Talk:History of Japan/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Section divisions

I don't dislike the recent edits, though I'm not a topic expert and haven't source-checked it yet. But I'm a bit concerned about the formatting. It's possible that the article is becoming more all-over-the-place and less readable with each expansion, and the relevance of the additions may be lost on our readers. (I'm probably more responsible for this than anyone else, for what it's worth.)

What do people think about splitting the article into sections on, say, political, social and cultural history?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• I suggested that above, so obviously I like the idea. It's a very long article that will likely get quote longer, so I think it'd be a good idea to break it into more digestible chunks. Few will read such a long article from top to bottom. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, this was meant to be its own section, but I forgot to fill in the first box (I was getting off a train). As for reading the article top to bottom, you're right. There's a lot of stuff that deserves to be mentioned, but is difficult to fit into the chronological "story" that this article currently tells. I blamed Curtis for the dodgy placement of the Fujiwara no Teika reference, and I still am not convinced Teika wasn't mistaken for a Zen monk of the late thirteenth century, but really fitting that kind of content in anywhere in the current format would be problematic. Probably two thirds of the current article is "social" or "cultural" rather than political, so dividing it in three is probably best. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that subheadings for social and political history are better placed within each chronological period. Eras like the Edo period or Meiji period can have subheadings for "cultural developments" or "political institutions". We should maintain a structure based primarily on chronological periods, rather than topics, which is in accordance with other featured or good articles on the history of certain regions. History of Gibraltar and History of Singapore use this format. The featured article History of Minnesota is not strictly chronological, but subheadings for topics like cultural and political history are placed underneath chronological periods like "Modern Minnesota".CurtisNaito (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that works better for certain things than for others---Edo class divisions are best done in the Edo section, but women's issues, say, don't fit neatly anywhere and would be better separated out, where they can be better summarized and contextualized. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Curtis: Is every period going to have separate subsections for "cultural developments" and "social developments"? If not, who determines which periods' cultural and/or social developments merit their own subsections? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Everything in the article is ultimately determined by Wikipedia users. My personal opinion is that we should focus primarily on the cultural and social events which are mentioned prominently in general overviews of Japanese history, but ultimately its up to user opinion. A subsection can be tailored to each period that needs it, depending on what sort of major cultural events, if any, were occurring at that era, and they don't all have to be called "cultural developments". I suppose we could tack a section on women's history onto the bottom of the article, but I still think that the large majority of political or social events should be covered in or near their relevant chronological sections. As I noted, all other good or featured level article about the history of certain regions are organized predominantly by chronological period, rather than by topic.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

What general overviews of Japanese history? The books you seem to be referring to are short general readership books, and while you refer to their authors as "historians" inline most of them are Japanologists known for their translations of literary works and the like. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

All the ones I mentioned like Perez, Henshall, and Totman are certainly historians. They are university professors who have authored numerous books and articles on Japanese history. Their works provide a useful basis to know what is notable for this article.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

All three of them either are or were professors of "Japanese language and culture". If they are "historians" (and I'm not saying they aren't -- the word has a number of meanings) then Donald Keene is as well -- and in fact is the most influential "historian" of Japan in the last 50 years. "Japanese studies" -- which encompasses history and a number of other disciplines -- is the field all these scholars work(ed) in. It is not wrong to call the authors of books on history "historians", per se, but to do so in the article text in order to distinguish them from "literary scholars" and the like is inappropriate. Japanese scholars with doctorates and/or teaching positions in 日本史 or 国史 (as opposed to 日本語日本文学 or 国語国文学 are different, of course -- have you considered consulting any Japanese general histories of Japan? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The books I consulted were standard histories which received good reviews from other scholars. All three of the aforementioned historians have written works of history and peer reviewed articles on subjects beyond just Japanese language and culture. I could use general histories written in Japanese, but in general English Wikipedia recommends English language sources be used when the same information is available in English, as it is when it comes to a general overview of Japanese history. These sorts of sources, like the books written by historians Conrad Totman and Louis Perez, are the best kinds of sources to consult for an article of this nature.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The books I consulted were standard histories which received good reviews from other scholars. Citation needed. All three of the aforementioned historians have written works of history and peer reviewed articles on subjects beyond just Japanese language and culture. 'Citation needed. in general English Wikipedia recommends English language sources be used [for deciding on section titles and inclusion criteria for overview articles] Citation needed! when the same information is available in English Yet you keep removing my Japanese sources even when yours don't give the same information? These sorts of sources, like the books written by historians Conrad Totman and Louis Perez, are the best kinds of sources to consult for an article of this nature. No, Sansom is still better, and even after half a century his work still has more general acceptance the university libraries and course syllabi, let alone bibliographies for other works, of the western world. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, just to cite a small sample, Monumenta Nipponica called Totman's book "the best single-volume examination of Japan's history available", The Journal of Asian Studies said that Perez's book "achieves [its] goals by providing a succinct and engaging overview of Japan's development", and Japan Forum stated that Henshall's book is "a history in tune with much newer historical research... The language, layout and content are all well chosen to meet [its] objective." I could cite numerous more, but the point is that all these books received numerous positive reviews from scholarly journals. All these historians have written books outside the field of Japanese language and culture, including Totman's "Politics in the Tokugawa Bakufu", Perez's "Japan Comes of Age: Mutsu Munemitsu and the Revision of the Unequal Treaties", or Henshall's "Historical Dictionary of Japan to 1945". Short, overview histories are the best kind of sources to use in order to give us perspective on what events and people to include here and which to leave out. I made a point of citing the highest quality sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Short, overview histories are the best kind of sources to use in order to give us perspective on what events and people to include here and which to leave out. No, they are the best kind of sources to use in order to give us the perspectives of those particular authors. Compare the coverage of the three sources you cite with each other, or with the other general histories written in English, Japanese and other languages, and you will find radical differences in what they chose to leave out. And Perez's book is hardly "short", at least compared to Henshall -- the latter being the worst for our present purpose because its length. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The authors have good credentials to write history and their books were well received. Therefore, they present more or less the scholarly consensus, not just their own views. Sansom is not quite as good of a source for this purpose because his history consists of three volumes which only go up to 1867. Therefore it obviously includes a vast quantity of events and people which do not actually belong in a Wikipedia article of this length. Briefer works like Henshall and Perez are much superior sources to use for the purposes of this article.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, Sansom wrote two general histories of Japan: the former was shorter than Perez, if I recall, and the latter maybe a little over twice the length of Perez. (The MN review you quoted above refers to the shorter of Sansom's works, which was in one volume×, in its opening sentence, but you ironically appear to be unaware that this work even exists.) Henshall, on the other hand, is one third the length of Perez. You can't say "briefer works like Henshall and Perez" when Perez is far closer in size and detail to both of Sansom's works than he is to Henshall. Furthermore, you shouldn't base your judgement of Sansom's usefulness as a source based on the catchy title appended to his third volume. If you actually read its final chapters (you clearly haven't) you would see that the cover's "to 1867" is essentially arbitrary. And it is also completely irrelevant to our coverage of the first 1,200 years of Japan's recorded history anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Sansom's work covering all aspects of Japanese history was three volumes, and not only does Sansom's third volume not cover past 1867, but the first volume contains almost no material from prior to the Asuka period. By contrast, both Perez and Henshall are about 240 pages and they cover all Japanese history up to recent events. The MN review I quoted above was a review of Totman's book, not Sansom's. The fact remains that, for the purposes of this article, the books of Henshall, Totman, and Perez rank among the best sources available, evidently superior to Sansom.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. You are right. I got Perez mixed up with Totman. So Perez joins Henshall in the list of sources that we can't use because they are completely bare-bones and do not give the amount of detail we need. Totman's book does not "cover all aspects of Japanese history" in a manner that Sansom's does not; as the MN review clearly states, Sansom's was a "cultural history" and Totman's an "ecological history". And why exactly are we focusing on "single-volume" histories here, anyway? What on earth does the formatting that was chosen for the binding of the book have to do with the scope of our article!? Perez and Henshall's books are both short, high-school-student/general-audience books of around 200 pages; Sansom's Short Cultural History and Totman's book are both around 600 pages; Sansom's three-volume work is around 1,200 pages: Totman is clearly not the same length of book as Perez and Henshall, if we are going to say that Sansom is "too long"! Further, I would ask you again: Have you read Sansom's three-volume work? Your comments on it here seem like you just read the title that appeared on the cover, and then read maybe the first ten pages of the first volume and the last ten pages of the third, and judged the book to be "insufficient" for our purposes here. You are claiming that material that is not included in "short general histories" should not be included in the article, but your criteria for what qualifies as a "short general history" are extremely unclear, as you include Totman's ecological history but not Sansom's cultural history... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have read Sansom's entire three-volume work. However, whereas Sansom's one-volume work focuses on cultural history, Totman's one-volume work covers all fields. It actually covers cultural, military, political, social, and economic history in a fairly even manner. Overview histories are certainly the best sources to consult for an article like this, since they help us gauge the relative importance of events and people, whereas longer works like Sansom include excess details which clearly should not be in this manner of article. Sources like Perez and Henshall are ideal here.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and Sansom's work covers ecological, military, political, social and economic history in a fairly even manner -- as in it doesn't focus on them, because it is a cultural history. Anyway, this article is never going to be a 200-page book, a 600-page book or a 1,200-page book. We have to summarize one way or the other. This has already been done -- it had already been pretty soundly accomplished years before you made your first edit -- but we now need to decide exactly which "excess details" belong in the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A complete 200-page book gets closer to the most pertinent details than a three-volume work which does not cover a substantial portion of Japanese history. I did have to shorten the article earlier in order for it to pass good article review, because the previous version was too long according to Wikipedia policies. However, even now we should be avoiding excess details as much as possible, and using high quality overview histories like the ones I have included is a good way to achieve this.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

