Talk:History of Japan/Archive 4

Paleolithic Age Section Has Been Entirely Destroyed
The whole section regarding the Paleolithic Age in this article seems to have been entirely destroyed. What has replaced the previous text seems to be an essay regarding a particular scandal. Obviously this essay has no place on Wikipedia, in particular not when it has replaced the actual legitimate text regarding the Japanese Paleolithic Age. I beg someone to revert the section to its previous state and accordingly punish the individual that has the nerve to think that it has any right to advertise its own essay on an actual Wikipedia article, in particular when it is done at the expense of the actual legitimate text. The individual in question goes by the username: Rul1890. Thank you. --212.85.89.96 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted it to the older version of a couple days ago. Please put your comments at the and of the this page rather than at the beginning. And don't worry so much about punishing people. Rjensen (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Huntington's Clash of Civilizations
I noticed there's a map showing Huntington's "Civilizations" and how Japan is a lone, one-country civilization according to Samuel Huntington. However, Samuel Huntington's "Civilizations" theory has been widely criticized and debunked, and he shouldn't be regarded as an expert on Japanese civilization. Isn't Japan considered by many academics a part of the greater Sinosphere? I think the reference to Samuel Huntington should be removed. What are the opinions of those of you who are more knowledgeable on Japanese civiliation/history? Do you agree? Skyduster (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't heard about Huntington and my main interest is old Japanese history (Feudal and older), so I don't know much about recent history. From reading the wikipedia articles (The Clash of Civilizations and Sinosphere) it appears to me that Huntington is more concerned about the present (and future) world while "Sinosphere" depends more on the history (past) of the country. Also Huntington is a political scientist while James Matisoff is a linguist. In Japanese history there have certainly been times when Chinese influence was strong and times but also times when it was virtually absent (or at least not popular). As for the map, I don't think it should go to the top of the article next to the paleolithic. Also, the world map seems rather irrelevant for this article which is about Japanese history. If Huntington's view is considered relevant, the information of the image/map caption (possibly expanded) should go into the After the Cold War section as prose in my opinion. Maybe you could ask at the WP:HISTORY whether Huntington's view is relevant. PS: Possibly the map could go into Foreign relations of Japan or related articles!? bamse (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the map, per the above arguments, and also after reviewing the article on Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. Regardless of the merits of his claims, the map doesn't belong in this particular article. 98.28.19.62 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a problem with numerous East Asia history / culture articles. Too much modern Western "interpretation" and creep of unrelated contemporary political ideas (see the atrocious "gender" section in the Korean language article, for instance) rather than just the facts as they're known. A reader couldn't be blamed for distrusting what's presented in these East Asian history articles - not with all the distorting lenses and filters.

Article badly needs footnoting
There are huge chunks of text entirely devoid of proper sourcing. This should be corrected at once. I also saw a few grammatical errors which I'll 'fix' and note over the next few days. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmsFan   —Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

AD/BC, BCE/CE mismatch
I notice that this article uses both formats. Furthermore, isn't it a bit inappropriate to be using the BC/AD format in an article on Japanese history? I mean I can understand very well that people want to use it when discussing the history of their own historically christian countries, but it hardly seems right for the non-christian ones.

Unless people object here, I will change this after a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.3.66 (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read Manual of Style and note that this article has used BC/AD format since the beginning. It is therefore inappropriate to change it to BCE/CE style. Fg2 (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In my edits, when I come across this problem I have made it consistently BC/AD since it was the first system to be used in the article. However, I would not be opposed if consensus determined that BCE/CE was a better fit for this article. Ltwin (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality/Objectivity
The objectivity of this article, I have noticed, is rather suspect, particularly once the narrative moves into the Second World War and the Occupation, as though it was paraphrased from an old secondary school text (by old I mean pre-Social history) and probably should be updated/objectified. Additionally, there is a lack of citations throughout the Taisho/Showa and Occupation sections which adds to a lack of credibility, objectivity, and propriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafenryn (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern for quality in Wikipedia, Leafenryn. I think it would be helpful if you pointed out specifically which text you think is bad, and say how you think it is lacking, and maybe how it could be improved.  No one owns the text, so don't worry about hurting anyone's feelings by saying, "this part is poor quality".  Without specific mention of what part(s) you feel is biased, it's hard for other editors to understand your criticism, and work to improve the text.  Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

6 paragraphs on the US occupation, 2 paragraphs on Japanese fascism???andycjp (talk)

Opening sentences unclear
The very first lines of this article leave me scratching my head. What exactly is the contrast between paleolithic inhabitation and the fact that there is a first century historical text? There is no clear connection between these, let alone contrast. The word "however" implies a contrast. Paleolithic peoples could not write history, so there is no connection there; furthermore, is it impossible that the information contained in that text might mention such paleolithic inhabitants? Unlikely, but technically possible. Again, therefore, there is no clear connection between the statement of the first sentence and that of the second. This section would seem ripe for rewriting.

