possibly avoid the need to use the word "postwar".CurtisNaito (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It was proposed that we put a subheading on "postwar literature" into the Showa period—TH1980 suggested that. It was a terrible idea for reasons you don't seem interested in trying to understand. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, TH1980 might have researched the idea better than me, but after I checked the sources above I confirmed that the title was in accordance with scholarly ideas. I myself thought it would be more sensible to just put the late Showa cultural information into the Showa period section without a subheading. However, until a consensus is reached, all these ideas are still on the table for discussion.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we drop this farce? TH1980 researched nothing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, we could ask him, but he seems to be very knowledgeable on the subject. If we were to adopt this approach, I guess we could try "Postwar and contemporary literature" as the title, if it really is necessary to distinguish the two.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No, we're going to drop this farce—TH1980 researched fuck all and is anything but "very knowledgeable on the subject". CurtisNaito, stop playing this game with TH1980 now. TH1980 is here to do nothing more than disrupt. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I know from his edits to this and other articles that TH1980 is at least as well versed in Japanese history as the rest of the people who have edited this article are. We all need to contribute in order to improve the article. His idea for a postwar literature subheading was well supported by scholarship, but as I said, there are ways, even small ways, that we can tweak it to include also the viewpoints of other Misplaced Pages editors.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Kawabata died before Murakami even wrote his first book, and over half of Murakami's books were published in the Heisei period. But this is quibbling over (admittedly important) details. If the article is going to sum up literary developments, then it has to sum up literary developments and not simply name-drop. There are a lot of names that could be dropped—let's not poison this article with a long, contextless, boring-to-read list of names.

As Hijiri points out (in the subsection title, anyways) thematic subsections would likely be a more elegant and helpful way to tackle developments in the arts. If the article is going to talk about Murakami there is the obvious Procrustean problem of of whether to fit him into the Shōwa or Heisei era. The Japanese literature article has a "Modern literature" section that sums up Meiji to 1945 and then a post-1945 section. I'm no expert on J-lit, but in my experience things tend to get summed up that way more than in terms of Taisho, Showa, and Heisei literature. Add to the the problem I brought up earlier about Azuchi-Momoyama art (the art period and the socio-political period are considered to end 15 years apart), and I think we have a strong argument for summing up the arts in a separate subsection. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

If the proposals are for either a whole separate section or a separate subsection, I think a separate subsection would be preferable. Information on art could be a subsection under Azuchi-Momoyama, and information on postwar literature could be subsections of the Showa and Heisei periods respectively. As I pointed out, a similar organizational structure is used in featured level Misplaced Pages history articles.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

We're going to do what best serves the reader. What you suggests does a poor job at serving the reader by making the article a difficult-to-navigate mess for entirely superficial reasons. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the idea of both sections and subsections was suggested above, and I think subsections would be more suitable. We should consider emulating the format used in Spanish Misplaced Pages's featured level article on the History of Japan. It includes subsections like these under Muromachi Period and Edo period.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Like I said before, culture (sub-)sections are/is definitely worth considering, and I agree name lists are pointless. But, description and commentary overview about cultural movements, not eg History_of_Japan#Heian_culture & History_of_Japan#Culture??. Those are misguided.zzz (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC) + zzz (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

How about a subsection called "Momoyama culture" in the Azuchi Momoyama section, and a subsection called "Postwar literature" at the end of the Showa period section?TH1980 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean, "how about doing exactly what CurtisNaito said"? Because it's a terrible idea that doesn't serve the reader and makes the article difficult to follow. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Because films aren't generally classified as literature, but the longer and better-sourced discussion of postwar cinema is more closely linked to the discussion of postwar literature than either is to the discussion of political and social developments of the period, and both are also awkwardly crammed into the end of the arbitrarily defined "period". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It "works" (superficially) for certain eras (like Edo) better than it does for other eras. You're not answering the question of what best serves the reader, though. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think the chronological format used in the article, with literature and arts in the relevant chronological periods, is most convenient to the reader. It allows the readers to understand the flow of events more or less as they occurred. It doesn't have to be perfectly chronological, but as long as cultural trends which occurred in each broad period are put underneath that period, then it allows the reader to understand the flow of events as they occurred.