"substantial" in what sense? I know you are mostly interested in modern Japanese history, but the period you are talking about should not be much more than 10% of our article, so why you keep honing in on it when the rest of us have moved on is baffling. Are you actually interested in bringing this article to GA standard or not? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested in all periods of Japanese history, and I never said I was honing in on any one period. What I said was that we should consult the most reliable sources rather than relying on personal opinions alone. Giving 10% space to the eventful modern period is not quite enough. Both Henshall and Perez devote about 50 pages to the period between prehistory and 1600 and then 150 pages to the period between 1600 and the present. It's useful to look at overview histories to give us an idea of how much weight to give to each section of the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested in all periods of Japanese history Curtis, that would be a lot easier to believe if 90% of your edits to articles on Japanese history outside of the Sino-Japanese War and the Greater East Asia War hadn't been to articles you followed me to after I nominated your Taminato article for deletion, and if you didn't make mistakes about five times more often when dealing with classical history (the bits that are only ever covered accurately in Japanese-language works and highly technical works). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::I never followed you to any articles, and I've been editing articles on all periods of Japanese history from the beginning. You talk about mistakes, but so far you haven't managed to provide any proof of your claims. The point I have always been making is that we should rely on the views of scholars and not our own views. And again, the point I was making above is that we can determine weighting in this article using not solely our personal opinions, but rather, the works of scholars. There is probably no single volume work of Japanese history in existence which does not give the bulk of its space to the modern period, and this fact is consistent enough that it must indicate that the modern period is objectively more important and more deserving of space. Not every one volume history of Japan gives the modern period a whole three quarters of its space, but most do. I think the article's current weighting is fine.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You followed me to virtually every article you have ever edited on pre-modern Japanese history. In the last of those you actually tried to make the article on Japan's first emperor into an article about World War II! And I think enough evidence has been provided of your countless mistakes on this article alone, let alone the other articles, including some on your preferred topic (misreading "ultranationalist" as the antithetical term "pan-Asianist") Please try to stay on topic -- we don't need to talk about your past mistakes, or even your current ones. This thread is supposed to be about section divisions in the present article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should stay on topic. That's why I haven't brought up any of your mistakes either, including those in this article. However, providing links to all the numerous sourcing errors you have made in other articles is particularly irrelevant. For the record though, I didn't follow you to any of those articles, and I have been editing articles in that area since long before I met you. In order to stay on topic, we should be discussing this article, and the point I made earlier was that this article is not weighted as heavily to the modern period as most Japanese history books are. We can't say that there is a problem with the current article's relative weighting if we compare it to the weighting preferred by historians of Japan, whose opinions are more valid than our own.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That's why I haven't brought up any of your mistakes either, including those in this article. What!? What mistakes? I have made mistakes over the years, but none you would have noticed (most of them were before you registered an account), and certainly none in this dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I pointed out a wide variety of problems with your use of sources when they were relevant to article content, as you yourself can see if you read the previous topics of discussion on this talk page. As I said, I feel we should stick closely to the wording used by the relevant sources and rely more on the consensus of scholars than on our own opinions. However, at this point I think we should keep discussion limited to article content and your last two posts above don't say anything about that.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's not dwell too much on the page counts of books—books must be self-contained, whereas Wikipedia is hyperlinked. This means that these books will end up dwelling on certain details that would be best linked to in a Wikipedia article, and will ignore others rather than leave readers dangling. These books don't all present Japanese history in the same way, either: Tsutsui's Companion to Japanese History does the chronological thing for the first four parts, and then for the fifth (for about a third of the page count) it gives a "Themes in Japanese History" section—and for good reason, I think. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The large majority of the works I consulted do give more than 10% focus to the modern period though. Tsutsui is not an exception in this case. Prehistory to 1600 is covered in 60 pages whereas the modern period is covered in nearly 300 pages.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the modern period probably deserves more words-per-century than other periods, though we should keep in mind that many general histories are aimed at a readership that wants to read more about World War II and less about ancient court politics (Sansom is the polar opposite). Our goals and readership are somewhat different, plus we have the advantage of having abundant hyperlinks to the juicy details, which means we will summarize in a more concise manner. We also want to avoid WP:RECENTISM, though it can be hard to judge—just how important will the Senkaku dispute or Abe's political wranglings seem a century from now? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything Curly Turkey just said. The modern period does need more words per centuryinte than the rest. But devoting two thirds of the article to the modern period because some other (still relatively obscure compared to Sansom) books gave particular focus to the war years is completely out of the question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The article's current balance seems fine though, if we compare it with any recent history books. Sansom's book was three volumes, but the importance of the modern period is evident in any one-volume history. This is so consistent that it is not likely due only to the alleged difficulties in summarizing recent events or the need to appeal to the interests of readers. Perez, Henshall, and Tsutsui all give three quarters of their space in the chronological narrative to the modern period, whereas the cited one volume histories by Meyer and Walker give two thirds of their space to the modern period.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that CurtisNaito is now openly requesting that I be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia over this dispute. Now who is "not focusing on content"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The talk page of this article should be reserved for discussions of article content.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, so why don't you actually try discussing article content for a change, rather than expressing your random opinions on the topic and the sources discussing it? You are the only one here who does not have positive aspirations to improve this article (you have said numerous times here and elsewhere that you think the article is fine the way it is) and who is refusing to engage in constructive discussion. Every other user here is trying to discuss improvements to this article, and you apparently think they will stop if you can somehow manage to get me blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

So please discuss, rather than shutting down attempts at discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