In addition, what is meant by brief information "of" Twenty-Four Histories? Do you mean IN Twenty Four Histories? In other words, there is information in that text. "Of" that text implies that there is some evidence that such a text exists--but this is clearly not the meaning that is intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.26.190.18 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Structure in Chichibu
It may be worth mentioning the structure in Chichibu which was dated to 500,000 years ago. Though it is likely that it was built by an ancestor that's classified as a homo-erectus rather than homo-sapien. There's a BBC article about it. Samcol1492 (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it is a hoax. See Japanese paleolithic hoax. Although Chichibu is not mentioned in the article. -- Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. Samcol1492 (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Man'yōshū misdated!
Someone should correct the mistake about the Man'yōshū allegedly being written in the Heian-Period, while it was in fact already completed in 759 A.D. in the middle of Nara-Period (the detailed article about it states that accurate)! I lack sufficient english skill to change it myself, but anyone who doesn't could edit that in a matter of seconds! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.113.80.226 (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand, the oldest poem in the Man'yōshū dates to 759, while the work itself was compiled some time after that date. Page 60 of this reference gives a date of "ca. 785" which would be just in the Heian period (assuming the 710-784 definition for the Nara period). In any case I agree with you that mentioning the Man'yōshū in the Heian period section is a bit misleading/wrong. bamse (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Period dates are inconsitent
In the table (top right) the Paleolithic is listed as 35,000–14,000 BC. In the section on Japanese prehistory the dates given for the Japanese Paleolithic age are 100,000 to 30,000 B.C. Then this section says, "This timeline corresponds with the beginning of the Mesolithic Jōmon period. As the Jōmon period has a start date of around 35,000 B.C, it is most generally accepted." The table (top right) lists the Jōmon period as 14,000–300 BC. Then the section on Ancient Japan then gives a range of "14,000 BC until 500 BC." Perhaps a clear source for these dates could be found and if there is no scholarly consensus for the date range, then perhaps the source for each proposed date range could be discussed in the article text. Stormcellardoor (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding, after reading a bit about early Japanese history recently.... Start date of Japanese Paleolithic is most often quoted as somewhere in the 30,000s BC and after 38,000 BC (or more likely after 35,000 BC). Some archaeologists (minority) claim a start as early as 50,000 BC. "100,000 BC" as in the prehistory section I haven't seen anywhere and is possibly related to the Japanese paleolithic hoax. The transition from paleolithic to Jomon is defined by the use (and creation) of pottery. This was a gradual process thought to have happened over a period from 14,000 to 8000 BC. The oldest pottery (sherds) are from about 14,000 BC but it took a while until pottery spread over the archipelago. Also "cord-marked pottery" (literal meaning of "Jomon") appeared around 8000 BC, so taking the literal meaning of Jomon, the start would be 8000 BC. However it is probably more natural to put the start at the appearance of any kind of pottery since this likely had a greater influence than the appearance of a new type of pattern. Depending on definition I've seen start dates like 14,000 BC (e.g. Habu, "Ancient Jomon of Japan"), 10,500 BC (e.g. Cambridge History of Japan) and others in that range. As for the Yayoi period (defined by wet-rice cultivation and metal use), it is traditionally dated to 300 BC to 300 AD, but due to new evidence this is likely shifted to something like 500/400 BC to 250 AD.
 * Really, all of those early dates are approximate and new finds or new dating techniques (calibrated radiocarbon dating) can change those dates considerably. Another issue is that different authors might use different definitions and that dates depend on the location in Japan: most technology coming from mainland China/Korea arrived via Kyushu and spread from there, so periods start earlier in Kyushu than in central Honshu. The first fixed date is 710 (start of Nara period). bamse (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to use references from List of National Treasures of Japan (archaeological materials). bamse (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In case somebody is interested, I started to collect a few period start/end dates in User:Bamse/Japanese historical periods together with references. bamse (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Social history
The coverage of social and economic history is pretty thin. I added some text on Edo period that [I wrote for Citizendium in 2008].Rjensen (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2012
the first external link is broken

84.82.227.211 (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks you for pointing that out. I have removed it and will research how it was added in order to warn the user against further link spam. Regards, Celestra (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Unit 731
Why isnt Unit 731 and similar incidents mentioned in this historic article? It find it quite shocking. --Jonipoon 14:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 June 2012
"centralized its power" you can find this by doing a word search. It should be "centralize its power".

92.136.53.205 (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Animal law
I am looking for help of animal laws in ancient Japan. I am aware Japan had some form of animal rights law in the history, but I do not know the exactly name. If anyone knows it, can you please add to the animal rights article or point it out in the talk page of animal rights? One act that I am aware was released during 15th century, it was based on Buddhist compassion to animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSZvH7N5n8 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Japanese castes at different points in their history
Could we provide links to Japanese castes under the ritsuryō in the appropriate historical section. I don't know whether it should be at the end of the Asuka Period or near the beginning of the Nara.

Similarly we link to Burakumin under the Muromachi Period] and find other places where articles about significant historical Japanese social and political castes can be put into context within the overall history. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by JimD (talk • contribs) 21:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Castes at Different Points in Japanese History
It looks like Japan had markedly different caste systems during different periods in its history.

Could we provide links to Japanese castes under the ritsuryō in the appropriate historical section? I don't know whether it should be at the end of the Asuka Period or near the beginning of the Nara.

Similarly we should link to Burakumin under the [[History_of_Japan#Muromachi_period]|Muromachi Period] and find other places where articles about significant historical Japanese social and political castes can be put into context within the overall history.

Naturally I'd prefer to have these edits made by someone with some expertise on the subject ... to ensure that the framing and context are valid. JimD (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

first paragraph opening
Why has the first paragraph of the lead section been deleted? 86.56.64.236 (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing the problem. I restored the first paragraph which somehow got garbled. Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the IP comment above regarding the first paragraph, does anyone think it might be overlinked? For example, these chunks of links added seems kind of overkill, doesn't it? Keiiri (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I dont think thats overkill. Those are all central and important periods/key words (warring states, unification, tokugawa, invasion manchuria, pearl harbor, atomic boming, surrender, occupation, new constitution). Overkill would be linking every second noun or something like that, or linking words that have no direct connection to the article or japanese history (navy, august, victory, economy, engineering, etc.). 141.76.23.127 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, you're right. Just thought I'd ask. Keiiri (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2015
In the second paragraph of the lead section, the following sentence:

After a long period of civil war Tokugawa Ieyasu completed the unification of Japan and was appointed shogun by the emperor in 1603.

should have a comma inserted after the intial clause (i.e. between period of civil war and Tokugawa Ieyasu) and thus should read:

After a long period of civil war, Tokugawa Ieyasu completed the unification of Japan and was appointed shogun by the emperor in 1603.

Oslyman (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Too long
I think this article is technically too long in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia policy states that articles should be between "4,000 to 10,000 words" of "readable prose", but this article is almost 15,000 words. I'm aware that this is a huge subject to cover, but there's no doubt that details from this article can be easily spun off into its thousands of sub-articles so there is really no reason why we should exceed 10,000 words here. Incidentally, the article History of Korea is only 7,200 words long and it explicitly has a message on its talk page warning users that it is "already too long".

