Template talk:History of Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Template This is a template and is not rated on the assessment scale.
Japan To-do:

I would add Meiji Restoration to Items.--Forestfarmer 12:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would upgrade Sengoku period.--Forestfarmer 08:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yamato period is not popular in Japan now.when I moved this template in Japanese, Yamato period is removed instantly.when I asked the reason, he said "The age division confuses the archaeological age division with the historical age division.The division only causes confusion." I want to remove Yamato period.if anyone not argue.--Forestfarmer 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing it entirely, or replacing it with something? As a student of history and historiography, I can certainly appreciate changing views in scholarship as to how things ought to be defined, but the pre-Nara period has to be acknowledged, defined and divided in some way. I'm not opposing you, just asking your intention. LordAmeth 18:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I write same things in Talk:History of Japan.and where I write the reason "Japanese may think "What an anachronism english wikipedia is"" This suggestion is not Historical argument or some scholars' view .I'm Japanese and I'm not knew about Yamato period till seen the English Wikipedia.and I asked wikipedian acquainted with Japanese history.then he answered "I cannot make out Westerner(It is used a light contempt word actually in Japanese ) doing.but don't import such a old thinking." The history of Japan of English version Wikipedia is deserted by the Japanese.It is too old in various points.--Forestfarmer 20:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. Sure, Western views may be far behind the Japanese view of your own history. But again, what's the Japanese chronology? What are you putting before Nara? LordAmeth 23:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
before Nara is Asuka.before Asuka is kofun.I stadied in a school.I did'nt study Yamato period. In fuller detail,A yamato dynasty is not understood in detail.The age when only the kofun tomb with historical materials is found is a kofun period.many histrical book is found in Asuka period.because then Japan import Chinese character from China.--Forestfarmer 00:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I put a Japanese version as reference.

旧石器時代 (Paleolithic)
縄文時代 (Jomon period )
弥生時代 (Yayoi period)
古墳時代 (kofun period)
飛鳥時代 (Asuka period)
奈良時代 (Nara period)
平安時代 (Heian period)
鎌倉時代 (kamakura period)
  建武の新政 (Kemmu restoration)
室町時代 (Muromati period)
  南北朝時代 (Nanboku-cho period)
戦国時代 (Sengoku period)
安土桃山時代 (Azuchi-Momoyama period )
江戸時代 (Edo period)
明治時代 (Meiji period)
大正時代 (Taisyo period)
昭和時代 (Sowa period)
平成 (heisei)

The item was decided by a variety of discussing it.It was squeezed to necessary minimum item because there were many points of view.Yamato period and nanban trade and Late Tokugawa shogunate is removed instantly.but I think nanban trade and Late Tokugawa shogunate have meaning in English Wikipedia.--Forestfarmer 01:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that run-down. I'm happy to see a clear break-down of the periods. Personally, I would prefer inclusion of Late Tokugawa shogunate (幕末 bakumatsu) over Azuchi-Momoyama.. but I don't think anyone should have too much trouble with the removal of "Yamato period" as long as Yayoi, Kofun, and Asuka are remaining. Thanks again. LordAmeth 09:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Periodization

Alright. This is just my own personal impressions, as someone who is a MA student in Japanese Studies and who has devoted much of the last four years to studying Japanese history.

  1. Is Nanban trade really a period? It's an important series of events, but I wouldn't call it a period.
  2. If it were up to me (which it isn't), I'd remove Azuchi-Momoyama. Sengoku lasted from 1467-1600 or so, and Edo began in 1600 or 1603, depending on your view. Azuchi-Momoyama simply overlaps and is, as far as I'm concerned, redundant and unnecessary.

I don't want to stir up trouble, I just want to put my ideas out there, see what you think. Thank you. LordAmeth 23:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BCE to BC change

I've changed the BCE/CE terminology to BC/AD. My only reason for so doing was harmony with the history of Japan articles - all of which used the BC terminology. I actually had made the reverse change (BC to BCE) in the Yoyoi period article, which I will have to revert. When I made the Yoyoi change I thought that it would be easier to harmonize the article with the template, but when I looked, I saw that all the articles are consistent, and the template is the one the varies. If someone feels strongly, I have no problem with the BCE/CE terminology, I just ask that a future editor ensure that it is consistent throughout the articles as well. Xymmax (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This sort of discussion does pop up from time to time... per Wikipedia rules, this template was created with BCE/CE and has been stable in this state for a long time, and therefore should remain so. Regards. PHG (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, as I stated I'm not invested in either one, I just had hoped the articles and template could use the same terminology. As it stands post reversion, they are (again) inconsistent. It looks odd to see BCE terminology on the template to the right, then BC terminology in the article body to the left. Since the Manual of Style did not appear to state a preference for either term, I made the change. I hope someone will choose to assist me in updating each of the individual History of Japan articles to match the template. Xymmax (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yamato period

I think the "Yamato period" should be in the template. 96.229.179.106 (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BC/AD

I have reverted the change made to use the BCE/CE format, as there has been a long established consensus on the pages this template is displayed on to use BC/AD. If a user wishes to change this they should seek a new consensus across the articles. We have had a long discussion on the reasons for using BC/AD, so I will only say that I and others prefer it as a more widely used and recognisable dating format. John Smith's (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)