There is evidence that readers do find this format most convenient. As I pointed out, every single Misplaced Pages article on national history and every single encyclopedia article on national history uses this format. None of them include completely separate thematic sections outside of the chronological pattern. If it was true that readers find separate thematic sections more convenient, then why are we the first people to learn about it? Wouldn't someone else on or off Misplaced Pages have noticed this before us and tried it already?

Ultimately though, there are various ways to do subsections. I thought the Spanish Misplaced Pages article on History of Japan was fairly easy to follow, and it used an approach which I think would also work here. What do you think about the Spanish article's organization? Alternatively, where in the article would you put the subsections?CurtisNaito (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, History of Minnesota is a well-organized featured article on the history of a regional/political entity which uses a convenient method of organization based off broad chronological periods. I also noticed that History of Poland (1945–89), also a featured level article, includes no information on cultural or social trends. This was pointed out during the featured article review, but it was deemed irrelevant because, apparently, cultural and social trends "should be written as separate articles". If anyone wants to take out the cultural and social events from this article into a separate one, it might be a good idea.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

And as I pointed out to you, that article doesn't contain confusing, jumpy chronology like any version of this article that contains cultural history that has been edited by you. And Curtis, given the very checkered history here, I think it would probably be a good idea for you to practice by avoiding the use of "based off (of)" even on talk pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think the chronological format used in the article, with literature and arts in the relevant chronological periods, is most convenient to the reader.—even though we keep pointing out concrete issues with this organization? It's convenient to you, not to the reader. Regardless, History of Minnesota is hardly comparable to History of Japan. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I pointed out above that there is good evidence to support my beliefs on this matter. Even so, we could consider a different organization, but where in the article do you favor putting the subsections?CurtisNaito (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you keep reasserting this, as you kept reasserting Murakami was a sci-fi author. You'll notice nobody's taking your assertions seriously. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re: this—that comment was made in 2005, at a time when FA standards were nothing like they are today. Interesting, though, that the implication seems to be that you think we should remove cultural develops from History of Japan. So, who has the balls to remove Murasaki, haiku, ukiyo-e? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

