Talk:History of Japan/Archive 15

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

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

What's wrong with this picture?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kawabata won the Nobel Prize in 1968, so I think it was fine to put him in the Showa period. Murakami was active during the postwar period extending to the present day. The general chronological structure has been maintained. If you look at other general history articles like the featured level article History of Minnesota, you can see that thematic subjects can be easily discussed within broad historical periods. There is no reason why we can't group trends in postwar literature into the Showa period.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kawabata won the Nobel Prize in 1968, so I think it was fine to put him in the Showa period. Curtis, this is completely beside the point. "The Showa period" is not what we are talking about, and I never said I had a problem with where you placed Kawabata. It's Murakami who was placed problematically in the timeline. Murakami was NOT "active during the postwar period" -- he was BORN during the postwar period, and his first books were published at the very end of the Showa period. And again, nowhere in History of Minnesota is a thematic subject for an entire very broad historical period crammed into a single paragraph under a heading that implies a much shorter historical period. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Postwar refers to 1945 to present, so I would call Murakami postwar. Incidentally, Wikipedia's article on Japanese literature also classifies him as a postwar author. Totman includes Murakami in a chapter entitled "THE CULTURE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL JAPAN (1945–1990)". Totman's book is considered one of the most reliable overviews of Japanese history in English. Since this method of organization suits Totman, it should suit us as well. I disagree with your assessment of the History of Minnesota article. That article is in general chronological order, but it does include thematic subheadings that are actually somewhat broader or shorter than the period they are included under. This is a natural way to organize a high quality national history article.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't classify him as "postwar", you classified him as a representative Shōwa-period sci-fi writer—and attributed that to Totman, who wrote no such thing. If you are more interested in keeping the article chronological that in making it as accessible and comprehensible as possible to readers then perhaps you should step aside so the rest of us can do it right. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (EDIT CONFLICT) Postwar refers to 1945 to present Umm... citation needed? "Postwar literature" as a term is almost never used to refer to "1945 to present"; it refers to the two or three decades following the end of the war -- Donald Keene's chapter "Postwar literature" covers this period almost exclusively -- and Murakami came on the scene 34 years after the war ended. You will not find a single history of Japanese literature that defines "postwar literature" as "1945 to present". And the reason Wikipedia's article on Japanese literature does that is because it is a practically-unsourced mess that I never got around to fixing -- you should not be using it as a source, especially when I am citing the best and most reliable sources on the topic and they don't agree with you.
 * Totman's book is considered one of the most reliable overviews of Japanese history in English Emphasis on "one of"; Keene's book is the best regarded overview of Japanese literary history in English. And we don't use the term "entrepreneurial Japan (1945-1990)" in this article.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's natural to consult the works of historians to determine our organization though. Totman puts Murakami in the 1945-1990 period as a sci-fi author, so obviously this is a legitimate way of organizing it. If Keene puts Murakami in a different period, then we can consider both points of view, but we shouldn't create an organization based solely on our own opinions without consulting scholarly sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not "consult[ing] the works of historians". You've been called out on this far too many times now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I consulted the works of many historians, but most of the general overviews did not include much or anything useful on Murakami. As I noted, Totman puts him in the 1945-1990 period, but if you know of an encyclopedia article or book which suggests he should be included in a different period, it would be worth mentioning that.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear -- you are actually making the "Donald Keene is not a historian" argument? Anyway, Keene doesn't discuss Murakami since his history was written in late 1970s and early 1980s and largely ignored authors who were still active at the time; this means, of course, that if "postwar" referred to "1945 to present", one would expect him to conform to that definition. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Since Keene doesn't discuss Murakami, what is the objection to including him in the same period where Totman does? From Totman we have clear evidence that this form of organization is acceptable. When it comes to overviews of Japanese history or encyclopedia articles, do you know of any which use a different style of organization for postwar literature?CurtisNaito (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keene doesn't discuss Murakami in his 1994 volume (I assume that's the one we're talking about?), but he does in his Britannica article:
 * For more than 20 years after he won the Akutagawa Prize, Ōe was considered to be the youngest writer of importance, and critics lamented the dearth of promising new writers. However, a new generation, represented by Nakagami Kenji and Murakami Haruki, found favour not only in Japan but abroad, where their novels were translated and admired. ... Murakami’s novels, though looked down on by Ōe because he perceived them to lack intellectual concerns, drew critical acclaim and sold remarkably well. This popularity was due in part to his familiarity with American popular culture, an integral part of the lives of young people all over the world, but also to his skill as a highly accomplished storyteller, able to mix real and unreal events convincingly.