Though it will he challenging to determine what material should be kept and what should be left out, I think there are certainly a couple of clear areas where the current article lacks focus. For instance, "the rise of the progressive movement" was a fleeting phenomenon that only lasted about five years and shouldn't have a whole section to itself. I also don't think that "historiography of modern Japan" serves much purpose, as it doesn't deal with a subject normally discussed in general overviews of Japanese history.

Apart from the readable prose, I think we could also stand to delete the periodization tacked onto the end of the article which is almost identical to the periodization already used in the body of the article and is therefore redundant. After that, the current article includes a lengthy explanation of regnal years even though the majority of the article does not mention regnal years and is not organized on the basis of them. This material can be safely cut and instead discussed in other articles.

I propose that the article try to focus on only the most pertinent events based on books which, like this article, attempt to present a broad overview of the most significant trends and events of Japanese history. This article could use a full re-write anyway, since apparently the current version "incorporates public domain material from websites or documents", which is probably not the ideal situation.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Asuka period dates (538-710)?
The article currently states that the Asuka period began "in 538 with the introduction from the Korean state of Baekje of the new religion of Buddhism, which would henceforth coexist with Japan's native forms of religious practice known as Shinto". This is not "wrong", per se, but it is also the earliest of the possible start dates given in the sources I have checked, which all tend to prefer something in or around the 592 start date. Furthermore, no source is actually cited to state that the Asuka period ended in 710, merely that that is the start of the next period in the list, Nara.

Examining what other encyclopedias give as the dates for the Asuka period we see:
 * "推古朝 (593～629) を中心とするその前後の時代. 時代区分の範囲については諸説ある. …もともと白鳳時代，天平時代 (→奈良時代 ) とともに美術史上の時代区分で，仏教公伝 (538，一説には 552) から大化改新 (645) までの約1世紀間，都が多くこの地方にあり，仏教およびこれに伴う大陸文化がこの地方を中心に開花したことによる. " (Britannica Kokusai Dai-Hyakkajiten)
 * "6世紀末から7世紀にかけて、飛鳥地方を都とした推古朝を中心とする時代. " (Digital Daijisen)
 * "７世紀前半，推古(すいこ)朝を中心とする時代. 推古天皇が即位した592年から710年平城京遷都までをさした時代区分. 美術史などでは７世紀後半以後を分立させて白鳳(はくほう)時代と呼ぶ. " (Hyakkajiten MyPaedia)
 * "政権の所在地による日本史の時代区分法によって，推古天皇が豊浦宮で即位した592年から，710年(和銅3)の平城京遷都までの100余年間をいう. " (Sekai Dai-Hyakkajiten)
 * "「飛鳥時代」は元来、日本美術史上の時代区分であるが、これを政治史上の時代区分として用いることも多い. 一般には推古(すいこ)朝（593～628）前後から大化改新（645）までとするのが普通であるが、これをさらに天智(てんじ)朝（662～671）ごろまで下げて考える説も美術史家の間には行われており、さらに時代を下げて平城遷都（710）までを飛鳥時代とみる説もある. ここでは、上記のうちもっとも広義の飛鳥時代を取り上げることとする. この時期の皇居の所在地をみると、推古天皇の豊浦宮(とゆらのみや)、小墾田宮(おはりだのみや)、舒明天皇(じょめいてんのう)の岡本宮(おかもとのみや)、皇極天皇(こうぎょくてんのう)の板蓋宮(いたぶきのみや)、斉明天皇(さいめいてんのう)の川原宮(かわらのみや)、天武天皇(てんむてんのう)の浄御原宮(きよみはらのみや)などはいずれも飛鳥の地にあり、天武のあとの持統、文武(もんむ)2天皇の藤原京も飛鳥の域内ないしその北方に隣接して存在し、この間、皇居が飛鳥以外に移ったのは、わずかに孝徳(こうとく)朝の10年足らず（難波(なにわ)）と天智朝の5年余り（大津）の計15年ほどで、この時代の政治、文化の中心はおおむね飛鳥にあったので、この時期を飛鳥時代とよぶ.
 * "広義の飛鳥時代は、したがって仏教伝来（538）以降、平城遷都以前と言い換えることもできるが、まさに仏教伝来に伴う新文化の成立発展こそが、この時代を前代の古墳時代と区別する指標である. 古墳は8世紀初頭まで営造されるが、飛鳥時代は古墳時代の後期および終末期に相当するという意味で、古墳文化の終焉(しゅうえん)を促した時代だともいえる.
 * "また大化改新以後は政治、経済、社会の各方面に大きな変革が試みられ、それに伴って時代の様相も大きく変化したので、この時代を大化改新を境に前後の2期に分けて考えるのが便利であろう.
 * "総じて広義の飛鳥時代は、大和国家(やまとこっか)が豪族の連合政権的性格を脱して統一的中央集権国家、天皇制律令(りつりょう)国家へと飛躍するための模索と、試行錯誤と、そして努力の、積み重ねの時代ということになるであろう. " (Nihon Dai-Hyakka Zensho Nipponica)

None of the above actually give "538-710", and many of them specifically state that the earlier dates tend to be used more in art history, while the later dates are used in political history (which appears to be the primary concern of this article). Art historians apparently don't say the Asuka period lasted until 710, and political historians don't say it started as early as 538. Art historians who say the Asuka period began in the early-mid 6th century apparently distinguish the Asuka period from the latter half of the 7th century, which they call the "Hakuhō period", a term which is not mentioned anywhere in the present article. It is unlikely a source can be found that specifically states that "the Kofun period lasted from c250 to 538, then came the Asuka period which lasted from 538 to 710, then came the Nara period which last from 710...", which our article currently does.