At first we were discussing weighting of the article, but I don't know why irrelevant matters kept on being brought up by Hijiri88. The above posts have nothing to do with article weighting, though I have repeatedly requested a focus on article content.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You find that frustrating, eh? It's exasperating when you keep trying to talk about content and someone keeps shutting down the attempt, don't you think? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe I made any comments that were unrelated to article content, except to advocate that we maintain focus on article content. In this section, we were initially discussing weighting of the article, and I would have preferred it if we had stayed on that subject.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, we know that's not true from the number of discussions that have been buried already. Let's see you discuss then, instead of carrying on like this. Lot's of unaddressed points you've been avoiding discussing—pick one and go. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, what still needs to be resolved?CurtisNaito (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

we were initially discussing weighting of the article CurtisNaito, what on earth are you talking about? Are you even reading our comments before responding? This thread was supposed to be about division of the article sections into "themes", and you (not me or Curly Turkey) kept changing the subject to relative weight of classical and modern history. Please focus on the topic at hand already -- this has been going on for three months. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the posts below are about themes. The posts immediately above were about weighting, which was the issue you yourself brought up before you started talking about non-content related issues for some reason.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the posts immediately above are about weighting because you kept trying to shift the topic away from what the rest of us are trying to discuss. I have no idea why you did that -- or why you did it on Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture, Talk:Emperor Jimmu or any of those other pages in the past either, for that matter. Can we please focus on the topic at hand? I actually was going to propose during the ANI thread that you agree to retract your nomination, and we all work to improve the article until November 30 before re-nominating it, but with all these ceaseless distractions it looks highly unlikely we will meet that deadline now, and the now undeniable fact that one of us is actively campaigning for another of us to be indefinitely blocked (something I have never done, on an article talk page, noticeboard or ArbCom case) makes working on improving the article extremely difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I focused on content on both of the two talk pages you mentioned above. I'm not campaigning for anything, so there's no sense in you continually accusing me of that. I think we were on topic regarding article content until you started making that accusation. In future posts, we should only discuss potential changes to the article, which is something I have said repeatedly. If the content-based issue discussed above is more or less settled, then we should move on to something else.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, how many times have I started threads about you on the admin noticeboards? How many times have I shown up at noticeboards in which you were involved and randomly requested that you be blocked? How many times did I support an ArbCom proposal that you be indefinitely blocked? Oh right -- I have never done anything of the sort, despite you doing so to me at least five times so far. Pointing out on an article talk page that your article edits (and talk page comments) are disruptive and need to stop is not at all inappropriate -- it is in fact generally preferred over edit-warring. Pointing out that you are attempting to silence opposition by creating a chilling effect and force your preferred version of the article through is a bit more of a grey area, but the one who can't respond directly to other users' queries and veers off-topic with every post should be the last one to start throwing stones...Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have always been swift to respond to user inquiries, and I have never attempted to silence any opposition. However, these sort of false accusations distract from the purpose of article talk pages, which is to discuss article content. That's the point I have been making above.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What "false accusations"? Everything I said above is completely true and accurate. Ironically, your accusing me of making "false accusations" is itself a false accusation. If you have never attempted to silence any opposition, then what do you call your requesting on at least five occasions that I be blocked, topic-banned, page-banned and/or site-banned? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have never been banned for harassment, unlike a certain other user. However, I think that this talk page should be reserved for discussions of article content.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"a certain other user"? Who is that? Are you talking about me? Because I also have never been banned for harassment. Anyway, the rest of us are trying to discuss article content, but you keep making vicious attacks against us off this page, and refusing to engage in constructive discussion on this page, making it extremely difficult to discuss article content with you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have never made any attacks. Not only are these accusations untrue, but they have nothing to do with article content.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your attacks (which generally boil down to "Please ban this user from Wikipedia for disagreeing with me") are well documented, and I have no interest in discussing them further with you. Just to say that your attempt to create a chilling effect to silence your "enemies" will not work, so please give it up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I never said anything like that, nor did I make any attacks on you. These false accusations only distract from discussion of article content.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Back to the subject at hand

That would be a fine approach if all the bits fit nice and neatly into the existing divisions. They don't: women's issues, burakumin, many phases of art history, and many other things only become near-incomprehensible if their developments are peppered throughout the main narrative. We need to aim for comprehensibility, not just "having all the stuff". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess if something truly doesn't fit into a period, then it can be tacked onto the bottom. However, in English Wikipedia there is no good or featured article about the history of a region or country which is not almost entirely organized based on chronological period. Since the other articles manage to fit social events into this framework, it can probably be done for Japan as well. Many of the overviews of Japanese history which are cited as sources for this article also insert social events into the narrative as they occur chronologically. Perez and Henshall, for instance, do not include special chapters for just cultural or social events. Burakumin is a topic which could be separated into periods, for instance. Perez believes that the burakumin class originated in the Muromachi period. The burakumin class was formally abolished as part of the Western-style reforms of the Meiji period. Burakumin political activism grew during the postwar era at the same time as the movements for women's rights and Ainu rights.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You're really not understanding—yes, we could play Procrustes and cram Burakumin (and any other subject) into the sections as they are, and would result in a shattered, difficult-to-follow mess. Or we could sum up the whole history of the Burakumin into an easy-to-follow paragraph or two. As you can see from what I'm working on in the subpage I created, the status of women doesn't fall neatly into periods, either—their status saw a slow, steady decline over the centuries that follow the ritsuryō. I summed up in two sentences what covers a span of three periods in the article. How would you propose schmeershing that into the main chronology? If we want comprehensibility, then we want to separate this stuff out, where it can be summed out more readably and in better context. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: We already tried such a thing with literature, and Fujiwara no Shunzei somehow wound up being discussed in the latter half of our section on the Kamakura period, I guess because Curtis felt he wasn't important enough to be discussed before the founding of the Kamakura shogunate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

We have to use our heads—for instance, it makes sense to talk about artistic and class developments in the Edo period, as many of the developments are closely tied to the era itself. Other developments don't—Azuchi-Momoyama art lasted at least a generation after the Azuchi-Momoyama perid ended, and other developments (liek women's status) really can't be mapped to the era divisions at all. These things could be worked out if we put the brakes on and discussed these things, even if it took years. Really, there's no reason to rush an article of this size, complexity, and importance—if it takes years, it takes years, but it shouldn't be called "finished" until it's finished. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said though, I'm sure that the vast majority can be fit into the chronological periods without any loss of readability or comprehensibility. If organization primarily by topic was the best way to deal with histories of certain regions, then one would think most Wikipedia articles would be organized that way. In reality, virtually all Wikipedia articles on the history of certain regions are organized chronologically based on period. When it comes to this article, for instance, information on the burakumin fits neatly with other topics in each period and wouldn't really benefit from being moved to a separate section. You could try tacking a section on Azuchi Momoyama art to the end of the article, but I think it would work just as well to add a section on art to the Azuchi Momoyama period and then just mention that some trends carried on into subsequent periods. Issues like this aren't likely to take years to resolve.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, I'm not saying "wouldn't it be neat" to do this—I've identified concrete problems to which I've proposed a concrete solution.

