Talk:History of Japan/Archive 13

Dubious explanation of "cloistered rule"
"the reigning emperor would retire early to manipulate the nominally ruling emperor from behind the scenes"? What is on Totman 151-152 that verifies this? There was one controlling emperor (the 上皇) at any given time, who had usually retired decades earlier; the reigning emperors would retire early because the powers that be wanted to push him out, not in order to immediately move into a position of power himself. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "a series of retired emperors converted the imperial legacy of abdication and oversight, which traced back to the days of Jitō and Genmei, into a century of dominance after 1050... after retiring in 1086 [Shirakawa] enlarged his insei structure and expanded the number of shōen it administered... this rule by retired emperors constituted a vigorous reassertion of imperial governance..." As was common during this period, Shirakawa did not abdicate with the intention of giving up power.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is you made it up and put it in the mouth of your source. Awesome -- I didn't expect anything less. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, read what I quoted above. A reigning emperor retired, but continued to exercise the authority of the imperial institution right after "retirement". This was called insei.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the exact same description you can find in any book of Japanese history. Henshall describes insei as follows: "As with the tactic of the Fujiwara regents a junior would be enthroned, but this time he was controlled by an abdicated emperor rather than a regent... It was used by retired emperors such as Shirakawa"CurtisNaito (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is your description of the system as involving all reigning emperors retiring early of their own volition, in order to immediately move into positions of control behind the curtain, is directly contradicted by more than one of your sources? Keep digging that hole for yourself, Curtis. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, all I can do is quote the relevant material and it's up to you whether or not you read it. As noted above, emperors like Shirakawa retired in order to wield authority through the "junior" nominally reigning emperor.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did read the quotes you provided. And I read the same information in dozens of other sources, years ago, and probably years before you ever even heard the name "Shirakawa". Your prose in the article, though, did not say the same thing as the quote you provided above, or any of those other sources. Anyone who looks can clearly see this. You need to stop this and learn to properly cite sources. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I also have read the same information in many dozens of sources. I certainly have no doubt about the accuracy of the information based on both the quotes above, and numerous other reliable sources. I've said before that I think you sometimes interpret sources in an overly loose manner, but in this case both of the sentences which were inserted into the article were equally accurate rewordings of the original text.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Curtis, please read WP:TALKNO. It doesn't matter whether the sources cited are accurate to the real world. Whether what you wrote is accurate to the real world is also secondary. All that we are supposed to be discussing here is whether what you wrote is accurate to the cited sources. It wasn't, and your projecting your own dubious interpretations of sources onto me is ... highly disruptive, to say the least. What did you mean by "the reigning emperor"? What did you mean by "would"? What did you mean by "to"? Shirakawa-in ruled from behind the curtain during the reigns of three separate emperors, the second of whom retired while Shirakawa-in was still alive -- did he retire of his own volition with the intention of manipulating the nominally reigning emperor? There were two living retired emperors for that six-year period -- who was "the" cloistered emperor? None of your sources contradict what I am telling you, but somehow what you wrote does -- please explain this fact. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I had to summarize the source in my own words in order to avoid plagiarism. The source doesn't use words like "figurehead", "real power", and "retired predecessor", but even though you used your own vocabulary words like those, it doesn't mean that you are misinterpreting the sources. Asking me to define the word "to" is a little silly I think. If I adopted the same standards as you, I would have to conclude that all of your contributions to the article are blatant misrepresentations of the sources. However, if you check the quotes above, all I did was the same thing you did, rephrase the original text into a new sentence reflecting the meaning and intent of the original.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to define "to". I'm asking you to explain what you meant. You clearly said something different from what your source said. "to" implies that all emperors retired early with the intention of continuing to control the throne. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In general they did. The term used in this article is "cloistered rule" which is insei in Japanese. During this period, cloistered emperors like Shirakawa had abdicated with the goal of continuing to rule, as you can see from the term "cloistered rule". Totman refers to it as "abdication and oversight". The phrasing I used held closely to the wording of the original, which is generally my goal when citing sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * During this period, cloistered emperors like Shirakawa had abdicated with the goal of continuing to rule And apart from the curious use of the past-perfect, I would have had very little to argue about. But your version of the article (1) didn't name Shirakawa anywhere, (2) implied that all emperors retired early for this purpose, (3) implied they did this of their own volition and (4) implied that upon abdication all emperors immediately became "cloistered rulers". This created a logical gap in the article: if the reigning emperor had the power to choose the date of his resignation and did so for the sole purpose of excercising the power of a retired emperor immediately on abdication, why did he not just excercise this power in order to rule the country? And an even bigger problem is what happened when there was more than one cloistered emperor at a time. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A degree of summarization is always necessary when writing this sort of article. I was summarizing two pages in one sentence. The version I wrote didn't state any of the points above, though maybe if you are imaginative enough the implication might enter your mind. Your version says, "real power was held by a retired predecessor behind the scenes". Although I don't want to engage in pointless nitpicking, if I did I could point out that Totman says that other forces in the court gradually attempted to take power back from cloistered emperors. My version can take that into account, but your version seems to imply that the reigning emperor was entirely a figurehead even in the later period. I summarized the text, but you can't honestly say that I misread or misrepresented the text without engaging in a wild exercise of imagination. At any rate, if the content issue is settled we can move on to other matters.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with that, but I don't think the content issue is resolved if you are still saying that your wording is better and mine introduces problems -- are you going to change it back while I'm not looking? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it may be true that my wording was a little better than yours, but what's in the article now is good enough that I don't see a need to change it.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever is left to do to bring the article to good level status, I think we can do it. If there's more to be done, let's just list off what's left now.TH1980 (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There hadn't been much discussion on the talk page recently, but I think the only two significant issues remaining are whether or not we should include separate sections on social policy and on the emperors. I'm not sure if there is any consensus to add these in prior to a good article review, but if there is consensus after all, then I will certainly add them in before the review is picked up. Alternatively, if someone else believes that there is consensus and wants to add these sections in, I suppose that would be okay.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A separate section on social history would be okay, but I'm less keen on the emperors. We've probably discussed this enough already to know what kinds of information should go into the article.TH1980 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When it comes to social history, a variety of drafts have existed for a month and no one has yet objected to any of them. It would take no time to move the draft back into the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There hadn't been much discussion on the talk page recently: because you've worn so many of us out. The issues have not been resolved—many of them have been entirely ignored. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't ignored suggestions. In fact, I attempted to add sections on social history and imperial institutions in accordance with suggestions. If you know of anything else that I can do, I will do it unless you would prefer to do it yourself. What we need now are the concrete ideas which should be implemented. Perhaps I was hasty in renominating, and I don't necessarily endorse TH1980's reverts, but if anything else should be done to the article, then what we need is a concrete list for implementation.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You've ignored the requirement that you seek and recieve consensus to renominate before renominating, and there remains a long list of issues that you've ignored. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me an issue or two which you would like to see specific action on? I will listen to your advice.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can go back through all the discussions and digest what's already been written. You're not going to get a bullet list because those aren't the issues, as you 've been repeatedly told.  We have issues with structure, with weight, with focus, etc. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But the issues discussed above have already been implemented. I'll withdraw the nomination, but just saying "structure, weight, and focus" is too vague to act upon. Something more specific is needed in order to make changes. What topics are missing from the article? The structure of which section should be modified?CurtisNaito (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They are not vague; they are buried. By you.  You've been warned far too many times about WP:IDHT. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe we should try to start fresh then. I know that you said that you didn't want to use a bullet form list, but surely we could outline something more specific than "structure, weight, and focus". A short description would be okay, but it should be more concrete.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's get this straight: attrition is not consensus, and demanding that everyone restate and re-restate and re-re-restate what they've already re-re-re-re-re-stated is not acceptable. Deal with the issues, or give up on renomination. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I did add the social history section on a few occasions in response to requests. I also attempted to add in something on emperors, and I am willing to modify and reinsert that section if needed. If any periods need expansion, I can add in additional subjects if other users would like additional subjects, though I don't believe any specific ones have been mentioned yet.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

We need less haste and more consideration. Please throw the brakes on, CurtisNaito. There's nothing wrong with doing things right. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I believed that the section dealt with the significant social issues, but just in case further changes were needed, I also posted it in the sandbox over a week ago. I wasn't rushing at all. I could have spent a year on it and the version which I inserted into the article would have been the same. You yourself made some copyedits to it in the sandbox, and I included the copyedits in the version I just inserted, but you didn't make any further changes. If you had had objections, you could have brought them up in the sandbox a week ago. In the sandbox, the parts on social history which you yourself wrote did include substantial information on Tokugawa social classes, so I figured I would eliminate the redundancy by putting all the information there. Do you think it's alright to repeat the same information in two different sections? I thought that the section was fairly well organized, but if you can think of a better way to organize it, then you can make a proposal.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Comment We should just find out if the good article reviewer thinks that the article is at good article status yet, not start a poll.TH1980 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, CurtisNaito is required to get consensus on this article before renominating, as per the conditions at ANI following the delisting. Conditions you are fully aware of. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose renomination

