Talk:Hokkaido

Sources for future article expansion

There is a ridiculously involved and well-done entry on Hokkaido under its former name Yeso here

• De Saint-Martin, Vivien; et al., eds. (1895), "Yèso", Nouveau Dictionnaire de Ge/ographie Universelle (in French), vol. 7, Paris: Librairie Hachette & Co., pp. 441–445.

that could probably helpfully expand history and historical data here and at related pages like History of Hokkaido, Economy of Hokkaido, &c. It is in French but machine translation is getting better and easier all the time. — LlywelynII 06:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE

In other news, the list of names is still in the wrong place. That's why we built a name section in the first place; we probably only need Ezo in the lead since the others are variants of the same basic idea. It's also still incomplete, missing other variants like Jesso, Iesso, Iezo, Ieco, Yedeo, Esso, Ieso-Gasima, Iesse, &c. as already noted in the archives here. — LlywelynII 06:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

NPOV language

I changed the wording of the lead article because the wording seems to be pushing a certain viewpoint of a contributor, therefore undermining the neutrality of the article.

However, it was reverted again.

In 1869, following the Meiji Restoration, Ezo, which means "the land of the barbarians" in Japanese,[5] was annexed by Japan under on-going colonial practices, and renamed Hokkaido.[6] After this event, Japanese settlers started to colonize the island, establishing Japan's first modern settler colony.[4][5] While Japanese settlers colonized the island, the Ainu people were dispossessed of their land, forced to assimilate, and aggressively discriminated against by the Japanese settlers.[4][6] Many Ainu people were put into forced labor camps and exploited by the Japanese.[7] In the 21st century, the Ainu have been almost totally assimilated into Japanese society; as a result, many Japanese of Ainu descent have no knowledge of their heritage and culture.[8][9][10]

Kyuzoaoi (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Your version is simply too long for the lead, as this article is about Hokkaido as a whole. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, the version you pasted, which I realize is not yours. I shortened. Ainu deserves a mention but so do other major aspects of the island. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The shortening is a significant improvement (in terms of alignment with NPOV), and very much appreciated. But I think there's more to do; both in terms of reducing the current focus, and in including additional aspects which are currently absent.

For example: In reviewing the source, "Forced Labour in Imperial Japan's First Colony: Hokkaidō". 15 October 2020., I find that it has sections on: Exploitation of Ainu Labour, Convict Labour (largely political prisoners from outside Hokkaido), Tako labour and Korean labour. The lead section currently includes only one of these. I note also that we reference this source 17 times, which may evidence an undue focus. And finally, this source does not seem to support the lead text Many Ainu were put into forced labor camps, for which it is the sole reference. Rotary Engine ^talk 03:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Valid point. I removed "Many Ainu were put into forced labor camps." from the lede. LilAhok (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the concerns above, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. It's worth noting that only 1/14 of the paragraphs under the History header of the article discuss the Ainu experience following the Meiji restoration. I shortened it somewhat to a more proportional representation so the sentence represents about 1/16th of the third paragraph in the lead. I agree with Rotary Engine that there seems to be an excessive reliance on the Jolliffe article which is only cited 6 times on Google Scholar. DCsansei (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

My edit to the lead which I believe better summarized the history (and corrected the word "annexed" to "incorporated" to reflect sources) was undone with a request to go to talk. Pinging prior contributors @Kyuzoaoi @LegalSmeagolian @Rotary Engine @LilAhok for feedback.

I must disagree with LilAhok that the "point of that lede paragraph is to give a brief explaination of how japan acquired the island and what happened to the ainu people who lived there for thousands of years". I believe the point of the paragraph is to summarize the history of Hokkaido as described later in the article and therefore should include additional information. I am also not seeing a consensus here as much as an ongoing discussion and an agreement that the Jolliffe is overused in this article. DCsansei (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The user's replacement of "annexed" with "incorporated" is inappropriate because it inaccurately describes how Japan acquired the island, failing to reflect the historical context. It's important to note that the term "annexed" is present in various reputable sources, not limited to just the Jolliffe source. Both the Hokkaido Museum and the official website of the Hokkaido Tourism Organization also use this term. To prevent any misunderstandings, I'll include the sources in the article.