I'm not saying the dates need to be changed (that would get messy), but I think we should at least mention in the article that the dates are not fixed, and are somewhat arbitrary, and mention which branches of scholarship use which 時代区分 methods, giving wikilinks (at least) to all the alternative systems. Another possibility would be to remove the parenthetical dates given in the section header, since this lends undue weight to an era system that it seems very few scholars actually use.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It might be better to leave the discussion of this issue to the Asuka period article. Every book I read gave a slightly different periodization, and even the Asuka period itself is often combined with the Kofun period into so-called Yamato period. The Kodansha Encyclopedia notes that the beginning of the Asuka period is commonly dated to the introduction of Buddhism which occurred in either 538 or 552. However, the date of the introduction of Buddhism is itself a complicated issue which scholars continue to be divided on. If we are going to explain this controversy in the article, a footnote would probably be sufficient.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, technically you could just leave out the Asuka period and call the period c250 to 710 the "Kofun period". But I'd be interested in what perspective Kodansha's article takes on the Asuka period -- is it about art history like the other encyclopedia articles say it probably should be if it dates the beginning that early? Also "controversy" is really the wrong word for this ;) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the period from c250 to 710 is called the Yamato period, not the Kofun period. If necessary we could combine Asuka and Kofun into a new section entitled "Yamato period". The Kodansha Encyclopedia refers to the Asuka period as both a political and cultural period which ended in 710. The start date, by contrast, is uncertain, though one start date commonly cited in various entries of the encyclopedia is 538/552. These dates, the possible dates of the introduction of Buddhism into Japan, are certainly controversial and a number of scholars have weighed in over the years on one side or the other. The Kodansha Encyclopedia also uses the term Hakuho period to refer to purely culture/art-related themes. The encyclopedia says (in the entry on periodization), "Asuka is used in this encyclopedia to refer to the period from the latter part of the 6th century to 710 as a subdivision of the Yamato period. Both it and the Hakuho appear in the chart; however, the latter is used in this encyclopedia only as a broad cultural or art term..."
 * Also, concerning recent reversions, the sentence in question combines information from both Henshall and Diamond, so both sources are required. If another source can be found with the same information as Diamond, I suppose I would be willing to replace it, but so far a majority of users commenting do not support the alleged unreliability of Diamond's article and therefore I agree with TH1980 that the tags are unnecessary and against general consensus from the talk page.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Does Kodansha say specifically that the Asuka period lasted from 538 to 710? If so, then I have no problem with leaving the section as is, although I wonder why you wouldn't say you had a source for this exact statement when I first asked for it. I also don't think we should be arbitrarily selecting different periodization methods from different sources: if Kodansha mentions the Hakuhō period (please check the index and report back) or states that the Kofun period lasted to the seventh century and overlapped with the Asuka period (most sources apparently say this), then we can't, say, pick its start date for the Asuka period and another source's end date for the same, unless we include an explanation of how the periodization is essentially arbitrary and differs by source (I personally am not averse to this latter option).
 * (Also, if you take "Kofun period" to mean "the period when Kofun were constructed", then it would be until the early eighth century.)
 * As an aside, I opened a new talk section to discuss a new and unrelated problem. Please keep discussion of the other problem to the appropriate talk page section.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Kodansha Encyclopedia refers to the Asuka period as a subunit of the Yamato period. This is the same source I have been referring to from the beginning. The end date is uniformly regarded as being 710, though a uniform start date is not given. 538/552 is one of the most common, though a few other dates are mentioned including 645, the date of the Taika Reform. For Japanese history as a whole, naturally both the Kodansha Encyclopedia and other history books do cite various other ways of organizing things.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "The end date is uniformly regarded as being 710"? The latter part of your post implies you are talking about just Kodansha, but if that is so then the clause immediately following contradicts what you said earlier about Kodansha being the source for the 538 date. If you were talking about all the sources you have checked uniformly giving the end date as 710, then what about all the sources I quoted above that give the end date as 645? Also, you didn't answer my question: does Kodansha's index indicate that the "Hakuhō period"? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I have said right from the very beginning, Kodansha states clearly that the Asuka period ended in 710. By contrast, Kodansha does give a variety of start dates, including the ones I already listed above. As I already quoted above, Kodansha mentions both the Asuka period and the Hakuho period, but the Hakuho period refers only to cultural events, whereas the term "Asuka period" is used more broadly.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first comment here read as follows:
 * "The Kodansha Encyclopedia notes that the beginning of the Asuka period is commonly dated to the introduction of Buddhism which occurred in either 538 or 552. However, the date of the introduction of Buddhism is itself a complicated issue which scholars continue to be divided on. If we are going to explain this controversy in the article, a footnote would probably be sufficient."
 * How can the above possibly be interpreted to mean "Kodansha states clearly that the Asuka period ended in 710"? What you presumably mean is that, when asked specifically, you gave another piece of apparently contradictory information (accompanied by a quote). And an off-topic comment apparently added to get under my skin.
 * And what you are also trying to say is that you don't have a single source that says Asuka was "from 538 to 710"? Because it would seem that all of the sources I quote above, as well as the one you quote, say that it's rare outside of the context of art history where a later "Hakuhō period" is included starting around 645 for the Asuka period to be taken to have begun in 538, no? Sorry if I'm misreading something here, but would it not make more sense to do what the majority of RSs do? I'm not saying no RSs exist that give Asuka as being 538-710 and don't mention Hakuhō (a quick Googling indicate that such do exist in some mass), but wouldn't mentioning this fact improve the article?
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I said a while ago, "The Kodansha Encyclopedia refers to the Asuka period as both a political and cultural period which ended in 710. The start date, by contrast, is uncertain..." My opinion is that we should either leave the article as it is, using Kodansha's end date and possibly a 538/552 start date, or else we combine the Kofun and Asuka periods into the Yamato period.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I know you did. Having been confused by your conflicting statements, I went back and read over everything you said carefully. I then posted the diffs in the section above. The fact is that the article currently cites Kodansha as saying that the Asuka period began in 538 or 552, not that it ended in 710, and your first response to me here said in no uncertain terms that Kodansha stated that the Asuka period began in 538 or 552. Also, "Yamato period" would make the problem worse by citing an even more obscure term than "Hakuhō period" -- only two of the encyclopedias/dictionaries have entries on it; one of them defines it as being the same as the "Kofun period" and ending in the late sixth century, the other defining it as ending when the Ritsuryō state was put in place, i.e. around 645. I say merge nothing into nowhere: state in the article which sources give which periodizations, and the reasoning for such, and if it becomes unwieldy as a result we can summarize it later. Writing a happy story of "what happened" in "the past" is supposed to be beneath Wikipedia; we should be discussing the historiography of Japan in all of its complexity. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I never made any conflicting statements. If we include more details, I advocate we put most of it in a footnote. I think there are better areas where this article could be expanded outside of a lengthy discussion on the dozens of different ways various scholars periodize Japanese history. There is no common way in which historians periodize this era. The Kofun/Asuka split is a familiar method, with or without inclusion of the Hakuho period, and the Yamato period is another familiar designation, but plenty of other methods are also used. In some ways, this particular issue is not related to "what happened" in "the past", because this periodization was created recently and is by nature somewhat arbitrary. The events that occurred were recognized as they occurred, but periodization itself was invented by historians hundreds of years after the fact. In accordance with Wikipedia convention, we need to split up the article somehow, but in fact periodization is part of the recent Historiography of Japan, not the History of Japan. Right now I'm leaning towards maintaining the basic Kofun(250-538)-Asuka(538-710) split while including a footnote explaining a variety of other possible start dates to the Asuka period.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't think replying to the question "Does Kodansha say the Asuka period ended in 710?" with "It says it began in 538 or 552", and then later saying "It says in no uncertain terms that it ended in 710, but is ambivalent about when it began" is not making conflicting statements, then ... we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 * How about we agree to the same thing on both the other issues, like, say, you let me, Sturmgewehr88, Nishidani, Vivexdino and Phoenix7777 remove the Diamond references, and I let you not discuss the different periodization methods in the main article?