My current preference is to emulate the featured level article Historia de Japón, which has subsections on culture within various chronological periods. However, I am putting out some other ideas as well. As I noted, there are even some featured level articles which accept the idea that cultural events belong only in separate articles, and if we did take that approach, it would at least resolve some of these outstanding disputes. I'm still interested in knowing where in the article you would like to include the proposed Azuchi-Momoyama art and modern literature subheadings.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I've told you. Stop asking me to repeat myself over and over and over and over and over. This behaviour is disruptive. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you said specifically where you wanted the subsections to be. You have said before that you were still conducting research, so I presume you are still thinking the matter over. Do you know when you will finish that research? If you want to postpone this discussion until your research is finished then we might be able to do that, but it might be useful to know about when you will be finished.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say I would do the research, I said the research had to be done, and if you can't be bother to do it properly (and you can't) then you should stand aside until someone does. No deadlines. It's your half-assed rushed work that's ruining this article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I still think my proposal will work, but otherwise we could try a request for comment.TH1980 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't your proposal; it was CurtisNaito's proposal that CT and I had already shot down. You chose to agree with CurtisNaito and disagree with me because this is what you have done in virtually every post you have made since May. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I still think your comments are meant to be disruptive. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I want to make more improvements to the article, but you reverted me the last time. What was wrong with what I added? Were you objecting to the information or the place where I put it?TH1980 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You Googled "Murakami Haruki" and inserted a chronologically confused claim about Murakami being an important postwar author. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's buying your spiel, so quit it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A request for comment might be a good idea, but I wonder if the alternative proposals are concrete enough yet. I think I have a good idea of how the article could be structured, and if everyone else is also clear on their preferred organization, then we can move to request for comment now. However, if other users are still unclear about how the article should be organized, then they might want to draft a concrete proposal for organization before the request for comment begins. That way the commentators will have clear choices to select from.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It'd be nice to put together a concrete proposal, but guess what? Doing the research takes time and effort, which you refuse to afford us (or make yourself). I tried it with Talk:History of Japan/Social, but you hijacked it and slapped a half-assed, un-thought-through version of it into the article before a proper job of it could be done. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: I say we wait for the ArbCom case to be closed and then ask for an amendment where Curtis's WP:OWN and WP:IDHT issues are appropriately addressed. His taking your half-finished proposal and unilaterally adding it to the article just so he could take credit for it was atrocious and needs to be dealt with, but with the ArbCom case it will be difficult to deal with it through ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I did insert a proposal for social history. However, I also put in on your draft page in case you wanted to modify it there instead of in the article itself. At any rate, a request for comment may or may not require a full draft of the proposals. If other users have a clear idea of what they want, they might be able to just explain it in brief rather than linking to a full draft.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What are you proposing as an RfC? The issues are broad and deep and largely revolve around your behaviour. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I though that maybe some options for art/literature were: (1.) include art/literature in separate articles, (2.) include art/literature in chronological but thematic subsections, (3.) include art/literature in one or more separate thematic sections at the bottom of the article. There are probably other ideas out there apart from those three though.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm extremely wary of how such a proposal could be worded to game the outcome. Separating out social conditions and arts arose to deal with specific concrete problems encountered in the article. It is not a general hey-wouldn't-that-be-neat proposal. Regardless, even if such things were not separated out, your handling of them has been atrocious. It needs to be dealt with, and it needs to be dealt with by someone other than you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I understand you still haven't decided on whether or not things should be separated out. However, other users seems to have firmer ideas about how the article should be organized, and they might be able to present their ideas to a request for comment either through explaining them in brief or else by drafting them in a sandbox. However, there are other users that can do the work. I know that you didn't like my first or second proposals to include Murakami, but after that TH1980 stepped up and brought in a different version. If the ideas for what we should do are presented clearly, then we could ask TH1980 to undertake the work of realizing them.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The only behavioral issue is other users reverting without giving any reason. I proposed a request for comment so that we could find a consensus, and that's what we should do unless someone has a better idea.TH1980 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was disruptive, as are your comments. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Aside from request for comment, a request for mediation is another route we could take.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The two behavioral issues here are OWN (CurtisNaito treating all talk page comments as requests for him to make specific edits) and IDHT (TH1980 and CurtisNaito constantly ignoring when they are told that their edits are factually inaccurate, misrepresentations of sources, grammatically incorrect or otherwise problematic). Neither CT nor I have reverted edits without providing reasons; our reasons were made perfectly clear both on the talk page and in our edit summaries. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I think one of the biggest issues is the need to focus on article content. If all future posts dealt only with issues directly relating to the current content and structure of the article, then it would allow us more forward in a more orderly manner. Should we do a request for comment or a request for mediation regarding the issue of article structure? If not, another proposal is needed.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

We can't focus on content until you stop barricading the article. @I JethroBT and Nihonjoe: I don't think you can read this and see it as a simple "content dispute". CurtisNaito does not have the competence to deal with the subject and refuses to work with others to unbotch his mistakes or otherwise improve the article. Whether we have separate sections for this or that is entirely beside the point—even if we don't, the article is in sorry shape. Do we simply throw up our hands and give ownership of the article to CurtisNaito? Because he's not loosening his grip though he refuses to put even the minimum required research into what he writes. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I certainly want to work with others to resolve outstanding issues. This portion of the talk page does deal with the content issue of how and where to include possible subsections on literature or arts. We have a variety of proposals, but we don't have a clear idea of which one should be implemented.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

And the reason for that is because CurtisNaito and TH1980 keep ignoring everything everyone else says. If we are going to focus on content, then TH1980, who is only here because CurtisNaito and I are, and hasn't contributed anything to this article as far back as August, should withdraw from the discussion, and CurtisNaito should stop making arbitrary, off-topic non-sequitur comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

TH1980 has been contributing a great deal. The way to move forward is to work together, not ask a user to leave. I haven't made any arbitrary comments and will not make any in the future. Instead, we should all focus on determining which proposal should be implemented. Maybe you should write a post explaining more concretely the places in the article where you think that the sections or subsections should be placed.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