information on the burakumin fits neatly with other topics in each period and wouldn't really benefit from being moved to a separate section: sure, if you don't care about comprehensibility or context. Otherwise, doing so is a terrible idea. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why any other articles on the history of certain regions have not run into the same problems though. History of Minnesota is featured level, and while it does include special sections on cultural, economic, and political developments, they all generally fit within broad chronological categories. Almost every article on Wikipedia about the history of a certain country, like say History of France or History of the United States, manage to find a way to fit virtually everything into chronological periods. Whether we are talking about Japan's political evolution, demographic change, or economic development, these are all trends which have lasted throughout Japanese history, but for the purposes of organization, chronological periods are convenient to readers. If that weren't the case, one would think at least one Wikipedia on the history of a country would have a special section outside of chronological order dealing exclusively with social, cultural, or political trends. The status of the burakumin changed over time just like all other groups in society, but I don't think it harms comprehensibility to split events which are relevant to a certain historical period into that period. I noted above that, in the case of the burakumin, the developments which are mentioned most prominently in general histories of Japan can be fit very neatly into relevant historical periods.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So we're on this treadmill again, are we? I've demonstrated concrete issues and provided concrete solutions— I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

in the case of the burakumin, the developments which are mentioned most prominently in general histories of Japan can be fit very neatly into relevant historical periods: which results in an incomprehensible mess, disrupting the main narrative while slicing up the burakumin narrative into poorly contextualized pieces interspersed throughout. Readers are supposed to hold this thread through tens of thousands of bytes of readable text? Come on, CurtisNaito, you can't seriously tell me you don't understand what I'm saying. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I figure that the burakumin is not the only issue which reappears throughout Japanese history. There are many topics in Japanese political or economic history which reappear from period to period. The shogun, the samurai, population statistics, political parties, Shintoism, Buddhism, and poetry all contain specific topics which reappear in various eras. Since no other national history article on Wikipedia separates social history outside of the chronological pattern, I think that it's only natural that, if we do include separate sections, they be kept to a minimum. How many separate sections are you thinking about adding on to the end of the article? You did mention social history and art history, but are we keeping it limited to that? Political, economic, literary, and military history could also be tacked onto the article for the same reason that social and art history are, though personally I wouldn't recommend it. I still don't see why we can't include a topic in multiple time periods where it neatly fits, as we have done with the samurai, for instance. The samurai arose during the Heian period, played a role in warfare during subsequent centuries, became bureaucrats during the Tokugawa period, and then were abolished as a class during the Meiji period. It's fine to split information on the samurai into multiple periods, as long as it fits decently, as it also does in the case of the burakumin. Ultimately, I do think it's a good idea to stick to the same model used by all the other Wikipedia history articles and not include too much information in separate, non-chronological sections of social/economic/political history tacked onto the article. If we include such sections, we should at least keep it very limited. Are social and art history the only separate sections you are proposing right now, or are you planning on going beyond that into economic, military, and political realms as well?CurtisNaito (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

(a) I'm "thinking about" doing the research, writing the content (in subpages while under development if necessary), and using our heads to decide how best to present the material in a comprehensible way to the readers. Those subjects that only get lost and confusing in the main narrative (because they are not part of the main narrative and don't fit neatly into the period divisions) should be separated out. (b) I'd like you to consider what you mean by "neatly fits". Consider, for example, how what I've written on women's issues here would "neatly fit", and why cramming it into the main narrative would benefit the reader.
Your example of the samurai of course does neatly fit into the main chronology—mainly because the rise and fall of the bakufu is what has shaped the main narrative itself. I have no idea why you think the same applies to the burakumin. How have they shaped the main narrative? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The opinions of the three of us are clear. CurtisNaito obviously isn't going to convince me or Curly Turkey that including thematic sections covering non-political topics all together is a bad idea, and we are probably not going to convince CurtisNaito of the opposite. 2-1 is not a consensus either way, so we need some outside input. RFC, anyone? I should note that opening an RFC unilaterally is a disaster, as we all need to work together to produce an RFC question that we all consider to be neutrally-worded -- so I'm not going to do it myself without yer consent, and you should not attempt to do so either. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC would be appropriate, for two reasons: (a) CurtisNaito hasn't answered my questions yet (b) the problematic content hasn't been developed yet, so it would be difficult to demonstrate the problem to driveby editors not familiar with the topic.

I'd like CurtisNaito to take a peak at Tsutsui, whose approach gave me the idea: just over 300 pages on chronological history followed by just under 200 on all those issues that don't fit neatly into the chronological history. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

So far you only mentioned social history and art history as being potential separate topics, so I'm interested in knowing, once you've finished your research, if that's it or if you're in favor of more. Other separate themes could include economic/political/literary/military history, though I'm aware that you don't yet know whether or not you want to include any of those. I would personally favor no separate thematic topics, because this approach is adopted by very few history books and is also not adopted by any Wikipedia articles on the history of a nation or region. However, if we do adopt a unique approach for the purposes of this article, I at least advocate we keep the separate sections relatively short and maintain the focus on the chronological outline. There are no events that necessarily have to be in separate thematic topics. Burakumin, for instance, fits very neatly and sensibly in the chronological outline. However, if other users agree that a certain subject truly can't be fit into the chronological outline, then we can make an exception for it. Tsutsui includes eleven separate thematic topics on women's history, gender, class, Japan's status in Asia, regional and local history, environment, popular culture, agriculture, business and labor, volunteer organizations, and nationalism. Tsutsui's separate themes do include social history, but they don't include art history, or for that matter political, military, or literary history. I would ask you if you also planned on using the same separate themes used by Tsutsui, but I'm aware that you're still researching it.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep bringing up military and political history, which I've never suggested separating out. Nor do I understand why you think burakumin history fits neatly into the main narrative. You still haven't addressed how the stuff I've so far written on women could fit in to the main narrative. Please address it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Political and military history are examples of potential separate themes. You said, "What about separating out certain aspects of history into different sections (governement, social organization, arts, economy ...)?" The burakumin were expressly outside the class structure established by the Tokugawa shogunate, they were abolished as a separate class due to the reforms of the Meiji period, and their postwar activism grew in tandem with other social movements on the postwar period. It does fit very neatly into the main narrative. Women's history doesn't fit as neatly, but that doesn't mean it needs to be separated into a different topic. I added a lot of information to the article on women's history in accordance with the time period during which it took place. For instance, women entered the workforce in the postwar era due to the declining birth rates which characterized the period and the economic trends and rise of consumerism for which the period is also noted. Even in women's history there are plenty of developments which fit other economic and political trends of each period.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

To give you an example of what I mean, the article History of the United States includes no separate, thematic section on women's history, but does have subheadings, in the appropriate chronological periods, dealing with "Women's suffrage" and "The Women's Movement".CurtisNaito (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of issues with that article, aren't there?: it's 99kb for a country with a recorded history a third as long as Japan's, and the "Women's Movement" subsection, which covers only the last fifty years, is far longer than the look at women's issues I'm proposing. It should be a birdseye view including only the most pertinent details. You have access to Tsutsui, right? Look at how much information I compressed into those two sentences. Do you think I'm missing anything that should be mentioned at this scope? that's the kind of thing I'm suggesting doing: maybe two-to-three paragraphs on women's issues, no more than at paragraph (at most) on burakumin, a sentence or two on slavery and its abolishment, perhaps a summing up of the everchanging relations between Shinto and Buddhism, etc. I'm not going to make any length predictions, but I don't expect such a section (or sections?) would take up as much of the article as the closing section of Tsutsui. And if it did, so what? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