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also: I'm not going to go back and check the history, but were you responsible for this fustercluck of errors? If so, can you at least admit that you included factually inaccurate information in the article based on either your own misreading of a scholarly, secondary source, or your blindly taking a single tertiary source that hadn't examined all the data properly at its word? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The date attached to the Manyoshu was the only thing you changed there. Henshall's book says, "These were followed shortly afterwards by the first poetry anthologies, the Kaifuso (Fond Recollections of Poetry) of 751 and the Manyoshu (Collection of Ten Thousand Leaves) of 759."CurtisNaito (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. You referred to a collection of Chinese poems as a collection of Japanese poems. That's like you composing poems in French but Wikipedia describing them as being "English" because you are .. American? (Sorry if I'm wrong about your nationality.) Your quote proves that you inserted this error into the text, and did not base it on anything Henshall wrote. The precise date of the latter anthology is of course a subject of debate (with 759 being the earliest possible date, but several decades before anyone else appears to have noticed it), and Henshall's oversimplification was acceptable, but you should have checked another source. For both of these problems, you used a single, likely tertiary, source uncritically, something I and others criticized you for on the Korean influence on Japanese culture article. You also put the words "Lady Shikibu Murasaki" into Henshall's mouth, when he himself refers to her by her canonical name; no one calls her "Shikibu Murasaki". Admittedly, in that case you took an earlier Wikipedian's sentence and tagged a source onto it willy-nilly (removing the actual source in the process), but still you should have checked that Henshall supported what you were attaching him to. I don't know if Henshall gave the precise "1004" date (given your mangling of Henshall in the quote you provided above, it seems likely you have misinterpreted him again), but your edit nonetheless inserted misleading information into the encyclopedia. In all of these cases you have inserted errors into the article, and in the above reply to me directly admitted to mangling Henshall's words to insert your own (inaccurate) OR into the article. This work is not GA standard. Every time I look for something in the article that I know about, I find it in error; what about the bits I don't know about -- am I expected to just assume that you deliberately mangled only those aspects of Japanese history that interest me in order to fool me? That would just be silly, would it not? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I could have written "Japanese-made" poetry, but there was nothing wrong with the article as it was, and the date was in accordance with what Henshall wrote. So far, you have failed to find a single error. Some of the clarifications you have added to the article are useful, but your insistence that I misread sources or inserted errors into the text is supported by nothing. I don't mind if you have something useful to add to the article, but don't use the talk page to make baseless personal attacks on me.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. You made the same mistake as so many other laymen writing about the subject have made, like Elliot Samuels for instance. You had a source that said "poetry anthologies Kaifuso and Man'yoshu" and changed it to say something (incorrect) that it didn't say. It is not a baseless personal attack to say that you have inserted blatant errors into the article based on your own misreading of the sources. This kind of thing just keeps happening -- I'd bet that every single reference to Japanese literature in your rewrite of the article contains an obvious error or misreading of a source that I could point out, and the places that aren't about literature I could point out with some careful analysis as well. I intend to put this article up for GA reassessment in light of the blatant misrepresentation of sources leading to factual errors in the near future -- GAs should be verifiable and contain no original reasearch; this article, at least as written by you, is jam-packed with unverifiable, factually inaccurate original research. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there's much point in you doing that. You haven't managed to prove a single instance of misuse of sources or factual errors. If you think you can refine the article, you can go ahead and do that, but none of the quibbles you have raised so far would possibly justify downgrading the article. At any rate, the objective of a reassessment should be to try to maintain the article at good level status. Reassessing it with such a vindictive goal of downgrading it based on these flimsy grounds is not going to succeed and would just be a waste of time.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't managed to prove a single instance of misuse of sources or factual errors.
 * You:
 * misquoted Henshall to make him say the same thing as Diamond with regard to a "Yayoi invasion";
 * misquoted Henshall to say the Kaifuso was a collection of Japanese poetry, a laughable factual error that Henshall doesn't make, and cross-checking with other Wikipedia articles would have made you suspicious and told you you should do a bit more research;
 * misquoted Henshall as refering to the author of Genji as "the Lady Shikibu Murasaki", when he correctly identifies her as "Murasaki Shikibu";
 * blindly inserted Henshall's rough estimates on the dates of several ancient literary works with no date given and few early external references, without checking against other sources.
 * User:Hijiri88 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, you took only five minutes to read my complex comment and type a 100+ word response. Please read my posts before responding, and address my points truthfully and completely. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Henshall said that Japan was "effectively invaded" and his estimates for the dates of Japanese literary works were perfectly valid. The fact that the previous editors of this Wikipedia article opted to call her Lady Shikibu Murasaki is so trivial of an "error" that you can have little doubt that other users will find it laughable that you would call for good article reassessment on such grounds. I notice you had no intention of correcting this for many years until I started editing the article and then for some reason waited for that moment to freak out about it. And yet, these minor clarifications, which are barely improvements over the previous version of the article, if improvements at all, appear to be all your case has going for it. Like I said, you would wasting your time in reassessing this article. It is not going to be downgraded.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (EDIT CONFLICT) At any rate, the objective of a reassessment should be to try to maintain the article at good level status. Reassessing it with such a vindictive goal of downgrading it based on these flimsy grounds is not going to succeed and would just be a waste of time. There's nothing vindictive whatsoever about thinking the article should be downgraded: the article was not GA-status before your edit, your edit made the article worse by radically interpreting a small number of (occasionally unreliable) sources, thus forcing other users to go through the article sentence by sentence, trying to figure out what the sources actually say. The work of bringing the article to GA-standard now is harder than it was before August 15. It was pushed through the GA process extremely quickly, with apparently no oversight on the massive sourcing problems, approved for GA status by a friend of yours with no history of editing Japanese history articles (you returned the favour, of course). You immediately put the link on your page for bragging purposes, and shortly thereafter requested I be indefinitely TBANned from Japanese history because I have thus far failed to engage in this kind of back-handed, self-promoting quest for bragging rights. You made the article worse, forced it through the GA process in a back-handed way, immediately started bragging about your "achievement", and shortly thereafter used it to attack other users who are actually producing quality work in this area based on the best sources available. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you actually bring this to reassessment, comments like the above will demonstrate that you are too focused on using this article as an opportunity to rant instead of editing productively. This article was upgraded to good article status by an experienced reviewer who assessed its quality in an objective manner. All your baseless aspersions here are not useful to improving the article and trying to have the article reassessed for no good reason would similarly be a waste of time.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection
Maybe it would be a good idea to put this article under protection again? There seems to be some kind of edit-war going on? 158.181.80.83 (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. If there is an edit war, then it is a slow improvement of the article by multiple editors, and about one in four of those edits are opposed and reverted by one user. There was an edit war three days ago, but that ended .. three days ago. Protecting the page now would not do any good, IMO. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"modern history of Japan"
The opening sentence of the lead links "modern history of Japan" to Heisei period—that would be an WP:EGG. The "modern history of Japan as a nation state" definitely didn't start in 1989. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be happening a lot: "centralized government" links "centralized" to Taihō Code and "government" to Daijō-kan; "emperor" links to Emperor Go-Yōzei; "reside" links to Kyoto Imperial Palace; "Democracy" links to Taishō period. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The majority of those links were added quite recently by user 86.56.79.167.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm copyediting what I can, but I think a lot more work should be done on the lead. No mention of the Kamakura or Ashikaga shogunates! Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