TH1980 has been contributing a great deal.—Horseshit. Pure horseshit. Defending his horseshit only incriminates you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

we should all focus on determining which proposal should be implemented—before that we have to unbotch all the flat-out errors. What proposal we go with won't mean squat if the content is a botch. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can discuss content separately then. Maybe we should start with structure, reach a compromise, and then move on from there to some specific content proposals. Everyone has been making good contributions, but what we really need is clarity on where everyone stands on each specific content issue so that we can find common ground. Overall, I'm beginning to think that mediation might be preferable to a request for comment.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No one wants to compromise, but the end result will be a compromise. This subsection issue could be dealt with if we did a request for comment or something like that.TH1980 (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not about compromise. It's about disruptive behaviour. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing any of this any further with people who aren't willing to listen, but a coupla things need to be clarified.

CurtisNaito above refers to "Keene, Orbaugh and the Japan Times" as "specialist sources" that justify calling Murakami a postwar author. This is wrong on several levels. "Keene" does not refer to Keene's monumental history of Japanese literature (which is a specialist work) but to his article in Britannica (which by definition is not a specialist source); the former clearly defines postwar literature as literature written in the decades following 1945 and typically dealing with the Japanese experience following the war, while the latter (being a non-specialist work) appears to define "postwar" as "anything after 1945". The Japan Times is not a specialist source by any stretch of the imagination (and has actually been criticized by specialists like Keene). Orbaugh is the only specialist source Curtis cites, and it clearly isn't talking about chronological or thematic categorization of that author in question.

TH1980 is not deeply knowledgeable of the topic. He followed me here the other day like he did in August and like he's followed me to about a half-dozen other disputes. He Googled a source that he thought he could use to contradict me, but because he lazily stuck with the GBooks free preview I was immediately able to point out where he was wrong. Saying that such a user's proposal should be granted extra weight because of his long and storied editing history or his deep specialist knowledge is ridiculous.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell though, every single book and article which actually does mention Murakami, whether specialist or not, has no objection to the term. The article "Japanese literature, or 'J-literature', in the 1990s", in World Literature Today by Yoshiko Fukushima, also introduces Murakami in an article about "Japanese postwar literature". The only source cited as proof that Murakami is not a postwar author is an older source from the 1980's which doesn't even mention him. However, if we actually do decide to request for comment, then this issue might become irrelevant, depending on what consensus is. If we aren't going to create a subheading on literature in the Showa period section, then there's no need to decide on a title.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I give up

I can't believe how much time I've wasted on this article. It's sucking my soul dry. This article will never become what it should be with CurtisNaito and TH1980 standing guard.

CurtisNaito has demonstrated a superficial knowledge of a very important subject, has put virtually no research into the article, and relies staggeringly on a couple of sources (primarily Totman and Henshall) which he misinterprets with an astonishing regularity. Despite his protests he shows no willingness to cooperate—he has taken WP:OWNership of the article and refuses to let go, no matter how much damage he does to it. All effort that could go into improving the article instead goes into exasperating circular soul-draining debates. I feel like I'm in a Beckett novel.

CurtisNaito is well aware that TH1980's have been minimal at best, but more realistically actively disruptive with his mind games. He has demonstrated next to no knowledge of the subject matter, yet CurtisNaito calls him "well versed in Japanese history". This is not an honest mistake—CurtisNaito is aware of his falsehood.

I'm going to step away from this article. I'd love to work on it—I have the sources and with two dozen FAs behind me I have the skills to do something good with it. But interacting with CurtisNaito will only drive me to therapy I can't afford. It astounds me that the community will not deal with this level of disruption on one of its most important articles. Shame on you, Misplaced Pages community. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we are making progress, slowly but steadily. If we just make a request for comment concerning the organizational issue, then I think we can move beyond the single biggest sticking point. If we can thus get a clear consensus, I'm sure that I and all users will accept that consensus as a basis for making real improvements to the article in a collaborative manner.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep messing with people's heads. It's the only thing you're good at. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:20, 13 December 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