 * But CurtisNaito is ignoring a serious issue I keep bringing up—why are we obsessing over Murakami? We still do not have anything like an appropriate summary of developments in post-war J-lit.  Let's stop talking about "post-war literature" as we don't have a "Post-war" section anyways.  Having an "Arts" section allows us to get around the fact that developments in art and literature don't neatly fit into the socio-political sections (and stop saying they do, CurtisNaito.  You've been shown you're wrong far too many times now.) Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you come up with your own concrete idea of where to put the subsection(s), it would be worthwhile to mention it. If we were to follow the pattern used in that article, we could at least keep the literary developments of the Heian, Kamakura, Muromachi, Azuchi-Momoyama, and Tokugawa periods together, as Keene does. The only major literary developments which Keene does not put into our chronological periods is the literature from Meiji and onwards. In that case, maybe we should keep literary developments in their respective chronological periods, per Keene, except for the 1867 to present period which can be a separate thematic section.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Curtis, it would be really helpful if you didn't track down an obscure source written by an author whose better-known works had been cited dozens of times in this dispute and start referring to it simply its author's name. "Keene" (the one that has been cited thoughout, not the one you Google half an hour ago) does the entire history of Japanese literature in loosely chronological order, with individual chapters on different genres for each "period" (Nara, Heian, Kamakura, Muromachi, Azuchi-Momoyama, Tokugawa, Bakumatsu-Meiji, Taisho-earlyShowa, late-Showa), the only kinda-sorta exception being that prose fiction of the modern (Bakumatsu and later) period being in its own volume separate from poetry, theatre, criticism etc. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keene's article is useful for seeing how an encyclopedia article on Japanese literature can be organized. Obviously, it would have been better if the article was entitled "History of Japan", but unfortunately all the History of Japan articles barely talk about literature in general, and they say nothing at all about postwar literature. The point is that Keene demonstrates that an encyclopedia article can and should sort literary developments into their relevant chronological periods, except for the period from 1867 and onwards. We can move forward by using a similar style. Per Keene, let's consider a separate thematic section on modern literature from 1867 to present, but put the rest within the chronological periods provided.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As this is the "History of Japan" article and not the "History of Japanese literature" article, J-lit should be very briefly summed up. This can be done more efficiently and with better context in a separate section than having literary developments pop up pseudorandomly in the cracks between battles and palace intrigues.  It would be easier to follow, easier to understand, easier to see how it fits into the big picture, and probably take fewer words.  See how I handled the burakumin?  That is far easier for a reader to get a grip on while presenting all that's relevent at this scope in a single short paragraph of three sentences covering developments from the 15th to the 21st centuries, rather than splitting it up crammed into several paragraphs throughout the article and relying on the reader having an infallible memory.  I still have to fix the rest of that section.
 * Besides, splitting off only the modern period would be bizarre and difficult to justify. Please focus on what best serves the content to the reader, not on what's most convenient to the editor. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if we put literature alongside other cultural developments of each period, then the literature alone might not need to be discussed at length. If we were to put developments in literature, painting, and music all in individual subheadings for each period, then it might become long, but if we grouped them all as cultural developments then it might be easier to manage. That's one idea, and I think it's the one I favor. If we need to have one separate section on modern literature, it could possibly be a section placed on the same level as the chronological periods. We already have a separate section on "Literary developments of the late-Heian and Kamakura periods", but that one is ranked alongside the chronological section, rather than at the end of the article.
 * However, as you know, I am favorable to keeping things brief, as you stated above, but how brief were you thinking? We already have five paragraphs and 500 words about Heian and Kamakura literature alone and the amount of information we have on all literature easily fills a number of subheadings. When you say "brief", roughly how many paragraphs are you thinking?CurtisNaito (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it should get long, as the article shouldn't dwell on the arts in the first place. It should give a general summary of trends, naming only key players (Murasaki, Bashō-level names) and naming key genres (waka, haiku, Yamato-e, ukiyo-e, manga, etc).  I'm not going to give a number of words or paragraphs—it'll be as long as it needs to be.  But it should be kept minimal.  I imagine literature will be the longest portion, followed by the visual arts, and recent artforms like film and comics would probably get no more than a couple of sentences (that's a guess, not a promise). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, I don't think anyone has yet proposed separate headings for film, and even for visual art I haven't heard a proposal yet for a separate heading for anything but Azuchi-Momoyama art. It seems like what you're proposing is something like a culture section.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you acting like this is new? It's been the proposal all along.  Having sections just for Azuchi-Momoyama art and modern lit would be ridiculous. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's hard for me to think that a whole section on culture, including everything on film, comics, and music, would end up being brief, though I guess it depends on how we define "brief". We already have enough on literature alone to potentially create many subheadings within a wide variety of chronological periods. Discussion of film and comics as separate categories is fairly new, but I would think that those at least could easily be discussed within the most recent chronological periods.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The section itself wouldn't be brief, but wouldn't come anywhere close to the length of the main sociopolitical narrative. Coverage of the individual arts themselves would be brief.  Comics is another perfect example of something that doesn't fit at all into the main narrative—its development does not follow the main sociopolitical narrative: it arose during Meiji, grew throughout Taisho and early Showa, saw rapid sustained growth and diversification in the immediate postwar decades, and saw its highest sales and international breakthrough in Heisei.  Not all that needs to be touched on, though: what needs to be touched on are a brief description of its typical manifestations and its phenomenal share of the print media market (perhaps two sentences would adequately cover it).  I wonder whether its recent international success is even worthy of mention—international sales are a fraction of domestic sales and may yet prove to be a fad.  Regardless, I don't see how comics fits neatly into either Shōwa or Heisei, or how it would serve the reader to try to. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, in Henshall's book manga is mentioned in the section entitled "The Heisei Years", so there is some scholarly precedent in overview histories for briefly discussing manga in this period. As always, I'm considering the way that mainstream history books and encyclopedia articles have chosen to organize such information. However, if our discussion really is boiling down to either a single, fully separate section at the bottom of the article called "Cultural History" versus distributing cultural events into the main text in some manner, then we at least would have a clear choice which we could put to request for comment to ensure consensus. If there are two clear alternative options, then request for comment should work as a means of determining consensus.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * in Henshall's book manga is mentioned in the section entitled "The Heisei Years": And here's his description (p. 204): "Manga can trace their origins back to humorous medieval scroll depictions of animals and humans, and in modern times they began to become popular in the early 1950s, starting with Tezuka Osamu’s Astro Boy of 1952. Manga then became ever more popular, down to the present. Even some educational texts are put out in manga format. Tezuka also contributed to animated manga, namely animé, from the 1960s ..."