BC vs BCE
There's a mix of styles—which should we go with? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I'm neutral on this issue, at the time the article passed good article review, it used BC exclusively. Though the sources cited in the article vary on which they used, at the time of the good article review a significant majority of the sources cited, including the book by Kenneth Henshall, used BC.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So someone added a bunch of BCEs after the GAN? Okay, then I guess they should go back. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we get a quote from Henshall 228?
Pretty much every single place where your rewrite cites a page of Henshall I have access to in the free GBooks preview, it misquotes him. I am therefore extremely skeptical when you suddenly claim "Oh, I just forgot to give the correct page number: it's actually on this page that you can't see without ordering a copy of the book on Amazon.co.jp".

Can you give the quotations from Henshall 228 that verify the following: "Japan was also heavily influenced by Koreans from the Three Kingdoms of Korea, who transferred to Japan important skills in metallurgy, government administration and construction, as well as the first use of writing in Japan." "Shōtoku authored the Seventeen-article constitution, a Confucian-inspired code of conduct for officials and citizens, and also attempting to introduce a merit-based civil service called the 'cap and rank system'. In a letter he wrote to the Emperor of China in 607, Shōtoku refers to his country as 'the land of the rising sun', and by 670 a variant of this expression, 'Nihon', would be established as the official name of the Japanese nation which has persisted to this day." ?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Also: Isn't a single citation that includes such a random selection of pages from all over the book almost useless for WP:V purposes? I'm not going to ask you to do what I usually do and cite the exact page number for every single sentence you write, but the ref named "asuka" is laughably broad. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * On page 16-17 Henshall says, "there was certainly a strong and generally amicable link between ancient Yamato Japan and the Korean kingdoms of Paekche (Baekje) and Koguryo (Goguryeo), including among the aristocratic class and indeed the ruling class... The Soga were of Korean descent, like many of the aristocratic families of the day, and probably felt more of an affinity with Buddhism than did native Japanese. It was from Korea – specifically priest-scholars from the Korean kingdom of Paekche – that Buddhism was introduced in the mid-sixth century. Its adoption was greatly aided by the practice of writing, which had also been introduced by scholars from Paekche a century earlier..." On page 228 he says "Although the scholars were Korean they wrote in Chinese... it is Paekche scholars of the fifth century who are credited with its systematic introduction." The rest of the details are mentioned in Totman's book.


