Talk:Zenkoku Jiren/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 09:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Plifal (talk · contribs) 11:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

comments to come soon!--Plifal (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• apologies for the lateness! i was unfortunately taken sick and lost the will to edit for a few days, but i'm on the mend now and should be able to complete this review soon! hope you've been well.--Plifal (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  • excellent work! most likely the last big round of comments i'll have. when you go through them let me know and i'll see if there's anything else requiring a clean-up. otherwise really really interesting article!--Plifal (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

    • @Plifal: Ok, think I've gotten round to everything now. Let me know if there's any more that still needs doing. Thanks so much for this review! --Grnrchst (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• Grnrchst, excellent work! this was a really interesting article about an underdiscussed part of japanese labour history. i'm passing this, the standard is very high!! please feel free to submit to dyk, and if you have any feedback, concerns, comments please let me know on my talk page! additionally, if you would like me to review anything else japan-related in the future then let me know and you'll find a willing participant :) any work reviewing other articles is appreciated. best wishes and happy editing!--Plifal (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

general comments

can i say, this is an incredibly well-researched article, and the effort put into this is self-evident. i've spent the past couple of days cross-referencing some of the material and you've clearly dug in deep to the topic. most of what i have to say are nitpicks, and please feel free to disagree with my objections. i've read through the article, but have only taken notes on the first half or so, it really is well-written. as always i'll deal with links, copyvio etc. at the end. the lead to be tackled after i've finished working through the body.

• implement english variety templates on the talk page.
  • Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
    • template should be first on the talk page (apart from any templates signalling ongoing assessment, i.e. gan, peer review, fac).--Plifal (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
      • Moved. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• any images that could be used? of events, congresses, people involved, newspapers, affiliated organisations, demonstrations?
  • None pertaining to the organisation itself, as far as I'm aware. The best I could do would be to include photographs of specific individuals, like Ishikawa Sanshirō or Ōsugi Sakae, or of tangentially-related events. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  • one of ishikawa would be good! or any events that have ~a paragraph of detail concerned with them in the article.--Plifal (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

    the ishikawa picture is fine but the picture of ōsugi has no american public domain tag or publishing information so unless you want to dig that up i recommend excising it.--Plifal (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

    @Plifal: The US PD status is included in the Japan PD tag, see: "It is also in the public domain in the United States because its copyright in Japan expired by 1970 and was not restored by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act." --Grnrchst (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

    for that to be eligible it needs to have been published in the u.s. (the source and date of which need to be provided) otherwise it won't be in u.s. public domain until at least 2043.--Plifal (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

    @Plifal: Replaced with a portrait of Ōsugi that had publication details. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• some of the paragraphs in the article are too long, 7, 9, 11 lines occasionally. ideally they should be between 4 and 6 lines (with some variability within reason). this can make it difficult to read, particularly when i opened the article on mobile.
  • I've broken up the longer paragraphs that I noticed. Let me know if more could be done. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  • paragraph beginning "In February 1928, a conference of the Tokyo Printworkers' Union resolved [...] " under the 'split' section is a bit long, but you've done really well here! i neglected to say before though, apologies, but after the breaking up of paragraphs, the 'split' and 'reunification' subsections would benefit from subtitled subsections. ideally sections would run between 2 and 4 paragraphs, but certainly no more than 6 without being broken up.--Plifal (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

    @Plifal: Went ahead and broke those up into sub-sections. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• perhaps the biggest issue i see immediately is the prevalence of {{lang}} templates after every organisation. per MOS:FORITA and Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Use other languages sparingly, their use is analogous to jargon, and should only be implemented occasionally. i recommend keeping them for the Yūaikai and Sōdōmei as these are large movements in japanese trade union history and are often referred to using their japanese names, as well for the union newspaper and splinter group Nihon Jikyō, but in all other instances it would probably be better to excise their use and refer to them with the names used by the source. i would also recommend swapping use of {{langx}} for {{nihongo}}, especially for the lead.
  • Thanks for pointing this out. I've trimmed most of the instances and changed the templates in the lead. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• Hatta Shūzō's name uses diacritics inconsistently.
  • Fixed. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• instead of using italics for transliteration of japanese terms, {{translit|ja|~~}} should be used.
  • Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• earwig says 5.7% copyvio detection. no issues there!

infobox

• perhaps something of a long shot, but you wouldn't happen to have access to yamaguchi kensuke's Fūsetsu wo koete (1970)? that way we could check to see if there's a more precise date for its dissolution.
  • I don't have access to this, nor would I be able to read it if I did. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  • no worries! if you do come across it though feel free to shoot it over to me and i can take a look at it.--Plifal (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Ishikawa Sanshirō is named as a leader of the union in the infobox, but this is unsourced, and the only mention of him in the body is as one of the founding members, not specifically as the leader.
  • Removed. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• same issue with Hatta Shūzō and Aizawa. i get that the organisational structure is loose, but a sentence or clarifying remark indicating they were the most powerful operators in the party at that time (even sourced to the infobox) would be appreciated.
  • Attempted to clarify that they were the de facto leaders of the organisation, more-so than having a formal leadership role. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  looks good, but in the body it still isn't fully declarative about their status. at least for aizawa if you reference his de facto leadership within the org in the infobox to crump 1993, p. 181, that should suffice.--Plifal (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

lead

• no notes, very nice!