Hokkaido Tourism Organization: https://www.visit-hokkaido.jp/en/feature/ogawamotoi

Hokkaido Musuem:https://www.hm.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/wp-content/themes/hokkaidomuseum/images/forign_pdf/ENG-2-4.pdf LilAhok (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think annexed is also the correct language, however I have copyedited the paragraph to use active voice and to shorten it. I think its in a good state now. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I added information about colonization into the lede because it's referenced in the article, which draws from a range of sources, including an entire book. I think it's important to note the distinction between "dispossessed" and "colonization". LilAhok (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be spelled out with blue links, I think it is clear who was dispossessing the Ainu from their land from the way it is currently written. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

In the comment for the recent edit, it was noted that "Settler colonialism is not likely appropriate in this context for a bluelink, not all imperialism is settler colonialism, also restored active voice"

I disagree with the point that settler colonialism is not appropriate for the lede. Three references within the article affirm that Hokkaido underwent a process of colonization, transforming it into a colony.

Dominant Narratives of Colonial Hokkaido and Imperial Japan by Michele M. Mason pg.7: "In as much as an outside power, the Meiji state, came to exert absolute political sovereignty over Ainu Moshir (Land of Humans), subjugated the indigenous people, undertook rapacious economic exploitation, and pursued an aggressive permanent settlement project, Hokkaido can be regarded as Japan’s only successful settler colony." http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/71693/1/29.pdf.pdf

Japanese Empire in Hokkaido by Philip Seaton: "..., after which Japanese settlers colonized the island beyond Wajinchi."https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-76

Forced Labour In Imperial Japan’s First Colony Hokkaidō By Pia M. Jolliffe:"I draw attention to how in this process, different groups of subaltern people ... contributed to the making of imperial Japan’s first colony..."https://apjjf.org/2020/20/Jolliffe LilAhok (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Only one of those sources describe Hokkaido as a "settler colony" - I would use this characterization with attribution and blue link in the body. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

“As a result, the majority of Japanese people of Ainu descent have no knowledge of their heritage or culture”

This article is primarily about the geographic entity of Hokkaido, not the Ainu, so this line doesn't belong here. Also, calling traditional Ainu culture 'their culture' for people of Ainu descent is subjective. If someone of Ainu descent doesn't practice Ainu culture, then what makes it their culture? Ancestry? But this assumes an ancestry-social group equivocation that is not universal. Isz Chepewéssin (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The information has a credible source, and the Ainu are / were the indigenous people of Hokkaido. There are articles about other countries that mention their native / indigenous populations in the lead with hyperlinks to articles about the native populations, so it wouldn't be irrelevant here or anything new. Australia Hawaii Tasmania This article isn't limited to information about the geography of Hokkaido. Information about the Ainu appears frequently throughout the article, so it warrants a mention in the lead.

In regards to your edit , this has nothing to do with the information in the lead. There was just a misunderstanding between me and Yue about information in the body, not lead, as discussed on my talk page.

The information should be included in the lead. LilAhok (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The Ainu's ties to Hokkaido being talked about is not what I was contending about. It's specifically the line: “As a result, the majority of Japanese people of Ainu descent have no knowledge of their heritage or culture." The Ainu should only be talked about to the extant that they are relevant to Hokkaido, and this fact I feel veers beyond that scope. Also, I had issue with Ainu culture being referred to as "their culture" in regard to people of Ainu descent. If someone doesn't practice a culture, how is it their culture? Many people equivocate social groups and demographics, but this equivocation is false, and culture by definition, pertains to social groups, not races or ethnic groups. Isz Chepewéssin (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

> The Ainu should only be talked about to the extant that they are relevant to Hokkaido, and this fact I feel veers beyond that scope.

I would disagree with this. It directly follows the previous statement that all Ainu are almost totally assimilated into Japanese society in the 21st century. The decline of Ainu culture was not an organic process, but rather the result of 19th- and 20th-century Japanese assimilation policies and forced displacement (As found in lead). Including this information helps show the extent and lasting impact of forced assimilation on Ainu culture.