One brief, separate section on social history might be okay. I personally don't think it's necessary, partly because it's out of step with all the other Wikipedia articles on national history, but you can go ahead and add the section so that I can see how it looks in the article. However, you indicated earlier that you were also considering separate sections on "governement, social organization, arts, economy". You also mentioned Tsutsui's edited volume, which includes no separate sections on arts or government, but rather separate sections on topics like local history, environment, popular culture, agriculture, and nationalism. It's hard for me to give a comprehensive opinion because I still don't know whether you will ultimately favor adding in separate sections for all those aforementioned subjects, or whether you will ultimately opt only for a separate section on social history. My point is that it's more convenient to the reader and better suited to Wikipedia norms to use an organization based on chronological periods, not separate thematic subjects. The more separate themes the article includes the more it will deviate from the sort of article which is normal for Wikipedia. However, right now social history is the only separate topic which has been put forward in a very concrete way, and if that turn out to be it, I suppose the change wouldn't be all that bad. If we go further in the direction of including more than one separate thematic section, then I actually think we might be better off creating a separate article for them called Themes in Japanese history, so that this article can maintain the same convenient chronological pattern which is used in all the other Wikipedia articles on national history. So to reiterate, if other users insist that a brief, separate section on social history is necessary then we could try that, but I can't tell you how strongly opposed I am to the changes until I know whether it will stop with social history, or whether a dozen or a half dozen other thematic subjects will also be included.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggested separating out those things that don't fit into the main chronology, and gave examples. Social developments in general are things that tend to cross period lines; cramming them into periods only disrupts the main narrative while preventing the reader from seeing them in their appropriate context. An example is the burakumin, who did not suddenly appear during the Edo period (their origins are lost in the sands of time) and did not play a significant role in shaping the main political narrative. What will be appropriate will depend entirely on what we find in the sources and how well they fit in to the main narrative. How about we do the research first and find out what's appropriate, then, instead of throwing on arbitrary (and possibly untenable) limits? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I await the results of your research. My own research did not indicate that we needed separate sections for any specific subjects, because very few scholarly books and no Wikipedia history articles use this format. Incidentally, a couple of the general survey histories which I consulted initially introduced the burakumin class during their sections on the Muromachi period, so I inserted some relevant information in that period. Because the overwhelming majority of general purpose Japanese history books split their information on women's history and burakumin history into the relevant chronological periods, I figure Wikipedia can do the same. Still, I'll await the results of your own research on the matter before giving a final opinion.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it's apparent that CurtisNaito isn't going to change his mind, but I'm also in favor of a separate section. @CurtisNaito: you mentioned how History of France and History of the United States don't have special sections, but you failed to mention that neither of them have even GA status, and that they're just massive. We also don't need an entirely separate article for something worth only a few paragraphs. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That's because I already repeatedly referred earlier in the discussion to what good and featured articles were available. As I said, good and featured articles like History of Gibraltar, History of Singapore, and History of Minnesota predominantly use the same chronological format which all the other articles do. You yourself said that you don't want to "overhaul the article". Although "a separate section" might not constitute that, proposals also existed for a lot more separate sections than just one, and adding enough of them would eventually constitute an overhaul which would make the article deviate greatly from the format used in all other Wikipedia national/regional history articles. It depends on whether the separate section really will be "only a few paragraphs" or whether it will extend beyond that.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay Curtis, just answer these: How do you propose we deal with the huge mess of stuff crammed willy-nilly into the article at the moment, and the similar stuff that still needs inclusion, without giving them their own sections? And if you are such a stickler for "chronological style", how do you justify the blatantly anti-chronological style already in use in the article (primarily thanks to you) with, for instance, Shunzei and Saigyo discussed in the same section ("Kamakura period"!) as the Zen priests of a later age? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

And please don't reply (again) that there is no problem with the current format: if that were the case everybody else wouldn't be in agreement that there is. I know you, TH1980, Calvin999 and AlbinoFerret like to throw about words like "harassment", "battleground mentality" and "assuming bad faith", but if I really were just making up things to complain about in order to undermine you, everyone else wouldn't agree with me nine times out of ten. (We don't agree on a whole lot else...) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Shunzei and Tekia are not actually out of chronological order because the only dates referred to in the article about Shunzei are 1183 and 1188. The majority of that range falls within the Kamakura period and certainly can be appropriately discussed alongside other cultural events in and around the period, so the general chronological format holds up. However, it seems like you're proposing a separate section on literature. Though you could try to implement that if necessary, it's still unclear whether it's worth a whole section. Sturmgewehr88 only wanted one separate section a few paragraphs in length dealing with social history. CurlyTurkey mainly only wanted one separate section on social history, with the possibility of adding art history depending on the results of his research. A literature section has not yet been concretely proposed. As I said, if we only require one separate section on social events, we could still generally keep the same chronological format as all the other Wikipedia history articles. However, if we end up adding in a great number of separate sections, then my proposal would be to create a separate article possibly called Themes in Japanese history dealing with thematic topics so that this article can retain the standard chronological format.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think placing Fujiwara no Shunzei in the latter half of the section on the Kamakura period, two paragraphs below a discussion of the Yuan invasions, is chronologically accurate, then ... I don't think I can help you, but you seriously need someone to mentor you in correct reading of sources, and maybe even basic math. I am proposing separate sections on cultural and social history; "art" and "literature" (and religion should it come to that) are all "culture".

And by the way, it's "Teika", not "Tekia"; normally I wouldn't correct you on what appears to be a simple misprint, but you have been taking a somewhat condescending attitude to virtually everyone I say belongs in this article throughout this dispute, and have misspelled their names far more than you normally misspell plain English words (both on this talk page and in the in the article itself), so it doesn't look like accidental misprints so much as not even trying to get these figures' names right. The fact that my question mentioned Saigyo and you changed it to Teika is yet another problem, and seems to be a deliberate attempt on your part to dodge the question and make strawman arguments against me, as Teika (unlike Saigyo) actually did flourish during the early Kamakura period. But let's not talk about literature then -- how about the fact that the cultural developments of the early Edo period are all crammed in to the last eight lines of the section? The section on the Heian period takes the exact opposite approach -- cultural developments of the eleventh century are discussed at the very start of the section. Seriously, read the article text as it is now, and imagine you are a casual reader with no prior knowledge of what outside sources say about Japanese history: A major architectural achievement, apart from Heian-kyō itself, was the temple of Byōdō-in built in 1053 in Uji. Political power within the court soon passed to the Fujiwara clan, a family of court nobles who had been close to the imperial family for centuries. In 858 Fujiwara no Yoshifusa had himself declared sesshō ("regent") to the underage emperor. This is only "chronological" in the most abstract sense of the word; we already have sections on cultural and social history, but they are not clearly demarcated as such, and are inconsistently placed at either the beginning or end of each of the arbitrary "period" sections.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is to maintain a general chronological order, based on periods, which is not really much of a feat since every single other Wikipedia article on national history manages to do it. Thematic topics that took place in and around a certain period can be discussed in that period. It's a convenient method of organization that allows the readers to understand the overall flows of events as they unfolded. That's why all the other articles use it. I don't see what's wrong with including literary developments which happened to occur in the Kamakura period within that section, and I also don't see why exactly cultural events all have to be discussed at either the beginning or end section of each period. However, if that's what you prefer then it's just a matter of creating a subheading, entitled "cultural developments" or something like that, at the bottom of the sections on the Heian and Edo periods. Doing this makes sense. I don't think Wikipedia has much precedent for creating whole separate sections for literary or social events at the bottom of an article on national history, but there is lots of precedent for thematic subheadings within chronological periods.[1][2][3][4]CurtisNaito (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

literary developments which happened to occur in the Kamakura period Curtis, you should refrain from editing this article and every other article on Japanese history if you think this kind of comment is remotely appropriate. The developments you are talking about primarily took place in the Heian period, or maybe the very, very earliest part of the Kamakura period, but you have them discussed at the end of our section on the Kamakura period. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what is inappropriate about the comment. The developments regarding Shunzei and Teika which I referred to did largely take place in the Kamakura period. The material on Saigyo was not added to the article by me, though if you think it would be better suited to the Heian period then we can just move it there. As I pointed out, all the other articles use that format so we can work out something similar. If you prefer a subheading, we'll just insert the appropriate subheadings at the end of each period.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense in most cases, but not in the cases I've brought up. You have yet to tell us how you would handle, say, women's issues chronologically (though I keep asking you), and your assertion that burakumin can be done so is downright bizarre. Who cares about "Wikipedia precedent"? If it doesn't work here then we ignore precedent. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