 * So yet another of the many, many, many examples of you badly misrepresenting your sources and refusing to allow your botches to be corrected. This article will not improve as long as you stand here barricading it with your Totman and Henshall at hand to be instantly misquoted.  You need to step aside. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that was the initial reason why I put manga into the Heisei period. It was simply what the scholarly sources like Henshall also did. I figured that if published histories didn't find this format unsuitable for readers, then Wikipedia wouldn't either. At any rate, if we are only working with two choices for organization, and if we are only dealing with the broad theme of "cultural history", then what do you think about the possibility of a request for comment?CurtisNaito (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I consulted the works of many historians: no, you did nothing of the sort. You could not possibly have done that and ended up classifying Murakami as representative of Shōwa-period sci-fi.  Nobody calls him that, including Totman.  You do not have the competence to handle this.  Drop it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I know we disagree about Totman, so I changed the source to an article by Matthew Strecher. Right now, it seems we are discussing organization more than content. In what way would you like to incorporate Murakami into the article?CurtisNaito (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * From Totman we have clear evidence that this form of organization is acceptable. [...] do you know of any which use a different style of organization for postwar literature? Oh, for the love of ... Curtis, please give the IDHT act a break just this once. Keene doesn't discuss Murakami, but he very clearly defines "postwar literature" as the literature of the decade or so following 1945, and by your own admission you don't have a source that defines it as "1945-present" -- you have a source that uses the rare term "entrepreneurial" to refer to the period 1945-1990. If no source refers to Murakami as a postwar author, we shouldn't either. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Columbia Companion to Modern East Asian Literature includes a section on "The Postwar Period" (pages 33-34), which goes up to the 1990s and includes Haruki Murakami. The problem with Keene's source is that he doesn't mention Murakami, so we can't be certain whether or not Keene views him as a postwar figure. Those sources which do mention Murakami do categorize him within in the postwar period.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The work to which you refer is not a systematic, periodized review of the history of Japanese literature; it is an arbitrary section title in an essay entitled "The Problem of the Modern Subject". None of the other arbitrary section divisions are named for particular periods in literary history, and even the section to which you refer does not imply that "postwar literature" as it says is a standard "period" in Japanese literary history. Orbaugh also doesn't describe Murakami (Haruki) as a "postwar author" -- she includes him in a list of authors who attempt to "depict the fragmented, decentered experience of postmodern subjectivity"So yes, while in that one very specific context Orbaugh does use the word "postwar" to refer to the arbitrary period "1945-present", it doesn't mean Murakami Haruki can be helpfully described as a "postwar writer", except in the (extremely obvious and therefore unhelpful) meaning of "after 1945". And you have not read Keene, so don't tell me what "we" can and can't be certain Keene thinks -- he clearly defines postwar literature as the literature discussed in his chapter entitled ... "Postwar literature". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't categorize Murakami based on sources which make no mention of him. It would be better to categorize him based on sources which actually do mention him. The Columbia Companion to Modern East Asian Literature actually does mention him as belonging to the postwar period. The Japan Times calls him a "Titan of postwar literature". My point is that the sources which actually do mention him, do categorize him in this manner. CurtisNaito (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works: we shouldn't read periodical categorization into non-chronological essays and claim that they treat Murakami as a "postwar author". The only source either of us has cited that discusses "postwar literature" as a meaningful categorization of Japanese literature clearly refers to only the period before Murakami appeared on the literary scene. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Keene also appears to believe that Murakami can be categorized as postwar. In an Encyclopedia Britannica article written by Keene, Murakami is put into the section entitled "The Postwar Novel".CurtisNaito (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is we should interpret the clear with reference to the obscure? Stop taking articles that use the word "postwar" to mean the (unhelpful for thematic purposes) period 1945-present. "Postwar literature" as a term has a meaning, and it is one you clearly have yet to grasp. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your source was more obscure because it never even mentioned Murakami. As I said, we should favor sources which actually mention Murakami in order to categorize him. According to Keene, Murakami was a writer of "postwar novels". At any rate, I noticed from Keene's article that Keene does manage to group Japanese literary developments mostly into the same chronological periods we use. The Heian, Kamakura, Muromachi, Azuchi-Momoyama, and Tokugawa periods are all there (Keene mentions Fujiwara Teika, Saigyo, and Fujiwara Shunzei in the Kamakura period). The exception is the period from 1867 to present. In accordance with Keene's organization, perhaps we should put literary developments in their respective chronological periods, except for the period from 1867 to present which can be put into a separate thematic section.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course Keene (1984) doesn't mention Murakami, because the book was mostly completed before Murakami's literary career started! But Keene still thought it appropriate to write about "Postwar Literature" as a phenomenon of the 1940s-1970s. You are just grasping at straws trying to find sources that use the (descriptively useless) epithet "postwar" for anything after 1945. Why don't we just refer to Murakami and Kawabata as a "post-Genji writer", since his work all post-dates The Tale of Genji, arguably the seminal work of Japanese literature? Anyway, please provide the bibliographical details for "Keene" as you keep describing it, so I can go and find out exactly what he says and prove you wrong once again. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if Keene's Britannica article places Shunzei and Saigyo in the Kamakura period, then he is oversimplifying for his general audience; his thorough history of Japanese literature in 4,000 pages, which was aimed at an undergraduate and/or specialist audience, places both of them in Heian period where they belong. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keene might not have been able to judge accurately when postwar literature ended. His book was written in 1984, and it would be difficult for a book written in the 1980s to say that a distinct phase of postwar literature ended in the 1970s. The events were too new then. Keene's Encyclopedia Britannica article is more recent, and it includes Murakami in the field of "The Postwar Novel". Keene's article does put Shunzei and Saigyo in the Kamakura period, but I wouldn't say that he is oversimplifying. It's a convenient way to summarize and organize the data. We, like Keene, are writing for a "general audience". At any rate, he includes far more information on Japanese literature in that article than we could ever fit in this article. Whatever degree of simplification Keene deemed necessary, we will necessarily have to go even further to keep this Wikipedia article relatively concise. If consensus on Keene's credibility can be reached, it would allow us to possibly find a sensible solution here.