background

• i think some of the information here can be condensed and moved to a parent article about anarchism or labour history in japan. try to cut it down by about a third.
  • I've attempted to cut it down to the most relevant information (see changes here). Let me know if more could be trimmed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  perhaps a little long still, but this is good. thanks!--Plifal (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• "Japanese Confederation of Labor" should be "Japanese General Federation of Labor". in the same vein, it should link to Sōdōmei, not Japanese Confederation of Labour (Dōmei).
  • Fixed. Thanks for catching this. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• "Shinyūkai (English: Sincere Friends' Society)" inconsistent use of lang templates, pick whichever the source emphasises and redlink it.
  • I've gone with Shinyūkai, but I'm not sure there's enough information on it to red-link. I don't think a dedicated article would have any more detail on it than what's already in here. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  • okey!--Plifal (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• "Rōdōsha (English: Worker)" as above (and from here-on any other similar example). italicise Worker (may be better translated as The Worker but stick to the source).
  • Trimmed English translation. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• " [...] representing engineers, labourers, printers, shipbuilders, telecommunication workers, watchmakers and workers from [...] " delink per MOS:OVERLINK.
  • Delinked. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• " [...] military police murdered the anarcho-syndicalist movement's leading organiser Ōsugi Sakae and his partner Itō Noe." > " [...] military police murdered the anarcho-syndicalist movement's leading organiser Ōsugi Sakae and his partner Itō Noe."
  • Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• international workers' day is linked in the lead but not in the body.
  • Linked! --Grnrchst (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

establishment

• "The anarcho-syndicalist federation brought together 25 trade unions," although it's already been established that the anarcho-syndicalists were the main faction of the zenkoku jiren, it might be better to refer to the union here by name so a casual reader won't be confused, especially as the establishment section has introduced the article topic in the midst of factional disputes. alternatively, it might be better to reorganise this paragraph a bit by backtracking after giving the establishment of the union within the first couple of sentences in this section, but that's up to you.
  • Clarified. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• is this founding conference the same one as in Asakusa on 24 May? if so it may be good to amend this to make it clear by saying "The founding conference in May 1926" or some such.
  • Clarified. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• delink oppressive.
  • Delinked. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• ref 32 is linked twice in succession, but the first use isn't used for a quote so you can probably get rid of it and leave the paragraph referenced at the end.
  • Fixed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• "industrial workers" should be linked to proletariat, not Industrial Worker.
  • Fixed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

early activities

• " [...] called for works to abandon [...] " > " [...] called for workers to abandon [...] "
  • Fixed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• the JCP is reintroduced in the final paragraph of this section but there's been quite a lot of organisational information and acronyms since, so it might be better to use their full name to begin with.
  • Added. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

split

• "book Anarchists Answer Like this" > "book Anarchists Answer Like This"
  • Capitalised. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• it's unclear to me whether the book or the article was published in august 1927. to clarify, use parentheses after the book's title of its publishing date and then start a new sentence.
  • The book was published in July 1927. I've attempted to clarify. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• "with Iwasa's view that it was a" > presumably "with Iwasa's view that class struggle was a conflict over"
  • Clarified. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• "wage labours" > "wage labourers"
  • Corrected. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• "following month, it published" > "following month, Jiyū Rengō published"
  • Clarified. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• this paragraph contains quite a lot of jargon, is it possible to find a way to make it a bit clearer? perhaps by focusing on mizunuma's rejection of katamachi's understanding of the results of control over the means of production?
  • All of the more jargon-y terms have been blue-linked. Are there specific parts I could be clarifying better? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
    • it's just a little dense for a casual reader to follow. like i said, rather than giving a run down of the full argument of mizunuma, it might be better to focus on the half which deals more specifically with the rejection of katamchi's argument. down to you though.--Plifal (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
      • @Plifal: Trimmed it down, hope it's a bit less dense now. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
• "calm tensions, with Kokuren responding that it would continue its fight against the "betrayers, opportunists and union imperialists" in Zenkoku Jiren." it's worth stating which side Kokuren took in the split, or if they were turning against the whole organisation (although checking the source it's not immediately apparent on that page so please forgive me!).
  • Kokuren was on the pure anarchist side. I've attempted to clarify. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  • looks good to me.--Plifal (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• "four-point programme: they would class conflict as the means for workers" ungrammatical.
  • Fixed. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• "fishers in Izumi" no comment except, oh hey! what an unexpected surprise to see my city mentioned!
• "Kokushoku Sensen magazine" gloss this. is it a pure anarchist publication? etc.
  • I'm not sure how to gloss it; judging from Crump, it seems it was a multi-tendency anarchist literary and theoretical magazine; factional disagreements within it caused it to collapse, and the anarcho-syndicalist and pure anarchist factions each attempted to replace it with their own successor publications. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  maybe something like, "the pluralistic anarchist Kokushoku Sensen magazine"?--Plifal (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