One section on social history might not be a dramatic change from precedent, but it ought to be limited. We still have to ask ourselves the question of why there is not one single English Wikipedia article on national history which includes a variety of special thematic topics at the end. Japanese history is surely not so thoroughly unique that it cannot be covered the same way that any other nation's history is. I added a considerable amount of women's history into the article in response to your suggestion, and if you noticed what I added, I think it fit fairly well into the chronological pattern. Personally, I thought the details on the burakumin fit in nicely as well. Most of the Japanese history books I read, including Totman and Perez etc.., split information on the burakumin into separate chronological sections and I figured that if it's good enough for historians it's good enough for us. If absolutely necessary, we can later move these things down to a separate section on social history, but if we can't keep the separate thematic sections limited to one or two, I strongly suggest creating a separate article which organizes things based on theme, rather than re-writing this article in a manner which is distinct both from every other Wikipedia article and from almost all general history books written about Japanese history.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't need to ask ourselves that question—have you not noticed that not a single "History of <country>" has made it to FA? (the exceptions are the subarticles History of Lithuania (1219–95) and History of Poland (1945–89)). We need to ask how best to present the information to readers so that it's comprehensible, digestible, and in proper context. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a question worth asking because we ought to know what people as a whole find to be "comprehensible" and "digestible", not just what a small number of currently active editors find to be comprehensible and digestible. Since all the other Wikipedia articles on national history are written in a largely chronological format, I think we can assume that most readers must like this format for national history. This chronological format is used in both of the two featured articles you cited above, as well as good rated articles like History of Singapore. Most published overviews of Japanese history also used the chronological format, so presumably readers of books also favor this style. Tsutsui is an exception, but even Tsutsui does not deem artistic, literary, and cultural history to be worthy of separate thematic discussion. However, I am aware that for the time being only a separate section on social history is being concretely proposed for the purposes of this article, and Tsutsui is one of the few overview histories that does include social history separately. Basically, it's worth considering what most people find to be comprehensible, not just what we personally find to be comprehensible. That's the issue I'm thinking about.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

it's worth considering what most people find to be comprehensible, not just what we personally find to be comprehensible: that's what I've been saying all along. Slapping in everything chronologically with no regard for the reader is conveient to the editors, but does not necessarily benefit the reader. I don't see how crobarring the history of the burakumin into the chronology benefits the reader—it disrupts the main narrative and fractures the burakumin narrative in a way that makes it difficult for the reader to follow. CurtisNaito, I suggested spinning out these social issues to solve a concrete problem: that the chronological format was a terrible solution to presenting several aspects of the article's content. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's inevitable that the narrative will be fractured. The very nature of organizing an article requires some fracturing. I still don't really understand why only this Wikipedia article can't manage to split information about the burakumin up, whereas the large majority of the books cited in this Wikipedia article somehow manage to do it just fine. Naturally, I don't want to reorganize the whole article in a manner so widely unorthodox and inconvenient to readers, and we couldn't undertake such dramatic action without a request for comment. However, right now only a separate section on social history had been proposed, and if that's it, then I guess we can go ahead and add it, but let's leave it at social history and not go beyond that, otherwise we risk making the article more convoluted. I'm aware that you're still researching this topic, so I hope you will report your findings once you have completed your research.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't explained the complete lack of chronological order in placing the building of the Byodo-in before the dawn of the Fujiwara regency. Please address this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's like I told you before, I modeled the article off all the other Wikipedia articles on national history. I didn't see any reason to view Japanese history through a unique prism, so I used the same format as the books I read and all the other articles on Wikipedia. Therefore, I organized the article based on chronological periods, but within each period I included paragraphs, or in some cases subheadings, on various themes. The reason why I discussed Byodo-in there is because the theme of the first two paragraphs was culture/art. It's easy to understand my reasoning if you look at any other Wikipedia article on national history. For instance, check the article History of Germany. It includes one chronological section from 1815-1867, but within that section it includes a few paragraphs dealing with "science and culture", and those scientific and cultural developments span the entire 1815-1867 period. These two paragraphs of the Heian period deal with the cultural developments that spanned the entire period. This is the same way that most of the history books cited in this article are organized. If you prefer, a simple solution would be to just move all the cultural developments to the bottom of the Heian period section under a "cultural developments" subheading.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, please stop taking credit for other people's work: the formatting we are talking about was not introduced by you based on either external sources or other Wikipedia articles; it was already in place years before you first edited the article. You just made the problem worse by arbitrarily "trimming" huge chunks of the article and making the massive time jumps all over the article stand out more. And while we are at it, please learn to write grammatical English: use of WP:SLANG like "I modelled the article off all the other Wikipedia articles" is perfectly acceptable on talk pages, but you have a habit of including phrases like "modelled off" and "based off" in this and other articles (another problem Calvin999 failed to address).

Anyway, I'm not averse to including a clearly delineated "cultural and social developments in X period" subsection at the end of each period section, as I think I specified above before being distracted.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I never took credit for anyone's work. You asked me about Byodo-in, and I was the one who put mention of it into the article text. There was a photo before, but no mention within the text of the article. I did base the format of the article off other Wikipedia articles and external sources. If you consult other Wikipedia articles as well as the sources used in the article like Perez, you can see my motivation for most of the form of the article. I will, however, add a new subheading to the Heian period, which was something I suggested a long time ago.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your method of discussion is obscure (second in my experience only to the notorious Enkyo2). When you said you "modelled it off" other Wikipedia articles and reliable sources, it seemed inconceivable that you could be talking about the construction of Byodo-in, and looked a lot more like you were talking about the general layout of the article, which you did not create and should not take credit for.

But what I am taking from your most recent backtrack is that you claim you added reference to the construction of Byodo-in (and I suppose the writing of the Pillow Book and Genji?) at the start of our coverage of the Heian period because this is how your source did it? Can you confirm that that is what you mean? Why did you mention other Wikipedia articles?

Further, you most certainly have taken credit for others' work.[5] And just above here you made an outrageous and completely baseless accusation (that I am in some way "banned" for "harassment") that would likely see you blocked if you made it in a user conduct forum like ANI, and is all the worse that it was made on an article talk page. Please retract this insinuation, and explain your very obscure and apparently contradictory statements.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your link just shows what I put into the article. I didn't take credit for others' work. You were once banned for harassing me, but that's not relevant right now. I mentioned other Wikipedia articles because I based the format of this article on my examination of other books and Wikipedia articles. Part of the reason why I put culture first was because many of the books I consulted also did. I don't really think it matters whether the culture section is at the beginning or end but, for instance, Henshall mentioned cultural developments right at the very start of the Heian period.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The diff clearly shows you referring to material I added to the article as "[your] wording" ("your" is not a direct quote - you said "my"). Further, your couching your accusations in inaccurate lingo is noted: the "ban" you are referring to was a week-long block, and it was not for "harassment" but a single personal attack. The fact that the personal attack in question was actually a peace offering that you chose to interpret as an attack, and a gullible sysop took your word for it also probably needs to be pointed out. The fact that the gullible admin in question was desysoped on their own request as part of a POINTy, wikidiva-ish and seemingly insincere "retirement" roughly 72 hours after blocking me might also be worth noting. But of course none of this has anything to do with article content, so I have no idea why you keep fixating on it. I'll check Henshall when I get home, but I can guess he probably gave a one-paragraph "hook" at the start of the relevant chapter, and didn't include any significant discussion of cultural developments later on. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, in that diff I was referring to the wording I had used to describe it. Again, you're focusing too much on inaccurate accusations concerning past issues and not enough on current article content. I already moved the Heian culture information to the end of the section, though you can see for yourself that Henshall introduced cultural events, including the culture of the Heian court and the Tale of Genji, right on the first page of his section on the period. I did already add in the necessary subheadings to the article, so that issue is dealt with.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, any idiot can see that in the above diff you are very clearly chunk of text I researched, composed and added to the article as your "wording".

