Talk:Colonisation of Hokkaido

This review is transcluded from Talk:Colonisation of Hokkaido/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cdjp1 (talk · contribs) 12:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mupper-san (talk · contribs) 09:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cdjp1: Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. I've checked everything except a source spot-check, which I'll do within the next day or so. Here's the table so far:

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	It's nitpicky, but the passage "After 1869, the northern Japanese island was known as Hokkaido" reads a bit weirdly. It could potentially be changed to something more directly about the change between Ezochi and Hokkaido. Additionally, the mentions of the Matsumae Domain (how is this distinct from the Matsumae clan?) and especially the Santan don't really describe what they are (what unifies the ethnic groups comprising the Santan?) in a way that's understandable to readers unfamiliar with the topic. Update: Issues fixed, no further comment.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Generally only some very minor problems, which I have fixed. The passage "they did not reach anywhere near parity with Yamato Japanese residents of Hokkaido" seems a bit MOS:WTW-y, but I'll check the source before making a judgement. Contrarily, "Through the latter half of the 20th century, many academics and the government of Japan sought to deny any difference between the Ainu and Yamato Japanese, this has been deemed an attempt to obscure the history of colonisation and conquest that the Ainu have been subjected to." is very WTW-y, and either this should be given as attributed quotes or specific authors and people who have deemed this as obscurantism should be listed. "Similarities between the treatment of the Ainu and other indigenous peoples have also been pointed out and studied, such as the Sámi of Europe and Aboriginal Australians." also requires attribution. Update: Issues fixed, no further comment.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Is there a link to Ang 2017 online? With a cursory look I couldn't find it on Crossref or anywhere besides a mention in Google Scholar, so if there is a link or something like a DOI it would be only beneficial to add it.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Page needed for Hirano 2009 in reference 161; page needed for Loos & Osani 1993 in reference 147. Update: Issues fixed, no further comment.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Source spot-check doesn't show any issues; no further comment.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Source spot-check doesn't show any issues; no further comment.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No comment.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No comment.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	As listed above, there are a few things that need attribution or to be rewritten. Update: Issues fixed, no further comment.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No comment.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No comment.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No real comment. Perhaps the image of Kuzuno could be linked with the prose in some way, but that's certainly nitpicking and not really necessary.
	7. Overall assessment.	Attribution/rewriting needed for the above-mentioned sections regarding neutrality; explanations of Matsumae Domain and Santan are needed; will check sources before final comments. Update: All problems (mostly regarding attribution) fixed as part of the review. Article is suitably in-depth and high-quality with no copyvio problems or dubious sources, and is both stable and sufficiently illustrated.

Close

Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.

Mupper-san (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• 1a) Changed the sentence per guidance. The "domain" is the territory, while the clan is the family and its individual members. Santan, I can't say, it is the terminology pulled from the sources, so I would need to dig into it to be able to say, as while I have an idea of what it most likely is, it is simply an idea.
• 1b) Removed anywhere near, I would like to think did not reach parity is fine to keep, as this is the quantitative assessment made by the sources. deemed replaced with described and attributed to international relations scholar Alexander Bukh and political scientist Helix Lo. Similarities is now attributed.
• 2a) https://www.academia.edu/36173949/RECURSIONS_OF_COLONIAL_DESIRE_FOR_DIFFERENCES_THE_DOUBLY_ERASED_AND_OR_HYPER_VISIBLE_AINU_ROSLYNN_ANG - I have also provided this url in the reference in the article, as it was uploaded to the website by its author.
• 2b) I will look at doing in the next couple of days, but you missed missing pages in 227, for Siddle, and Roche+Kroik+Maruyama.
• 6b) I'll look at getting something together for Kuzuno in the text.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

While I can't currently access my copy of Walker 2001, from the below listed sources, my idea seems to be right. The term "Santan" was picked up by researchers from the Japanese 'Sandan' which came from the Ainu 'Shanta/Santa' which came from the Nivkh 'Yant'. From the Ainu, and subsequently through the thread, the term referred to a grouping of different peoples involved in trading along the Amur River, between Lake Kizi and its mouth in the Sea of Okhotsk. It is then later research that identified the the different people groups who made up this trading collective. The name given to this group, was also used, and is still used, to discus the trading route from further within Russia/China (along the Amur river) to the islands of the coast (Sakhalin and Hokkaido) and ultimately into Japan proper.