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't have a "postwar literature" section, and we are not describing anyone as a "postwar writer", so let's stop this. An aside: Specialists will rightly think of the "postwar" period as something like the late 1940s until the 1970s, and that will not stop the Japan Times from calling Murakami a "titan of postwar literature", using the term in a sense that is not incorrect, but neither is it helpful, and we should not be confusing readers with a term that can be interpreted in multiple ways.  By the way, CurtisNaito, your every word on literature is only more deeply convincing me that you utterly lack the competence to handle the subject, and your involvement is only increasing the workload of those who have to clean up your mess. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was proposed that we put a subheading on "postwar literature" into the Showa period section where we could possibly incorporate Murakami and others. That suggestion is still on the table, amongst dozens of other suggestions. If we were ultimately to include a literary subsection under the Showa period section, we would need to think up a title for it. Per Keene, Orbaugh, Japan Times, and many other specialist sources, a title like postwar literature does make sense. How far we need to take this particular discussion depends on whether or not we use this organizational style. Alternatively, if we go with a separate modern literature section, or some other proposal, we might possibly avoid the need to use the word "postwar".CurtisNaito (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was proposed that we put a subheading on "postwar literature" into the Showa period—TH1980 suggested that. It was a terrible idea for reasons you don't seem interested in trying to understand. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, TH1980 might have researched the idea better than me, but after I checked the sources above I confirmed that the title was in accordance with scholarly ideas. I myself thought it would be more sensible to just put the late Showa cultural information into the Showa period section without a subheading. However, until a consensus is reached, all these ideas are still on the table for discussion.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we drop this farce? TH1980 researched nothing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we could ask him, but he seems to be very knowledgeable on the subject. If we were to adopt this approach, I guess we could try "Postwar and contemporary literature" as the title, if it really is necessary to distinguish the two.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we're going to drop this farce—TH1980 researched fuck all and is anything but "very knowledgeable on the subject". CurtisNaito, stop playing this game with TH1980 now.  TH1980 is here to do nothing more than disrupt. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I know from his edits to this and other articles that TH1980 is at least as well versed in Japanese history as the rest of the people who have edited this article are. We all need to contribute in order to improve the article. His idea for a postwar literature subheading was well supported by scholarship, but as I said, there are ways, even small ways, that we can tweak it to include also the viewpoints of other Wikipedia editors.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kawabata died before Murakami even wrote his first book, and over half of Murakami's books were published in the Heisei period. But this is quibbling over (admittedly important) details.  If the article is going to sum up literary developments, then it has to sum up literary developments and not simply name-drop.  There are a lot of names that could be dropped—let's not poison this article with a long, contextless, boring-to-read list of names.
 * As Hijiri points out (in the subsection title, anyways) thematic subsections would likely be a more elegant and helpful way to tackle developments in the arts. If the article is going to talk about Murakami there is the obvious Procrustean problem of of whether to fit him into the Shōwa or Heisei era.  The Japanese literature article has a "Modern literature" section that sums up Meiji to 1945 and then a post-1945 section.  I'm no expert on J-lit, but in my experience things tend to get summed up that way more than in terms of Taisho, Showa, and Heisei literature.  Add to the the problem I brought up earlier about Azuchi-Momoyama art (the art period and the socio-political period are considered to end 15 years apart), and I think we have a strong argument for summing up the arts in a separate subsection. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If the proposals are for either a whole separate section or a separate subsection, I think a separate subsection would be preferable. Information on art could be a subsection under Azuchi-Momoyama, and information on postwar literature could be subsections of the Showa and Heisei periods respectively. As I pointed out, a similar organizational structure is used in featured level Wikipedia history articles.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We're going to do what best serves the reader. What you suggests does a poor job at serving the reader by making the article a difficult-to-navigate mess for entirely superficial reasons. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the idea of both sections and subsections was suggested above, and I think subsections would be more suitable. We should consider emulating the format used in Spanish Wikipedia's featured level article on the History of Japan. It includes subsections like these under Muromachi Period and Edo period.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, culture (sub-)sections are/is definitely worth considering, and I agree name lists are pointless. But, description and commentary overview about cultural movements, not eg History_of_Japan & History_of_Japan??. Those are misguided.zzz (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC) + zzz (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about a subsection called "Momoyama culture" in the Azuchi Momoyama section, and a subsection called "Postwar literature" at the end of the Showa period section?TH1980 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean, "how about doing exactly what CurtisNaito said"? Because it's a terrible idea that doesn't serve the reader and makes the article difficult to follow. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because films aren't generally classified as literature, but the longer and better-sourced discussion of postwar cinema is more closely linked to the discussion of postwar literature than either is to the discussion of political and social developments of the period, and both are also awkwardly crammed into the end of the arbitrarily defined "period". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It "works" (superficially) for certain eras (like Edo) better than it does for other eras. You're not answering the question of what best serves the reader, though. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the chronological format used in the article, with literature and arts in the relevant chronological periods, is most convenient to the reader. It allows the readers to understand the flow of events more or less as they occurred. It doesn't have to be perfectly chronological, but as long as cultural trends which occurred in each broad period are put underneath that period, then it allows the reader to understand the flow of events as they occurred.