Anyway, your subheadings are inconsistent and not ideal (why are religious developments of the Kamakura periodincluded in the main section but in the Heian period lumped together with literary developments?), and were made completely without consensus despite it obviously being a controversial edit. You really, really need to stop treating this article like your personal project and treating other users like "guests" who are not allowed make edits of which you disapprove.

Taking that link off your userpage, and actually listening to the views of others, might also help dispel the impression that you are OWNing this page.

And you still haven't apologized for or retracted your obviously false accusation that I was "banned" for "harassment"... why not?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can't retract any of my previous comments, because what I said was entirely true. Concerning the subheadings, I didn't think they needed to be consistent. You wanted subheadings, so I very sensibly inserted subheadings based on the kind of material which was written in each section. For the Heian period, I separated culture into a different section, though the section in question doesn't include much about religion. For the Kamakura period, there was far more than enough on literature alone to justify its own section.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What you said most certainly was not "entirely true". I have only ever been subject to two bans, one of which was self-imposed and brief, the other of which (without going into detail) has nothing to do with "harassment". And the block to which you refer also had nothing to do with harassment. And the material you rather clumsily moved into subsections was arbitrary (Buddhism is lumped with poetry and fiction in the Heian period, but not the Kamakura period). Why can you not see this? I won't revert you because, unlike you, I am interested in finding consensus for whatever major change is to be made before I make it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I did explain what I meant above, and it was true. Concerning the subheadings, I put all the cultural events of the Heian period into one section, which turned out to be only two paragraphs long, though Buddhism as a religion is not included in that section at this point in time. The Heian period section does not yet include any information on Buddhism. Literature of the general Kamakura period ought to have a section to itself, unless you plan on trimming the coverage of literature later. Four paragraphs all dealing exclusively with literature is more than enough for an entire subheading.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying is I should write another four paragraphs on the far greater literary achievements of the Heian period? Also, how do you justify tieing the four paragraphs in question specifically to the Kamakura period when the rise of the gunki monogatari began, and much of the poetry was composed, in the mid-to-late Heian period? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

All you told me to do was to create subheadings, not change the text itself. The Heian period only had two relatively short paragraphs on culture, so I took what was available and created a section on culture. The Kamakura period had four paragraphs on literature which was more than enough for a subheading. Those four paragraphs were mostly inserted into the Kamakura period by you, not me. Basically, I think a subheading should have at least one long paragraph, or preferably at least two paragraphs. Four paragraphs is more than enough for an entire subheading, so for the Kamakura period I didn't need to put any more material than literature into the subheading. Gunki monogatari has been in the Kamakura period a while now, and I already explained to you why, quoting the cited sources at length. If you want you could move it to the Heian period, though you were the one who wrote into the article, and I quote, "The Kamakura period also saw the birth of of th "war tale" gunki monogatari genre."CurtisNaito (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't quote me out of context: "birth" was a poor choice of words, but still technically accurate if we stick within the arbitrary distinction of wakan-kongou-]bun gunki monogatari ("war tales" in Keene) and the earlier kanbun senki monogatari ("battle tales" in Keene) like 将門記 and 陸奥話記, which were Heian works. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:NOTSOURCE: even if my Wikipedia edits said what you wanted them to, they still wouldn't justify your clumsy edits, and you should be basing your edits on external reliable sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I added the subheadings where appropriate, but that material in question was put within the Kamakura period by you, not me. Without changing the substance of the text of the article, the subheadings were accurately named.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you were the one who put that material where it is in the article. Remember "Zen monks like Shunzei and Teika revitalized the waka genre" and "The Tale of the Heike was an outgrowth of the setsuwa genre"? You put all of that at the end of our Kamakura section. All I did was correct the ridiculous and outrageous OR you added; I was just too busy to rearrange it all in chronological order. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of the material was added by you to the Kamakura period. For instance, I never inserted material on Saigyo into the article. You could have mentioned him in the Heian period, but you chose to insert reference to him into the Kamakura period instead. As I noted, it was similarly you who insisted that gunki monogatari originated in the Kamakura period. I never added any OR, but concerning chronological placement, you're criticizing yourself far more than me. In the case of the Kamakura period, all I did was put in the appropriate subheading.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There is not now, nor has there ever been significant coverage of waka in our section on the Heian period; adding the words "and the itinerant priest Saigyo" to a section that already described Shunzei, Teika and (by implication) the SKS was much more natural than having a reference to him jump out of nowhere in the Heian section. At least I added the chronological clarification "late Heian and early Kamakura"; your version left the reader to assume that all this happened after the Mongol invasions!

it was similarly you who insisted that gunki monogatari originated in the Kamakura period Yes, because you claimed your source said they originated in the Muromachi period!

I never added any OR You added the claim that Shunzei and his son were Zen monks of the late thirteenth century. This claim did not appear in your source. Hence, OR.

But this finger-pointing is pointless: regardless of whose "fault" it is, the article is the way it is now, jumpy, bizarre chronology and all: how do you propose we fix it? I would tell you my ideas, but I already have and you filibustered them.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I never said nor implied that Shunzei and his son were Zen monks. I still don't know why you came to that conclusion. However, my proposal is that we leave it the way it is. Almost all the dates referred to in that section are Kamakura period dates, so chronologically and thematically, it all fits reasonably well. If you prefer Saigyo in the Heian period, then we can move him there, but in general what we have is fine.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Curtis, get over yourself. You keep telling me I'm the one responsible for the non-chronological portions of the text, but most (probably 90%) of them were there when you first nominated the article. Leaving the article "as is" means pretending events are narrated in strictly chronological order when they aren't. How are we going to fix this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, you were the one who added in most of the allegedly non-chronological material here, but to me it's fine as long as it fits with the general pattern used in Wikipedia articles on national history. As I said above, "check the article History of Germany. It includes one chronological section from 1815-1867, but within that section it includes a few paragraphs dealing with 'science and culture', and those scientific and cultural developments span the entire 1815-1867 period." In other words, we can include a broad range of literary developments taking place during the Kamakura period in the relevant subheading under that section. If we need to move out one or more of the figures who were truly entirely outside the period in question, like possibly Saigyo or Shotetsu, we can do that, but the majority can stay where it is and still fit perfectly into a chronological organization based on periods.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