 * Strong oppose. This article isn't even close to GA quality, and there is yet a long list of unaddressed (ignored?) issues. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - It does not meet GA standards yet, although we are much closer than a month ago.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 04:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There really needs to be a checklist of problems to fix so people can spend time working on that rather than arguing endlessly on the talk page. Some progress has been made, but there is still a long road ahead if this article is to achieve GA status. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: we've tried the "list of things to discuss" route (check the archives), and the problem with that is that, rather than disucssing, CurtisNaito simply adds these things to the article without regard for appropriateness or due weight so as to rush the article through. For instance, I merely mentioned that many readers would probably CTRL+F for "ninja"—adding them was objected to on the grounds that ninja did not play a major role in Japanese history, and history books tend to skip them (no mention in Henshall, Tsutsui, Varley, Schirokauer, or the over 5000 pages of the Cambridge series), yet CurtisNaito has added two sentences to the article on ninja.  One of CurtisNaito's biggest problems is his desire to get the article passed ASAP at the expense of actual quality, weight, balance, etc.  CurtisNaito's approach will have to change if this article is truly to meet GA standards. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * During the good article review, I asked repeatedly for a checklist of problems, and all you told me, again and again, was "you are well aware of the very long list of items on the talk page of the article." I didn't really have much choice but to go with what was on the talk page, because no one was willing to list out the problems during the good article reassessment. There are a lot of proposed additions that I personally objected to on the grounds that they were not mentioned in any general purpose histories. However, I was the only one openly opposing them. I had to assume that they had consensus, because no one else was opposing them or making their own concrete checklists. In the case of ninja, I repeatedly said that I leaned against including it, but not a single person backed me up on that, so I had no choice but to add it in.
 * Naturally, I do support Nihonjoe's proposal for a concrete list of changes needed, which is something I myself have asked for a number of times.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Back on that treadmill: we've given you lists to discuss. You don't discuss them, thus the mess.  If it were a matter of "X, Y, and Z are missing", then we'd simply add them (as we do) rather than give you a list so you could add them (it's not your article—we don't need to ask you to add anything).  So back to the problem: your unwillingness to discuss things. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * so I had no choice but to add it in: Nobody asked you to put it in, so, yes, you had a choice. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you can see from the quotes I provided that I cast doubt on the idea of including ninjas in the article. I suppose I was actually the only one discussing the issue, because no one agreed or disagreed me, or even commented on what I said in any way. However, when I asked you how the article could be expanded, all you told me was to check the talk page. Therefore I did check the talk page and I added all the suggestions from it. It was the only choice I had except for letting the article rot. The reason why I have been stepping up to the plate is because I can't assume other people have the time to work on the article. You yourself repeatedly said that "the article can rot." When you say things like that, I don't assume you are eager to make changes to the article. I have affirmed many times that you can change the article yourself if you want to add something, but if you don't have time then I can do it myself. However, Nihonjoe's proposal is the right idea. Those who oppose nomination should make a concrete checklist of problems and either make the changes themselves or else allow someone else to make the changes.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You know exactly the context of that "the article can rot" comment, and you can hardly claim I'm not eager to make changes to the article after the amount of sourced content I've added. But we're back on the treadmill of burying all attempts at discussion, aren't we, CurtisNaito?  The article doesn't need lists for all the reasons you've been told over and over and over and over and over.  the article needs discussion about weight and WP:DUE and balance and ... everything else we've tried to discuss but that you've buried. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nihonjoe said "There really needs to be a checklist of problems to fix so people can spend time working on that rather than arguing endlessly". Right now we're still at the endless arguing phase. If anyone opposes nomination, then they should move on to the next step, creation of a checklist.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're endlessly arguing because you refuse to discuss. A checklist is inappropriate, and the reasons why have been spelt out enough times. Nihonjoe, as I said, we've done the checklist thing.  Is it not clear now that that's not going to solve the problems with this article? CurtisNaito has basically declared he will not deal with anything that's not in a checklist, which means he will not discuss issues with weight, balance, etc. that have been ongoing problems with this article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the checklist approach has been attempted much so far. There has certainly been page after page of discussion on various issues, but little of it has taken the form of a checklist. I'll naturally participate in discussion not involving a checklist, as I have been, but it seems to me that a checklist as proposed by Nihonjoe would be a clear and organized way to present the issues.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you expect to see on a checklist? As I've said, when "X" has been missing, we've simply added it.  That leaves primarily structural and weight issues, which you refuse to discuss. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've discussed issues relating to weight and structure, but these sorts of things would be easier to both discuss and act upon if discussion was more structured. If a certain section is lacking appropriate weight or needs to be restructured in a certain way, then that could be noted in a checklist. Discussing "weight" in general is fairly vague, but if we have a list of sections which require more or less material, with indications perhaps of what sort of material, then it would move us forward in a positive way.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that it's "vague", but that the discussion gets completely drowned out every time it comes up. Like now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think all we're discussing right now is whether or not those who oppose nomination should present a checklist like Nihonjoe proposed. I'm in favor of that, because it would make clearer what remains to be done. It would be better to "spend time working" than "arguing endlessly on the talk page".CurtisNaito (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rather, it makes it easier to ignore everything that's not in list form and avoid any and all attempts at discussion. Remember when I first came here?  I made a number of subsections of issues that I found while I was copyediting the article.  They were either ignored or completely buried.  You continue to refuse to engage in discussion over issues in the article, and this demand for a list is just another way to avoid discussion.  What guarantee can you give us that the list will not simply serve you as a licence to renominate with consensus once you've superficially "checked all the boxes"?  Because it's that behaviour and your attritional walls-of-words that are holding up this article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you give an example of "subsections of issues" which were "ignored or completely buried"? I've been following the discussion but I can't recall any. I think all the relevant problems were dealt with. I don't think the list approach has been seriously attempted, and since Nihonjoe believed that endless talk page argumentation was holding up article improvement, I figure that trying something different is a good idea.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And you see what I mean? Both of you, Curly Turkey and CurtisNaito, can't seem to have a civil word between you. You each accuse the other of causing all the problems, yet you don't see the problems you are each causing individually. I suppose you will continue on your present course and never get anything done because you each seem incapable (at least here) of talking with each other instead of past each other. As it stands, both you are being a detriment to getting anything done. Maybe you both need to take a couple months off this article and come back when you can act like adults and not argue incessantly. That's the only way something will ever get done. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I ever accused anyone else of causing problems. Incidentally though, if you have any ideas for changes which should be made to the article, don't hesitate to elaborate on them.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * you are being a detriment to getting anything done:  I though so, too, when I first came here and saw an number of editors incessantly arguing with CurtisNaito—for the longest time I simply ignored it and focused on prose issues.  It's easy to see it that way when you haven't gone play-by-play through the exasperating length of this talk page.  When it got to the point of actually trying to engage in discussion with CurtisNaito that I realized the problems really are quite one-sided.  I don't expect you to see that from your vantage point, and I don't blame you for not going through the evidence, but I can promise you that a few months off the article will not fix anything, as it will do nothing to fix CurtisNaito's approach to the article.  Any "solution" that doesn't deal with that will inevitably fail. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Having gone through the talk page archives and GA reviews myself, I've taken some time to identify and define proposals and concerns. A couple of important disclaimers:
 * 1) This is not a checklist.  Some items may be appropriate to implement, but other items may need to be changed or disregarded.  The History of Japan is a challenging article to develop, because there is so much to consider when presenting a large body of information.  Be bold in addressing these items, but accept that you may not get it right and that other perspectives may be needed before a concern is actually addressed.
 * 2) Some of these items are specific and others are much more broad, and there may be multiple editorial approaches to consider in how to solve them.  Discussion, especially with uninvolved editors, will probably be required for some of them.
 * 3) This does not include every concern articulated.  I encourage folks here to add and revise  this list as needed.
 * 4) Some of these items may have been addressed already, so please strike them if needed.

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

Discussion
Starting a discussion section here to help guide additions and changes to the above table. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the large majority, if not all, of the above issues have already been addressed. I suspect that future discussion will need to focus around new issues, rather than the old topics listed above.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some that I suspect have not been fully resolved are Proposal to use general reference works and/or tertiary sources to help make decisions and Disagreement on how to handle article section divisions, both of which seem rather fundamental to me as they concern the overall structure of the article. I don't see evidence that those issues were resolved so much as the discussions simply ended.  I have not seen an attempt to identify an expert who could review the article, where they may be needed, or even if one is actually necessary.  The Due weight / balance between 1) recent cultural & technological contributions and 2) political and cultural history has also persisted for some time now, and I haven't seen consensus on how to handle this based on available coverage in sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if more work needs to be done in those areas, I definitely think that the checklist approach could work in those areas. For instance, I already consulted Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book Encyclopedia and made sure to include all major historical events and people mentioned in those tertiary sources. However, if more tertiary sources need to be consulted, other users could make a list of the specific tertiary sources which need to be consulted in more depth.