 * There is evidence that readers do find this format most convenient. As I pointed out, every single Wikipedia article on national history and every single encyclopedia article on national history uses this format. None of them include completely separate thematic sections outside of the chronological pattern. If it was true that readers find separate thematic sections more convenient, then why are we the first people to learn about it? Wouldn't someone else on or off Wikipedia have noticed this before us and tried it already?
 * Ultimately though, there are various ways to do subsections. I thought the Spanish Wikipedia article on History of Japan was fairly easy to follow, and it used an approach which I think would also work here. What do you think about the Spanish article's organization? Alternatively, where in the article would you put the subsections?CurtisNaito (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out before, History of Minnesota is a well-organized featured article on the history of a regional/political entity which uses a convenient method of organization based off broad chronological periods. I also noticed that History of Poland (1945–89), also a featured level article, includes no information on cultural or social trends. This was pointed out during the featured article review, but it was deemed irrelevant because, apparently, cultural and social trends "should be written as separate articles". If anyone wants to take out the cultural and social events from this article into a separate one, it might be a good idea.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And as I pointed out to you, that article doesn't contain confusing, jumpy chronology like any version of this article that contains cultural history that has been edited by you. And Curtis, given the very checkered history here, I think it would probably be a good idea for you to practice by avoiding the use of "based off (of)" even on talk pages. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the chronological format used in the article, with literature and arts in the relevant chronological periods, is most convenient to the reader.—even though we keep pointing out concrete issues with this organization? It's convenient to you, not to the reader.  Regardless, History of Minnesota is hardly comparable to History of Japan. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I pointed out above that there is good evidence to support my beliefs on this matter. Even so, we could consider a different organization, but where in the article do you favor putting the subsections?CurtisNaito (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you keep reasserting this, as you kept reasserting Murakami was a sci-fi author. You'll notice nobody's taking your assertions seriously. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: this—that comment was made in 2005, at a time when FA standards were nothing like they are today. Interesting, though, that the implication seems to be that you think we should remove cultural develops from History of Japan.  So, who has the balls to remove Murasaki, haiku, ukiyo-e? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My current preference is to emulate the featured level article Historia de Japón, which has subsections on culture within various chronological periods. However, I am putting out some other ideas as well. As I noted, there are even some featured level articles which accept the idea that cultural events belong only in separate articles, and if we did take that approach, it would at least resolve some of these outstanding disputes. I'm still interested in knowing where in the article you would like to include the proposed Azuchi-Momoyama art and modern literature subheadings.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've told you. Stop asking me to repeat myself over and over and over and over and over.  This behaviour is disruptive. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you said specifically where you wanted the subsections to be. You have said before that you were still conducting research, so I presume you are still thinking the matter over. Do you know when you will finish that research? If you want to postpone this discussion until your research is finished then we might be able to do that, but it might be useful to know about when you will be finished.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I would do the research, I said the research had to be done, and if you can't be bother to do it properly (and you can't) then you should stand aside until someone does. No deadlines.  It's your half-assed rushed work that's ruining this article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think my proposal will work, but otherwise we could try a request for comment.TH1980 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't your proposal; it was CurtisNaito's proposal that CT and I had already shot down. You chose to agree with CurtisNaito and disagree with me because this is what you have done in virtually every post you have made since May. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think your comments are meant to be disruptive. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to make more improvements to the article, but you reverted me the last time. What was wrong with what I added? Were you objecting to the information or the place where I put it?TH1980 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You Googled "Murakami Haruki" and inserted a chronologically confused claim about Murakami being an important postwar author. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody's buying your spiel, so quit it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A request for comment might be a good idea, but I wonder if the alternative proposals are concrete enough yet. I think I have a good idea of how the article could be structured, and if everyone else is also clear on their preferred organization, then we can move to request for comment now. However, if other users are still unclear about how the article should be organized, then they might want to draft a concrete proposal for organization before the request for comment begins. That way the commentators will have clear choices to select from.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice to put together a concrete proposal, but guess what? Doing the research takes time and effort, which you refuse to afford us (or make yourself).  I tried it with Talk:History of Japan/Social, but you hijacked it and slapped a half-assed, un-thought-through version of it into the article before a proper job of it could be done. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I say we wait for the ArbCom case to be closed and then ask for an amendment where Curtis's WP:OWN and WP:IDHT issues are appropriately addressed. His taking your half-finished proposal and unilaterally adding it to the article just so he could take credit for it was atrocious and needs to be dealt with, but with the ArbCom case it will be difficult to deal with it through ANI. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did insert a proposal for social history. However, I also put in on your draft page in case you wanted to modify it there instead of in the article itself. At any rate, a request for comment may or may not require a full draft of the proposals. If other users have a clear idea of what they want, they might be able to just explain it in brief rather than linking to a full draft.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you proposing as an RfC? The issues are broad and deep and largely revolve around your behaviour. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I though that maybe some options for art/literature were: (1.) include art/literature in separate articles, (2.) include art/literature in chronological but thematic subsections, (3.) include art/literature in one or more separate thematic sections at the bottom of the article. There are probably other ideas out there apart from those three though.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm extremely wary of how such a proposal could be worded to game the outcome. Separating out social conditions and arts arose to deal with specific concrete problems encountered in the article.  It is not a general hey-wouldn't-that-be-neat proposal.  Regardless, even if such things were not separated out, your handling of them has been atrocious.  