 * On pages 18-21 he says, "Among other things he was responsible for re-establishing missions to a now reunified China, and for introducing the Chinese-style ‘cap rank’ system in which, as the name suggests, the rank of officials was indicated by their hat. Shotoku is also credited with drawing up the so-called Seventeen Article Constitution of 604, which was intended to strengthen central government. It had a strong Chinese flavour, particularly in its Confucianism... The modern name Nippon or Nihon (Source of the Sun) was also coming into use by the end of the period." The rest of the specifics come from Rhee and Weston.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So, what your saying is you misquoted the source as saying
 * "Japan was also heavily influenced by Koreans from the Three Kingdoms of Korea, who transferred to Japan important skills in metallurgy, government administration and construction, as well as the first use of writing in Japan."
 * when in fact it said
 * "Japan was also influenced to a degree by immigrants from Goguryeo and, moreso, Baekje, but not Silla [See page 18!], who introduced writing in the fifth century and Buddhism in the sixth."
 * and you misquoted the source as saying
 * "Shōtoku authored the Seventeen-article constitution, a Confucian-inspired code of conduct for officials and citizens, and also attempting to introduce a merit-based civil service called the 'cap and rank system'. In a letter he wrote to the Emperor of China in 607, Shōtoku refers to his country as 'the land of the rising sun', and by 670 a variant of this expression, 'Nihon', would be established as the official name of the Japanese nation which has persisted to this day."
 * when in fact it said
 * "Shōtoku allegedly [This word is important: it is a disputed, and highly dubious, tradition, as Henshall rightly notes.] authored the Seventeen-article constitution, in order to strengthen the central government, and he introduced an in-theory merit-based civil service infrastructure called the 'cap and rank system'. The name 'Nihon' was coming into use by the end of this period."
 * are you not?
 * Also, how does adding page 228 to the citation affect this at all? Why are you not quoting the page I asked you to quote? I already read the quotes you just provided before I tagged the citations as failing verification, because ... well, they do.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The text in the article was an accurate summarization of that information, but as I said, I am citing Henshall, Rhee, Weston, and Totman here. You only asked for the Henshall quotes.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Curtis, are you familiar with the "Seven Last Words from the Cross"? If the answer is yes: did you know that the seven last words don't actually appear anywhere in the Bible? Please watch this lecture. You can't mush sources that say different, sometimes conflicting, things together and pretend they all say the same thing. When I noticed a place where Keene contradicted Henshall directly, I removed the Henshall citation and replaced it with a more appropriate citation of Donald Keene (a specialist in the area in question): I did not change the text and add the Keene citation but leave the Henshall citation there.
 * Also, you still haven't answered my question: what the hell is on page 228 that is so important?
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- I didn't mean to attack anyone's religious beliefs. What I meant was that in 21st century historiography, and on Wikipedia, you are not generally supposed to mush sources together. If you or anyone else wants to do so in your church on your own time you are free to do so. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The most pertinent information was in the previous page range, so I don't know why you put in failed verification tags in the first place. However, page 228 provides additional information about the role of Koreans in introducing written language to Japan. However, the sources were not contradictory, but rather, complementary. When writing a general history, summarization of the sources is necessary, like it or not. Each sentence in this article is a condensation of many pages of text from the cited sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Curtis, please refrain from taking claims that appear in one source and attribute it to another. That is WP:SYNTH. If you can't find a single source that can be attached to any single sentence, chances are it is because you yourself have drawn an incorrect conclusion from consulting multiple sources that say different things. As I demonstrated above, your edits misquoted Henshall on these points by mushing him together with Rhee, etc. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not synthesis. In fact, there is no other way an article like this could be written on Wikipedia. When multiple sources include various complimentary details about a single period of Japanese history, there is nothing wrong with including information from both sources and citing both sources at the end of the sentence. An article like this requires substantial summarization of information. One could partially remedy this by citing sources mid-sentence, but it's common during good and featured article reviews that the reviewers ask all citations to be moved to the end of the sentence for better readability. You still haven't found any instance of me misquoting Henshall or engaging in any inappropriate synthesis.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Um
Another dumb sentence. "The rich ecosystem of the islands fostered human development following the last ice age around 12,000 BC." Japan's ecological system was highly diversified, and Jomon sites are not uniformly 'fostered' by it uniformly over the whole landscape. It is also a rather pointless statement. Man lived in the most inhospitable environments, and singling out a distintctive ecology as the reason for the 'human development' of earlier dwellers is.. Oh Jeezus, why does one have to explain the obvious here?Nishidani (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the lead is a summary and naturally doesn't go into the nuances and details. Jared Diamond noted in his article In Search of Japanese Roots, "Around 13,000 years ago, as glaciers melted rapidly all over the world, conditions in Japan changed spectacularly for the better, as far as humans were concerned. Temperature, rainfall, and humidity all increased, raising plant productivity to present high levels. Deciduous leafy forests full of nut trees, which had been confined to southern Japan during the ice ages, expanded northward at the expense of coniferous forest, thereby replacing a forest type that had been rather sterile for humans with a much more productive one. The rise in sea level severed the land bridges, converted Japan from a piece of the Asian continent to a big archipelago, turned what had been a plain into rich shallow seas, and created thousands of miles of productive new coastline with innumerable islands, bays, tidal flats, and estuaries, all teeming with seafood."CurtisNaito (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reread the thread on Jared Diamond. We don't use him. You have failed to grasp that the objection is not to the fact that the late world ecological change rendered all countries in the northern hemisphere more ertile, etc., but to the silliness of the phrasing ('fostered human development' sounds like a phrase straight out of a pop psychology book.)
 * Improved ecological conditions following the last ice age facilitated population growth and a flowering of culture. ref Mark Griffiths, The Lotus Quest: In Search of the Sacred Flower, Random House,  2011 pp.144-146 Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank goodness. More funny writing to make me laugh out aloud.