 * Concerning the weight and balance issue, in that specific thread the only propositions which were made were for new topics to add to the article. No one concretely proposed deleting anything. However, all the topics mentioned there have already been added to the article. In the future the balance of the article can be changed further through either addition of new material or deletion of existing material. If we had a checklist of possible topics to add or delete, then the gradual implementation of that checklist would cause the article's balance/weight to change.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I JethroBT Re: bring in uninvolved editors: this would normally be a great idea, but please take into account how many motivated editors have dropped out of this article already through attrition. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you know of any issues in particular which have already been resolved, you should consider striking them from list above as JethroBT suggested in order to reduce some of the clutter.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I get that. The atmosphere here is stressful, and folks will naturally disengage from that.  But the last RfC I see from the archives is from 2009.  Looks to me like it's high time for another one. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment External factors (in which CurtisNaito, despite his constant denial, has played no small part) may soon prevent me from continuing my involvement here, but my proposal to check Japanese K9 history textbooks to verify that there are no more super-important topics every Japanese schoolchild is required to know that we have completely ignored has yet to be implemented. (This is not the same as the earlier, impractical "look at my list of general reference works" proposal that the Warlord of Mars posted just about everywhere without examining the debate in question.) But no one has any problem with my proposal, it would seem, so why it was left out of the above list is confusing.
 * And the "general check needed for cases of synthesis and original research" still hasn't been done except by me on the few Henshall citations I could check. My check came up positive in almost every case, mind you, which only underscores the critical need for this check ''before any further GAN is made.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have some general Japanese history textbooks, but not K9 in particular, so I haven't implemented that proposal myself. As I said though, I still think that Encyclopedia Britannica can basically do the same job. Until you yourself or someone else is ready to check the article with a K9 textbook, I think that general encyclopedia articles are more than good enough for our purposes. Concerning the check for source verification, a number of users have already done that, so it's unclear how much further we can go with it. I agree with Prhartcom who said back in October that source verification was already "done as much as possible." I certainly will continue to check the sources, as I have done already and as many other users already have done, but unless you know a specific source which needs verification, I don't see what more can be done here.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that general encyclopedia articles are more than good enough for our purposes But neither you nore anyone else has actually checked any long encyclopedia articles to verify that we didn't miss anything. You claim to have done this back in August, but while Britannica mentions Yoshitsune our article did not. And while every Japanese schoolchild knows Date Masamune, Fujiwara no Teika and Sakanoue no Tamuramaro, most of the encyclopedia articles to which you refer, by your admission, fail to cover them. These figures are not, as you called them, minor/obscure, and they absolutely need to be at least mentioned in this article. We should try to figure out who else belongs on this list before renominating; your own track record (you claimed you had already done this) indicates we can't take your word for it when you claim you've already done this, unless you provide the details (title/author/publisher/date) of the book/article you analyzed and give a complete list of every person/place/event named therein. No attempt thusfrmar has been made by you or any other user to do so. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When it comes to writing such a brief overview of Japanese history, as we are doing here, then Date Masamune and Sakanoue no Tamuramaro would likely be considered obscure figures. Remember, this article has to be a lot shorter than the average high school history textbook. I noted earlier that very lengthy and critically acclaimed Japanese history books, like the 600-page one by Conrad Totman for example, never mention them. I did include them on your request, but in general we do need to focus on the most important figures and not the more obscure ones. Also, I don't know why you would say that I never checked any long encyclopedia articles. I did consult World Book and Britannica. Though even Britannica's article was longer than what is acceptable for Wikipedia standards, you can see from the current article that all the people and events are covered, so my track record is solid. If you can think of a specific book or a specific encyclopedia article which you think requires more attention, then mention it below and I will check or re-check it.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I said "elementary school", not "high school", and given the relatively narrow range of characters and events mentioned in elementary school social studies textbooks the distinction is pretty important. Why are you criticizing my proposal if you do not understand it? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understood it, but the point of it is only to make sure some of the most important events and figures in Japanese history are included in this article. There's more than one way to do that. If you want to move from just talk to actual article improvements, why not list below all the topics which you know of from elementary school textbooks that are not currently discussed in the article?CurtisNaito (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)