you were the one who added in most of the allegedly non-chronological material here No, I wasn't. That is baseless accusation, and is clearly being made in bad-faith. Virtually every section of the article jumps back and forth somewhere in its coverage, and I've barely touched anything before the Nara period or after the Kamakura period. Show me even one non-chronological element outside of the 12/13C for which I was responsible (before my most recent edit, which clearly doesn't count, and also fixes any other problems for which I was debatably responsible). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, saying "it's your fault!" is pretty meaningless when I'm not the one arguing for pretending this article is in chronological order. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of the things directly above which you were specifically criticizing as being non-chronological were topics you yourself added, but the main point I've been making is that most national history articles on Wikipedia, not to mention other encyclopedias, follow chronological order based on periods. Within the periods thematic subheadings do exist which cover trends that spanned the period. When I said chronological, what I meant was the same chronological format used in the other Wikipedia articles, encyclopedia articles, and cited history books. In that regard, this article is already in good chronological order.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't "specifically criticizing" anything. They were examples of a problem that is endemic throughout the article, and with one extremely dubious exception (Saigyo) all of my examples were placed where they are by you. But that is beside the point! How do you propose we fix this endemic problem? the same chronological format used in the other Wikipedia articles Name one GA-level article that is divided into section based on broad historical periods up to 400 years in length, with events that occurred at the ends of these periods being described at the beginnings of the sections, and vice versa, without any clarification inline of when exactly these events occurred. (I say "GA-level" because I know there's a lot of bullshit out there on this site: we shouldn't be aspiring towards bullshit.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I already fixed all of the chronological issues you brought up, except for the ones which you yourself inserted into the article, which was most of the ones you mentioned recently. Let's go beyond GA quality and look at this featured level article, History of Minnesota. The period "Modern Minnesota" spans a long period from 1935 to present. However, the first section, "Arts and culture" covers events throughout the period up to 2006, as well as briefly mentioning events as early as 1883 to provide basic context. The second section only covers World War II (1939-1945). The third section, "Modern economy", covers economic trends of the whole modern period, trends which don't always need specific dates attached. However, the section also briefly notes events as early as 1902 for context purposes. The fourth section, "The digital state", covers 1946 to present. The fifth section, "Postwar politics", covers political events in the whole modern period, while also referring to events as early as the 1870s to give context.

Do you understand what I mean now? History of Minnesota follows a model based primarily on broad chronological periods, not thematic topics. However, within each chronological period, there are thematic topics which span the entire period, plus a little more to give context. History of Minnesota is a featured level article, Wikipedia's highest standard of quality, so it is a model worth emulating.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And how many of the events described in the History of Minnesota article are not explicitly dated inline, leaving the reader to assume that one event took place after the other? And how many are explicitly dated with phrases like "around this time", "then", etc., when the actual events took place 100 years apart? This problem could not be as bad for "Modern Minnesota" (apparently a period of 80 years) as for the Heian period (400 years). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you have yet asked me even once to insert a date for a specific event I added to the article. If you want dates, tell me which event specifically you want to be dated, and I'll insert the date. Right now this article is modeled off a similar format to the featured level article History of Minnesota. Not every general trend and event in that article is dated either, which is not necessarily a problem within the chronological boundaries set by each section and theme.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No one's asking you to insert anything. We are trying to have an adult conversation over exactly what is the best solution to the problem, but no one is in any doubt that the problem is the presence of non-chronological material in a supposedly chronological structure. I have been saying this throughout (explicitly referring to "clarifying inline dates" several times), and if you didn't notice this problem until over 13,000 words of discussion of the problem (more by you than any other single user) had already taken place then we have a much bigger problem that will need to be dealt with elsewhere. The way I see it there are essentially two possible ways we can solve this problem: either drop the pretense of chronology, and discuss material best dealt with by genre (or something else) rather than year in separate sections, or explicitly date everything inline and place everything in a more strictly chronological order. I honestly don't know which is better, so please stop trying to figure out which of these options I am "asking you" to implement. I am trying to discuss this and establish consensus one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

We might need to devise a third option, because I don't think it's likely either option you suggest will gain consensus. Re-organizing the whole article thematically rather than chronologically is too radical of a change to get consensus. No other article uses that format. Concerning the second option, this article already does follow a good chronological order, the same sort of chronological order used in all the other Wikipedia national/regional history articles. If you actually know of anything which would benefit from adding a date, I'll add it, though you can surely see that the chronological format of this article does not deviate in any significant manner from the chronological pattern used in other Wikipedia history articles, including good and featured ones.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's "too radical", but I wouldn't make reorganizing it like that a requirement. If someone wanted to create a reorganized version of the article in a sandbox and could demonstrate thereby that it improved the article's readability, I'd be all for that. Unless someone's going to volunteer to do that, though, I'm not going to push for that. I will push for easily implementable solutions, like adding a section on social history (and potentially other subjects), and I'm opposed to slapping this information willy-nilly throughout the article for all the reasons I've already given. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a terrible argument, particularly in the face of concrete problems, so let's focus on solving actual problems rather than blaming the neighbours. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidently I agree that reorganization is not a necessity to improve content, but remember that Tsutsui was the only history book we found using the thematic format, and even it didn't "drop the pretense of chronology". The first 350 pages of Tsutsui, including all the information on literature and art, are organized through chronological periods. A social history section is the only concrete proposal we have, and while such a section may not be normal for either published history books or Wikipedia articles, at least we do have one overview history book, Tsutsui, which separates out some of the social history. If another user is truly inspired to create more separate themes, I suppose they could try drafting them in their sandbox, but I think most Wikipedia users would agree that Wikipedia is more of a follower than a leader when it comes to information on history. Therefore, it's better to follow existing models, used by most scholars and known to be convenient to most readers, rather than invent our own experimental system.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you really need to take 1,149 bytes to say that? We follow existing models when they get the job done well. They don't here, so we're looking for solutions. Help us find solutions or get out of the way. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If we add a separate section on social history, then all the rest can be handled through convenient subheadings underneath each relevant chronological period. That's the solution.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If that's indeed the solution, then great. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I never said we should reorganize the entire article. This is just another case of Curtis putting words in my mouth because he doesn't want to address what I actually said. I was very clear that what I meant was we should take all the material that is clearly difficult to discuss in a strictly chronological order under the current sections, and give them their own separate discussions at the end of the article. These would be, in my opinion, "cultural" and "social" history; CurtisNaito has said many times that he thinks "political" and "military" history might need to be added to this, but this is a non-starter, because the basic chronological structure of the present article is based solely around political and military changes -- those are the ones that don't need to be given their own sections. An example of what is best discussed in its own section instead of being broken down into separate sections like "cultural developments in the Heian period" and "literary developments in the Kamakura period" would be the waka poetry of the late Heian and Kamakura periods, and the war tales of the early Kamakura period that drew influence from earlier Heian works. This problem is no longer the disaster that it was 24 hours ago now that I have added a new section title that clearly notes that these are not late-Kamakura developments, but someone who died in 1190 is still discussed four paragraphs down from an event that took place in 1281. This isn't chronological; it's thematic. Should we increase the amount of thematic coverage and take it out of the (otherwise purely chronological) sections to give them their own discussion at the end of the article? If other users think it is fine as is, then I guess I'm okay with it too, but I'd like to hear from people other than Curly Turkey (who probably opposes it) and CurtisNaito (who clearly doesn't mind). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You said that you wanted to "drop the pretense of chronology", though that is the basis for all the other Wikipedia national history articles. You said that a separate section on the political theme is a non-starter, but the Spanish language version of History of Japan, which is a featured article, includes only one separate thematic section, on politics. All the social and cultural events are incorporated into the chronological periods, and naturally, I don't need to remind you that featured level articles are generally regarded as models to follow for other Wikipedia articles. Since there appears to be consensus for a separate social history section, I'll add it myself, but I think cultural events can be handled in subheadings, just as they are in the Spanish version. As I noted, cultural trends which broadly span an entire period can become subheadings within each relevant period.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop trying to find creative interpretations of everything I say now, and focus on the issues at hand, please! How do you propose we deal with the non-chronological portions of our cultural history where "subheadings" would create awkward and misleading breaks in the narrative between, to name just one example, "late classical" and "early medieval" literature? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I indicated above, I'm not convinced it really is a problem, because it's not really non-chronological. Just keep the focus in each subheading on the cultural events of that period, and the alleged problem is no more. However, if you really think it's necessary, maybe the best course of action would be for you to take Curly Turkey's advice and draft something in your sandbox. Why not draft a separate section on cultural history in your sandbox so that we can see more concretely what it would look like?CurtisNaito (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)