It needs to be dealt with, and it needs to be dealt with by someone other than you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand you still haven't decided on whether or not things should be separated out. However, other users seems to have firmer ideas about how the article should be organized, and they might be able to present their ideas to a request for comment either through explaining them in brief or else by drafting them in a sandbox. However, there are other users that can do the work. I know that you didn't like my first or second proposals to include Murakami, but after that TH1980 stepped up and brought in a different version. If the ideas for what we should do are presented clearly, then we could ask TH1980 to undertake the work of realizing them.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The only behavioral issue is other users reverting without giving any reason. I proposed a request for comment so that we could find a consensus, and that's what we should do unless someone has a better idea.TH1980 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edit was disruptive, as are your comments. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside from request for comment, a request for mediation is another route we could take.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The two behavioral issues here are OWN (CurtisNaito treating all talk page comments as requests for him to make specific edits) and IDHT (TH1980 and CurtisNaito constantly ignoring when they are told that their edits are factually inaccurate, misrepresentations of sources, grammatically incorrect or otherwise problematic). Neither CT nor I have reverted edits without providing reasons; our reasons were made perfectly clear both on the talk page and in our edit summaries. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think one of the biggest issues is the need to focus on article content. If all future posts dealt only with issues directly relating to the current content and structure of the article, then it would allow us more forward in a more orderly manner. Should we do a request for comment or a request for mediation regarding the issue of article structure? If not, another proposal is needed.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't focus on content until you stop barricading the article.  I don't think you can read this and see it as a simple "content dispute".  CurtisNaito does not have the competence to deal with the subject and refuses to work with others to unbotch his mistakes or otherwise improve the article.  Whether we have separate sections for this or that is entirely beside the point—even if we don't, the article is in sorry shape.  Do we simply throw up our hands and give ownership of the article to CurtisNaito?  Because he's not loosening his grip though he refuses to put even the minimum required research into what he writes. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly want to work with others to resolve outstanding issues. This portion of the talk page does deal with the content issue of how and where to include possible subsections on literature or arts. We have a variety of proposals, but we don't have a clear idea of which one should be implemented.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And the reason for that is because CurtisNaito and TH1980 keep ignoring everything everyone else says. If we are going to focus on content, then TH1980, who is only here because CurtisNaito and I are, and hasn't contributed anything to this article as far back as August, should withdraw from the discussion, and CurtisNaito should stop making arbitrary, off-topic non-sequitur comments. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * TH1980 has been contributing a great deal. The way to move forward is to work together, not ask a user to leave. I haven't made any arbitrary comments and will not make any in the future. Instead, we should all focus on determining which proposal should be implemented. Maybe you should write a post explaining more concretely the places in the article where you think that the sections or subsections should be placed.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * TH1980 has been contributing a great deal.—Horseshit. Pure horseshit.  Defending his horseshit only incriminates you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * we should all focus on determining which proposal should be implemented—before that we have to unbotch all the flat-out errors. What proposal we go with won't mean squat if the content is a botch. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we can discuss content separately then. Maybe we should start with structure, reach a compromise, and then move on from there to some specific content proposals. Everyone has been making good contributions, but what we really need is clarity on where everyone stands on each specific content issue so that we can find common ground. Overall, I'm beginning to think that mediation might be preferable to a request for comment.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No one wants to compromise, but the end result will be a compromise. This subsection issue could be dealt with if we did a request for comment or something like that.TH1980 (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about compromise. It's about disruptive behaviour. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell though, every single book and article which actually does mention Murakami, whether specialist or not, has no objection to the term. The article "Japanese literature, or 'J-literature', in the 1990s", in World Literature Today by Yoshiko Fukushima, also introduces Murakami in an article about "Japanese postwar literature". The only source cited as proof that Murakami is not a postwar author is an older source from the 1980's which doesn't even mention him. However, if we actually do decide to request for comment, then this issue might become irrelevant, depending on what consensus is. If we aren't going to create a subheading on literature in the Showa period section, then there's no need to decide on a title.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Curtis, give it a break already. The age of the source, and whether or not it mentions Murakami, are irrelevant. If we have a source that specifically defines the term "postwar literature" as designating the literature of the period 1945 to 1950, or 1953, or 1955 (Keene 1998 [1e 1984] p964), we don't need any other source that explicitly says "Murakami was not a writer of the postwar period" -- this is a given. You do not understand the term "postwar": while you are not, strictly speaking, "wrong" to say that it "could be interpreted" as referring to the period 1945-present, and that some sources use the word off-handedly to refer to anything after 1945, when attached to "literature" it has a technical meaning as well as this more general (and technically useless) meaning. I'm done here, anyway; once the ArbCom case is closed, you can count on me or Curly Turkey or Sturmgewehr88 or Kingsindian or someone else asking for an amendment to see you severely restricted for this kind of time-wasting, soul-destroying disruption, if not simply asking on ANI that you be blocked. This is not an off-topic "personal remark" -- I am, as CT has done below, announcing my official withdrawal from this discussion, and providing my reason for doing so. This is also not an admission that you have "won" and that you may now renominate the page; if you again attempt to do so without attaining consensus, I will not be held responsible for what happens. And I frankly don't even care anymore. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any source which says that postwar literature has both a general and technical meaning, and in the article I consulted even Keene does not use the term to refer to only the occupation period. For the issue of structure though, what do you think about a request for comment over whether or not to include a separate section about cultural history at the end of the article? IJethroBT suggested it quite some time ago, and since TH1980 brought it up again I myself am beginning to think we should go ahead with it soon.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you are not aware of such a source because when I explicitly cited it above, with a page number, you ignored me. Again. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the source did not say that the expression "postwar literature" has two distinct definitions, one broad and one specific, and you can't ignore the fact that Keene himself uses the expression in reference to Murakami. As I said, it's best to consult works on Murakami for information on Murakami, not sources which have nothing to do with Murakami. At any rate, you left out an important quote from the page you cited. As the source says, "The period covered by the term 'postwar' is by no means firmly established; as Nakamura Michio pointed out, it could apply to everything written before the outbreak of still another world war."