1. Harrison (1954) "The Saghalien Trade: A Contribution to Ainu Studies", Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
2. Tezuka (1998) "Long-Distance Trade Networks and Shipping in the Ezo Region", Arctic Anthropology
3. Morris-Suzuki (2020) "Indigenous Diplomacy: Sakhalin Ainu (Enchiw) in the Shaping of Modern East Asia (Part 1: Traders and Travellers)", The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus
4. Sasaki (2023) "Economics of the Santan trade", in The Siberian World
5. Kotobank (n.d.) "山丹交易"

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I've wikilinked "Santan" to Santan trade. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Walker further supports this on p.138 The Sakhalin route is often called the "Santan trade" in historical documents, as many people of Northeast Asia were frequently lumped together as the Santan in the Japanese mind. The word "Santan" itself probably referred to the Ul'chi people south of the Amur River, as well as to several other groups, including the Nanai, Orochi, Udekhe, and Negidal, who inhabited the region near the Mamiya Strait (see map 4).

I've adjusted the wording, added the explicit citation to Walker p.138, and also added a reference to Tezuka pp.350–352. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

So on Loos and Osanai, the citation was pulled from the main Ainu article which precedes my working on these articles. While it was cited as "Osani", per Siddle (who has a chapter in the book) and Lewallen who writes prolifically on the Ainu and has cited the book, they cite it as Osanai. Now, I am unable to find an electronic of the book, so while looking at other works that cite the book, the chapter of relevance is likely Tabata, H. (1993) "Some Historical Aspects of Ainu-Japanese Relations: Treachery, assimilation and the myth of Ainu counting", I can't confirm this, so I have removed the citation (we have plenty of others for the information still listed). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

All other missing pages have been added. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Further on the Matsumae Domain, we first mention it in the 2nd paragraph of the "Edo period" section, establishing that it is the territory that the Matsumae clan rule over.

As to its occurrence in the paragraph that mentions the Santan, this has likely come about two-fold, firstly, my own writing style, in that when writing of "products" I have been taught to write about them as products of territories/polities, not the ruling family, if they are not the direct producers. So this is akin to saying "a product of the kingdom of England" and not "a product of the Tudor family", in this case it is somewhat more confusing as the polity and the ruling family share the same name "Matsumae" in the literature.

Secondly, this style was likely re-enforced by Walker (2001), as he writes of trade of such products being between the Matsumae domain and other groups/entities. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If you think this needs changing still I have no issue with that, but would need guidance as to what it should be changed to. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cdjp1: I think that this should be fine. "Matsumae Domain in Hokkaido" could work even to someone completely unfamiliar with Japanese feudalism, while linking to the Santan should be fine enough with the current explanation given the complexity of the topic could distract from the page. Otherwise, I have another issue regarding attribution with the passage "This is viewed as the beginning of the Empire of Japan," that I've just noticed (sorry!) and that should be everything. Mupper-san (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Specified how it is Seaton writing about the field. On the Santan, are you suggesting we remove the mention of the people groups who make up the Santan? So cutting the sentence down to To obtain Chinese silk, the Ainu fell into debt, owing much fur to the Santan. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that it's best as it is now, without any changes in either way. I'll take another look through today, and if there's nothing else, I'll close it as passed tomorrow. Mupper-san (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, sorry for the wait. I don't have any further comments. As it is now, the page is a good article. Mupper-san (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)