pure anarchist period

• "Zenkoku Jiren shrugged it off," not exactly encyclopaedic language... nor fully accurate to the source.
  • Trimmed. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
• "in Jiyū Rengō Shinbun that" > "in the renamed organisation newspaper Jiyū Rengō Shinbun that". i know you have this in a footnote already, but it was a while ago and it may leave some people confused as to why the article switches names halfway through
  • Clarified. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

reunification

• the first three paragraphs of this section don't feel particularly related to reunification, they could probably come under their own section or sub-section.
  • Split into section on anti-militarism. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
• "the Japanese left came" >"the Japanese political left came"
  • Clarified and linked to political left. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
• "conceded that trade union were "indispensable"" pluralise "trade unions" and ""indispensable"" feels WP:SCAREQUOTESy.
  • Pluralised. "Indispensable" isn't intended as scarequotes, rather it's to highlight that this was the exact word used by the writer: "in our opinion, labour unions are indispensable in present-day society for purposes of struggle, training and preparation" --Grnrchst (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

decline and dissolution

• "the demonstrators were able to march through the streets of Tokyo with their black flags." feels a little non-neutral, as-in identifying with the group. suggest, "the demonstrators were permitted to march through the streets of Tokyo with black flags."?
  • They weren't exactly permitted though, they were doing this in spite of the suppression. That's what I was trying to convey with "[they] were able to [...]". --Grnrchst (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  gotcha. then i think saying more simply, "but the demonstrators marched through the streets of Tokyo with black flags." works since the "but" implies a contravention/challenge to the imperial police orders. when i read "were able" i took it to mean "permitted".--Plifal (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Adjusted. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• "By this time, Aizawa Hisao had established the Anarchist Communist Party of Japan (Japanese: Nihon Museifu Kyosanto), a centralised organisation [...] " > "In 1934, Aizawa Hisao established the Anarchist Communist Party of Japan, a centralised organisation [...] "
  • Changed. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• "blamed the party for the suppression of the anarchist movement" should that be "blamed the organisation/federation"?
  • Clarified that he was blaming the Anarchist Communist Party. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

references

• are there any references to the organisation in japanese scholarly literature that you're aware of, by any chance? not a necessity, but it would be good to have them.
  • I'm sure there are, but I can't read Japanese, so my ability to include them would be severely limited. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• first random spot-check, sources from this revision.
  • 22, both sources cited and sourced correctly. no clop concerns.
  • 32, cited and sourced correctly. no clop concerns.
  • 36 (crump 1993 and van der walt & schmidt 2009), cited and sourced correctly. no clop concerns.
  • 41, crump 1993 and van der walt & schmidt 2009 say that the organisation claimed to have over 15,000 workers, whereas it's stated in wikivoice that the organisation did have over 15,000 workers affiliated to it, which isn't exactly the same.
    • Clarified. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 46, cited and sourced correctly. no clop concerns. i wonder if it would be worth stating that the article advocated for the shared resistance of tenant farmers and industrial workers (though i suppose that's somewhat a given).
  • 56, sourced correctly. no clop concerns. the citation should probably be to pages 81–82 though.
  • 130, cited and sourced correctly. no clop concerns.
  • 135 (crump 1993), cited and sourced correctly. no clop concerns.
• crump 1992, damier 2009, hunter 2000, perkins 2018 don't use title case when other sources do, the case should be standardised.
  • Standardised. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
• crump 1992 and perkins 2018 require issns.
  • Added. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
• not necessary at gan but if you take this to fac they will likely pick up on some isbns being dashed and some not, with hunter 2000 and crump 1996 using 9 digit isbns and the others using 11 digit isbns.
  • Added dashes and standardised to 11 digits. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
• as a chapter in a book, crump 1996 needs page numbers in its long reference.
  • Added. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
• second random spot-check, sources from this revision.
  • 65, cited and sourced correctly. contains an attributed quote. no clop concerns.
  • 69, i can't access this ref. if you can track it down and find an updated doi or something that would be great! otherwise keep hold of whatever copy you have in case of being challenged.
    • Removed the broken doi. The passage I'm citing is this: "Iwasa was absent from this conference and hence played no direct part in the split between 'pure anarchists' and anarchist syndicalists. This was because in 1927 he had been invited by some Chinese anarchists to take part in their activities in Fukien and Shanghai. Responding to this invitation, Iwasa was away from Japan for two years, during which he participated in the armed struggle prosecuted by the anarchists in Fukien and taught at the Labour University in Shanghai." --Grnrchst (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 73, "made pure anarchists feel justified in their criticisms of anarcho-syndicalism." the way i read crump's argument ("it cannot be denied either that such defections from the anarchist syndicalist camp lent weight to Hatta's claim that syndicalism was an inherently unstable amalgam of'anarchist' and 'Marxist' elements") was as authorial analysis, not as a treatment of contemporary beliefs. otherwise all good.
  • 87, cited and sourced correctly. no clop concerns.
  • 123, cited and sourced correctly. no clop concerns.
  • 127, crump says it was the last may day demonstration, not the last workers' demonstration.
    • Corrected. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

footnotes

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.