 * However, whether this issue actually needs to addressed in this article depends on whether or not we create a subheading in the Showa period section. Whether we do that could depend on user consensus. Therefore, I'm asking you again, are we now ready to move to a request for comment concerning the structure of the article's treatment of cultural history? One way or another, we do need to find a way to determine the consensus, and it seems to me request for comment would do it.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that the source does say the term has two meanings: a general meaning and a specific, technical meaning. The former is used by Nakamura, who prefers to say "literature of the occupation" for literature of the same period that virtually everyone else calls "postwar literature". And Keene was not writing "about Murakami"; he used the word "postwar" in the broader definition, in an off-handed and casual way, once to refer to the "period" in which Murakami is writing. That is not the same thing. In another (earlier) work he wrote an entire chapter on "Postwar literature" and very clearly conformed to the narrower, more technical definition. You clearly are not interested in discussing this constructively, but you keep trying to draw us back into your trap so you can waste still more of our time, by presenting easily falsifiable lies like the above. Cut it out now. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC) (Edited: 05:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Your source said that there was a plethora of definitions of "postwar". Keene never explicitly said which definition he preferred, though his later article on Japanese literature indicated that he does classify Murakami as a "postwar" novelist. These are just the basic and straightforward facts. Virtually all scholars who refer to Murakami view him as being a postwar writer, including Keene.
 * And furthermore, why not determine the consensus on article structure through a request for comment?CurtisNaito (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the proposed restructuring is meant to deal with deep, deep problems with the article that will remain whatever way it is structured, and it's obvious you'll game the RfC while drowning it in verbiage. This article will not be salvaged until you're gone. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on collaborative editing. Everyone has to find a way to work together, and all we can do is attempt to solve one content issue at a time. In fact, there's a possible way to deal with the problem you indicated. Just get a neutral party to draw up the wording of the request for comment. IJethroBT was the first person to suggest a request for comment. Why not ask him or someone else to draw up the wording, based on what we have discussed, in order to ensure neutrality?CurtisNaito (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia is based on collaborative editing, then how come you treat all comments from other users like requests for your permission to make particular edits, and when they edit the article directly in a manner with which you disagree you revert them immediately? You are the one who is refusing to edit collaboratively here, not us. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I never reverted any edits, except when reliable sources were deleted in favor of no source. If a majority of other users want a change to be made, they can implement it themselves, but otherwise I can also implement it. The fact that even I myself have made edits to the article which I personally disagreed with, but which were in accordance with consensus, is proof of good faith. We should all show good faith by focusing in this talk page only on resolving article content issues. If no consensus can be reached on an issue like article structure, then we need to ask seriously what we, together, can do about that. I favor request for comment as a good way to deal with this controversy.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are users who are not editing constructively, but since we're all stuck here, I think that CurtisNaito is right that we need to break the deadlock. If not a request for comment, then what collaborative solution is there?TH1980 (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposed RfC will only obscure the actual piss-poor research issues. Which is obviously the point. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I said we could deal with the issues one at a time. This current thread is about article structure, and this isn't the first time a similar issue has been brought up. I don't think a request for comment can automatically solve everything, but we can at least get consensus on this particular issue. We need proposals for how we can move forward one step at a time, and request for comment seems to me to be a way to edge forward. Right now there's not a lot of other alternatives remaining.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Back on the treadmill. There will be no substantial progress until your behavioural and competence issues are dealt with. An RfC on anything but will solve nothing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A real solution needs to identify the alleged problems with the article itself and handle them one by one. If the structure of the article relative to cultural history is a real problem, then it should be possible to resolve it through Wikipedia procedures like any other. If a concrete question is put to a request for comment, then the consensus will also be concrete. A concrete consensus is something we can act upon in the form of edits to the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem has been identified: Your incompetence and disruptive behaviour. Let's get that solved, as nothing else can be solved until we do. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This thread specifically is about the issue of article structure relative to cultural history, and we shouldn't deviate too far from that. Unless there is a better way to deal concretely with the issue of article structure, then request for comment is all that's left. It was I JethroBT who initially recommended a request for comment, and though at the time I wasn't too enthusiastic about it, in retrospect maybe we should have listened to him right away and opened several requests for comment on several issues, even though not all of them presented clear choices at the time. Ultimately though, the article structure issue remained hanging, and for this issue at least we do need a concrete answer to the question of where consensus lies.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * identify the alleged problems The problems are accepted by everyone here but you, Curtis, and they have been identified to you numerous times:
 * The scope of the article is arbitrary and random, having been composed of a bare outline of the topic and your gleanings (selected at random) from a couple of "general histories". The solution to this is to take a K9 shakai textbook and include anything there that isn't already here, and if the article "feels" too long or somewhat all-over-the-place then, we should cut some of the random factoids (I will admit that my late-Heian/Kamakura literary discussion is bloated). This solution was proposed a month ago and you ignored it.