If "people of Ainu descent" is the concern, I suggest removing that wording and instead focusing on the long-lasting cultural impact of assimilation policies:

"Japanese settlers dispossessed the Ainu of their land and imposed forced assimilation policies, leading to the near-total assimilation of the Ainu and the near-erasure of their cultural practices, traditions and language."

Ainu people and culture and history are unique aspects of Hokkaido. This briefly summarizes the history and current state of their people and culture.

I can agree to removing "people of Ainu descent" from the lead as long as the impact of assimilation and cultural loss is still mentioned. LilAhok (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The header is a precise summary of facts directly related to the article's subject. For example, the North America page's header talks about how North American culture reflects Western European culture, but with pockets retaining their pre-Columbian culture. This fact is directly relevant to the subject since it tells you what the inhabitants of North America are like. Including facts about how Ainu people were the original inhabitants of Hokkaido, are genetically still part of Hokkaido, and that Hokkaido culture generally reflects mainstream Japanese culture nowadays, is directly relevant to Hokkaido. The part though about Ainu people not knowing "their" culture, is not directly relevant to Hokkaido, besides telling you that Hokkaido is primarily culturally Japanese, which is already stated. The sentence you suggested, I feel like would go well in the demographics section. Isz Chepewéssin (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

> The part though about Ainu people not knowing "their" culture, is not directly relevant to Hokkaido, besides telling you that Hokkaido is primarily culturally Japanese, which is already stated.

I disagree with this. The long-lasting impact of assimilation policies is directly relevant to Hokkaido because it explains a major cultural and societal transformation in the region: the decline of Indigenous Ainu cultural presence and the development of modern Hokkaido as a predominantly Japanese-speaking society. These changes began with the colonization of Hokkaido by the japanese state in 1868-1869 and are part of the modern history of how the region was settled, governed, and transformed into its present form. Ainu culture and history are distinct from Japanese culture and history and represent an important part of Hokkaido’s historical identity. The proposed sentence summarizes all this info, which is included in the body of the article.

> The header is a precise summary of facts directly related to the article's subject.

If the article recognizes Ainu culture as a significant aspect of Hokkaido’s history and present identity in the body, then briefly summarizing the decline of Ainu cultural presence in the lead is consistent with summarizing major aspects of the article. Also, adding information about Ainu culture and history under the Demographics or Culture sections (as suggested by CMD below) would only strengthen the case for including the impact of assimilation and cultural loss in the lead, as it would provide context for the historical distinction between Ainu cultural traditions and the broader Japanese cultural landscape of modern Hokkaido.

Again, I can agree to removing "people of Ainu descent" from the lead as long as the impact of assimilation and cultural loss is still mentioned. If a compromise can't be reached between us, it would be best to seek a third opinion. LilAhok (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The sentence you suggested would work, but the last two sentences of the lead already essentially say that in a way I feel is much more concise and focused on Hokkaido. To be clear, I am only contending the sentence quoted on the title of this thread, not the entirety of the Ainu being discussed in the lead. Also, people of Ainu descent being a part of Hokkaido is not the issue, it's specifically Ainu culture being referred to as the culture of people of Ainu descent who don't practice it. The sentence you're suggesting would work, provided it replaces the last two sentences starting with "Japanese settlers dispossessed," but the existing sentences are better because they are more concise and don't stray too far beyond Ainu culture and history as is relevant to Hokkaido. Isz Chepewéssin (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I can work with this. I will add the phrase "leading to the near-erasure of their cultural practices, traditions, and language" to the end of the last sentence while keeping all of the existing sentences unchanged. LilAhok (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Ainu do not seem to be mentioned after the History section, while this information feels like it should be covered in either the Demographics or Culture. Perhaps something could be worked on there, which would help inform what wording the lead might use? CMD (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a good idea. We can add Ainu culture info to Demographics or Culture, which is a unique aspect of Hokkaido, especially when compared to the rest of japan. LilAhok (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)