Japan was also heavily influenced by Koreans from the Three Kingdoms of Korea, who transferred to Japan important skills in metallurgy, government administration and construction, as well as the first use of writing in Japan. 'Japan' refers variously to a physical national political entity. One says: 'A' influenced 'B' where both A and B belong to the same category (persons). One does not say in prose written in one's lucid intervals, 'A' (state, nation, political entity) was influenced by 'B' (specific persons). All edits like that do is prove an editor has a tin-ear.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you'll notice that very, very few individual people are named in this article before the 19th century, and the choices of who is named are pretty arbitrary. Much of this isn't technically Curtis' fault -- I think an article on Japanese history that names Francis Xavier but not Fujiwara no Teika or ... any other waka poet apart from Murasaki Shikibu, for that matter, should be debarred from either GA or FA standard by definition, but that's the fault of ten years of Wikipedia editors. Curtis explicitly decreased the word count to meet GA criteria, and two sections up opposed my proposal to broaden the discussion of periodization, likely for the same reason, but just saying "Koreans" might be a good-faith attempt to meet an arbitrary and rather silly criterion for "the ideal length of a Wikipedia article". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * From a cursory glance at the previous version, the new version in my opinion raised the article from Start class to C class. I can't seem to find the review where this was awarded Good Article status. Normally this is on the talk page and/or linked prominently at the top of the page. Is this it? The reviewer's other claimed 235 reviews should be examined, especially any that fall outside of pop culture, their area of expertise judging from their claimed GAs. I don't know where this process should be referred to. zzz (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @zzz: As far as I am concerned, this article's GA status should be revoked until all the OR and personal opinions of Wikipedians are removed. Another recent GA that should not have passed without more oversight was Iwane Matsui -- the reviewer explicitly stated that he had not checked (is unable to read) 90% of the article's sources. Both of these were both written and nominated by the same user, who includes a list of "his GAs" on his user page -- maybe we should reexamine all of them?
 * This article's issues are discussed in more detail in User:Hijiri88/GA reassessment draft.
 * 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC) 03:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like I'm throwing petrol on a fire here. There's not much point in looking for a review for an article while it's being developed. I think the review it received is hard to understand - the very first sentence in the article stated "The first evidence of a human presence in Japan dates back to 200,000 years ago", a statement which could have been easily discovered to be false by checking just about any source or even the Wikipedia article Japanese Paleolithic referred to just above the statement as the "Main Article". zzz (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, the source cited says, "No-one is quite sure when the first humans appeared in Japan. Claims have been made for a date as far back as 500,000 years, and some even expect a history of a million years to be proven in due course. The general agreement at present allows for around 200,000 years, though the earliest definite human fossil remains are only about 30,000 years old."CurtisNaito (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I say, the reviewer should have checked just about any source, or even the source cited, which mentions, apparently, nothing whatsoever about "evidence". zzz (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Henshall's book cites the work of Richard J. Pearson for evidence of human habitation around 200,000 years ago. 200,000 years ago may be the general consensus, but both older and more recent dates are also advocated by various scholars.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get that you refuse to accept your increasingly obvious errors. One author's vague opinion of an imaginary "general agreement" gets translated as "the first evidence", thereby rewriting history, and the reviewer passes the article. That's what concerns me. zzz (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * However, would the statement really be all that contradictory with what the new source says? The new source says that "However, although we have evidence that humans lived on the continent from at least seven hundred thousand years ago, there is to date no solid evidence of human presence in the Japanese archipelago before about 35,000 years ago. It is likely that humans had arrived much earlier than that, but at any rate it is clear that by thirty thousand years ago, groups of humans were living throughout the archipelago in the Late Paleolithic (Old Stone Age)." I think plenty of reliable sources can testify for evidence of human habitation in Japanese territories hundreds of thousands of years ago, but naturally it's better if the article notes that definitive proof comes only during the Late Paleolithic.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The way you phrased it was mistaken - not hugely perhaps, but the result was hugely wrong. If I hadn't changed it, since it was passed as a WP:GA, it would probably have just stayed that way indefinitely. zzz (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's the accepted standard of a WP:GA review then it's worse than pointless. zzz (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * GAN reviews are conducted by a single volunteer editor and are not nearly as rigourous as FAC. Substandard articles do get through, but we have GAR to take care of them.  I've been trying to copyedit this article, but I keep running into issues that are not fixable through a mere copyedit.  Perhaps we could propose a Collaboration of the Month kind of thing at WP:JAPAN?  I don't have the detailed knowledge or time to help suss out the factual details in such a case, but I can contribute copyediting and feedback. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's worth pointing out that none of the material which you have copyedited so far was in the article during the good article review. All the material that you have copy edited up to this point was inserted AFTER the good article review.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Total bullshit. zzz (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No it's true. Curly Turkey has only edited up to the end of the Yayoi period so far, but the majority of this area is quite different now than it was during the good article review. Curly Turkey criticized the use of both BC and BCE, but the BCE was added after the good article review. Curly Turkey criticized the use of the terms "Emperor Showa" and "Hirohito", but that was an addition made after the good article review. He criticized the many easter egg links, but all but one of those was added after the good article review. Just look at any of his recent copyedits. These edits relate almost exclusively to material added after the good article review. It's natural for even good articles to be in a constant state of flux on Wikipedia, and almost none of the parts Curly Turkey has reviewed so far were in the article at the time of the good article review.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * During the Iwane Matsui good article review, I offered to provide English language sources, but the reviewer declined to see them unless Hijiri88 was willing to put forward an actual valid reason why the Japanese language sources should be rejected. Since no reason was forthcoming, the article passed. For this article, no OR and personal opinions have yet been uncovered, so a good article reassessment would not be productive.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ... except the places where CurtisNaito has already admitted that he put words in his sources' mouths. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said that, nor have you yet found any instances of that.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked you if you were the one responsible for including the false claim that the Kaifūsō was an anthology of Japanese poetry. You responded by providing a direct quotation from your source that did not make this false claim, indicating that you had put words in your source's mouth. I'm inclined to believe you only provided the quote because you had misread my original edit summary and at this point still genuinely believed that the Kaifūsō was an anthology of Japanese poetry. When I pointed out to you that you had effectively admitted to distorting a source, you tried to revise history by claiming that what you had really meant was "the first collections of Japanese-made poetry". No reasonable reading of the wording you originally used could draw that conclusion, and you were just denying your own mistake. This is what I was referring to with "Oh, well I meant to [do that from the start -- why didn't you understand me?"] And then there was also this. Why can't you just admit you made a mistake, apologize for it, and move on? Everyone else does it. Why do you have to be the only one to consistently deny all the instances that every objective observer has remarked were OR/misrepresentations of sources? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)