 * The sourcing hasn't been checked. I spot-checked a few of the Henshall citations and all of them were wrong (not that the material itself was wrong, but Henshall didn't say it); this means that an experienced subject expert with access to the sources will need to do a thorough source check before the article can be promoted to GA.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore the K9 suggestion. Just the opposite in fact, I said, "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?" I'm still waiting for your response on that issue. Spot checks have already been done by multiple individuals, and though you were already told by myself, TH1980, and Prhartcom that the issue was dealt with, I think it would be fine if you wanted to continue spot checking the article. However, there is consensus that the spot check issue has been sufficiently dealt with.
 * Granted, this particular thread is about article structure relative to cultural history, and in that regard I still haven't heard a reason why request for comment is not a feasible solution to determine consensus on the matter.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * TH1980 made no such check, just as he made no "thorough copyedit", so you can stop repeating these incriminating lies. Those of us who have checked the sources have found shockingly widespread misrepresentation and irresponsibly shallow research. You'd rather talk structure than your incompetence and disruptive behaviour? Well, that's too bad, because we can't deal with structure or anything else until we've dealt with you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * TH1980 mentioned that he did a spot check back during the good article review, and I know he has access to almost all of the sources. If users interpret the sources in different ways, then those can be discussed on a case by case basis. However, there have been plenty of experienced users who have already done spot checks and found no outstanding problems. In this thread though, it's hard to see what point there is in discussing anything other than the topic of the thread. The discussion will become too convoluted to follow. I did propose mediation as an alternative to request for comment, but currently I have not heard any reason why request for comment is not the best manner to resolve the issue of how to structure the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So his spot-check long predated mine, and he completely missed all the errors I later found. This means at least one of a few things: (1) he is knowledgeable of the topic but was careless; (2) he checked the sources thoroughly but did not understand that they did not support the material; (3) he is knowledgeable of the topic and checked the sources thoroughly, and noticed the errors but decided they were not important; (4) he is knowledgeable of the topic and checked the sources thoroughly, and noticed the errors but decided not to mention it or fix the article because he knew that would prove me right and prove that you misrepresented your sources; (5) he didn't check the sources -- he never made any thorough edit that indicated he had read the sources and interpreted them correctly; he just claimed he had read the sources and they were not being misrepresented, i.e., he was lying. Lastly -- how do you know he has access to "almost all of the sources"? What sources? The ones that were already cited in the article at that time? How could you know that? Are you friends in real life? Or did you contact him off-wiki? Did you invite him here to help you in your edit war? Did you invite him to the Nanking Massacre and Korean influence articles to help you in your edit wars there as well? Why did he show up on the Korean influence article four months after you were last involved and make the same edits as you suggested? Why did you immediately jump in when I challenged his edits? How much meatpuppetry has been going on here, Curtis? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I saw any cases where I agreed with your reading of the source. You interpreted the text differently, but I don't recall a case where the information in the article text was at variance with the information in the book. TH1980's interpretation of the text was presumably similar to my own. Sometimes your interpretation of sources is rather unique, but if you just consider the basic question of whether the facts presented in the book match the facts presented in the article, then there was never really much of a problem. I think TH1980 and myself look at the sources in a more straightforward and conservative manner.
 * The reason why I know that TH1980 has access to the sources is because, firstly, he explicitly mentioned having access to Henshall and other sources during the good article review, and secondly, he himself has cited these books in the article. You can surely see that the answers to your questions are much more straightforward than sinister. Off-topic questions have filled up the talk page before, but none of it actually achieved anything. We certainly have a chance to achieve real progress, but going off on so many tangents, in a thread which is supposed to be about article structure, is hardly productive. If we don't have a consensus on article structure, we would do better to discuss the relative merits of mediation versus request for comment.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not off-topic to point out how at least one of the users in this dispute is clearly not acting in good faith. This is not an assumption; it is based on evidence. He has shown up in at least six talk/noticeboard discussions where you and I were in dispute. He had a friendly interaction with you in an unrelated dispute a couple of weeks before the first such instance. In at least two of the instances you explicitly canvassed him on his talk page. The rest of us have no way of knowing you have not been canvassing him off-wiki. And even if you didn't canvas him, consensus is pretty clear that he has been hounding me (something like 60% of his edits over the past seven months have been Hijiri88-related), so he is here in bad faith either way. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We're at the point where there is no sense in dwelling on it. You have been widely accused of following me here and were sanctioned for issuing threats against me in direct relation to this article, but harping on about that isn't going to improve the article. We're on this talk page to improve the article, so let's do it. You yourself created this thread with the title "this article NEEDS thematic sections". Therefore, we can deal with this issue by discussing it, but the only problem is that I'm not sure the users here alone will arrive at a consensus. What is needed is concrete proposals for how to reach consensus on this issue, and I've made or supported several such proposals. In keeping with the theme of the thread that you yourself created, I want to know whether you have an idea of your own better than a request for comment.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Still on the attrition treadmill. Unless it's an RfC to remove you from the article, it will accomplish nothing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 16:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What if I make a request for comment? We're not getting anywhere at the moment, just going around and around in circles as we are forced into endless debate.TH1980 (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're being deliberately disruptive. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I don't understand why the above comment was initially reverted, even so I think it would be preferable if a fully neutral party opened the request for comment. Perhaps IJethroBot can be convinced to open the request, or else recommend a different solution. Requests for comment normally only include content issues, but there are surely some important content issues here which could benefit from comments to determine consensus.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

it would be preferable if a fully neutral party opened the request for comment: I strong oppose opening an RfC on any subject until CurtisNaito's behaviour and competence issues have been fully addressed. The call for an RfC will serve no other purpose than to divert from these fundamental issues. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)