Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:30, 9 September 2013

Japan: Military history Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 03:45, December 26, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

Military history: Asian / Japanese Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Japanese military history task force

Move from Battle of Shigisan

I moved this page just now. The Japanese name of the event is Teibi no Ran or Teibi no Hen. Of the four sources cited in the article, only one (Sophia) seems to use "Battle of Shigisan", but it seems to use the name dismissively as it calls it the "so-called Battle of Shigisan". Sansom calls it "a decisive battle at Shigisen", which is hardly justification for this article's previous name. GBooks brought up almost no hits for the old title, and one of the ones that came up is Sophia. The only apparently scholarly/specialist/encyclopedic source (works on Shinto are not necessarily reliable for Japanese political/military history) that came up is the Japan Encyclopedia, but that book has its problems too, with numerous misprints and odd translations from the French. Additionally, the first sentence of this article rather ridiculously has "the Battle of Shigisan (信貴山)" as though the parenthesized word was the Japanese name for the battle.

(I know it links to Mount Shigi as well -- an oddly erroneous use of the Nihongo template -- but that's even weirder.)

elvenscout742 (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

and came up for "Battle at Mount Shigi" and "Battle of Mount Shigi" respectively. But neither is enough to overrule the way people actually translate Teibi no Ran and Teibi no Hen. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As a search on Google Books reveals, there are at least a dozen reliable sources that describe this conflict either as the Battle of Shigisan or a variant of that. By contrast, there is no English-language source, not even one solitary account, that uses the term "Teibi Incident". It seems that the only reason why the term "Battle of Shigisan" is not more widely used in English is because this conflict is not often discussed in English at all. However, the dozen or so reliable sources that do mention this conflict all reference Shigisan or Mt Shigi, whereas none of them call it the Teibi Incident. Furthermore, the translation itself is a bit problematic since "no ran" is more commonly translated into English as "war" or "rebellion", as in Onin War, Jokyu War, or Heiji Rebellion. Nonetheless, we should use the term most similar to that established by scholars rather than attempting a purely original translation of the word. I will move this article back to the title "Battle of Shigisan".CurtisNaito (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed the translation point. I was working based on the fact that 丁未の変 appears to be more common in Japanese books than 丁未の乱. Although I guess if we combine the latter 4 hits with the 7 for 丁未の役 then "battle" or "war" is a decent translation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Japanese-English Bilingual Corpus of Misplaced Pages's Kyoto Articles uses "Teibi Incident". The Corpus is a translation resource published by the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, which has a go.jp URL. It is not the same as citing Japanese Misplaced Pages, as the work itself was produced by professional translators working for a reputable institution. By contrast, your above assertion that at least a dozen reliable sources describe the conflict as some variant of "the Battle of Shigisan" seems to assume Misplaced Pages is a reliable source: when we remove Misplaced Pages and LLC from the results, we are left with only three, two of which use "battle of Shigisan" (lower-case b, indicating that they don't consider it the "name" of the battle) and the third of which is a sometimes-dodgy English translation of apparently a variety of difficult-to-trace books by a dead Frenchman.

Also, I would advise you to read WP:RM: if you already know that a move is going to be controversial, then you should start an RM rather than unilaterally performing the move.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, if memory serves you were the one who made up the name "Taminato Incident" (upper-case I and all) in January and unilaterally moved that page to the new "name" despite it not even being a translation of any commonly-used Japanese phrase and apparently not existing outside of your own January comment on AFD. I at least checked that my translation was used on Weblio. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the misspelled "Battle of Shigisen" was relatively frequently used. Hijiri88 removed the explanation "(sometimes misspelled as Battle of Shigisen)".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix, I agree that we should include mistaken spellings in general, but the problem in this case is that we need either a source that says it is mistaken, or we can't say it is mistaken. We're better off not including it at all than claiming it as a correct alternative name when it isn't. The redirect existing is adequate, and if a source can be found that says it is a mistake, then we can use that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it is my mistake. I don't have the authority to decide the name is a misspelling, although it is a 1000% misspelling. I added an alternative name with reliable sources.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You missed my point. I agree that it's a misspelling. So we should not include it in the article. As it is now, the article implies that this is a correct (and common) variant. This is misleading. Just because it can be attributed to an RS doesn't mean we HAVE to include it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You can't remove the alternative name even if it is a misspelling unless you prove the RSs used a misspelling. Or did you come to think the previous version is better? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course I can. Misplaced Pages doesn't have to include every single piece of information that exists. If consensus is established that it's probably a misspelling, even if we don't have a reliable source, we are under no obligation to include it in the article. To make a comparison, I have no sources that specifically say Ariwara no Narihara is a misspelling, but that does not mean we have to cite the misspelling in the actual Ariwara no Narihira article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Taminato Incident, that was the term which was used for the incident at the time. If you check Hathitrust, you will see that a number of sources, including Contemporary Japan, the Tokyo Gazette, the Japan-Manchoukuo year book, and The Orient year book all used this term. In sharp contrast, "Teibi Incident" gets zero results.

Regarding the Battle of Shigisan, there is NO academic source which translates the battle in this manner. You only mentioned one source, Japanese-English Bilingual Corpus of Misplaced Pages's Kyoto Articles, but that is not compiled by historians or historical scholars.

Here is a list of just a few published English-language sources (not Misplaced Pages-related ones) which use either Battle of Shigisan/Shigisen/Mt. Shigi/Mount Shigi or a variant thereof, which you can view for yourself on Google Books.

-Early Samurai AD 200-1500 by Anthony Bryant

-Japan Encyclopedia by Louis Frederic

-Handbook of Japanese Mythology by Michael Ashkenazi

-A history of Japan - Volume 1 by James Murdoch, ‎Isoh Yamagata, and ‎Joseph Henry Longford

-Ancient Japan by Jonathan Edward Kidder

-The Civilizations of the East: Japan by René Grousset

-A History of Japan to 1334 by George Sansom

-Japan at War: An Encyclopedia by Louis G Perez

-Kyoto a Cultural Guide by John H. Martin and ‎Phyllis G. Martin

-The Imperial House of Japan by Richard Arthur Brabazon Ponsonby-Fane

-Japan: Its History and Culture by W. Scott Morton add ‎J. Kenneth Olenik

-Encyclopedia of Japan: Japanese history and culture, from abacus to zori by Dorothy Perkins

-An Outline History of Japan by Herbert Henry Gowen

Clearly, these 13 sources outweigh your one source, so there's really no justification for leaving this article under its current titleCurtisNaito (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please give details of which title each of those works prefer, and why you think they are better than a thoroughly reviewed work produced by the Japanese government. I have already explained why Roth (you call her "Louis Frederic") is not a reliable source for terminology, since she is full of misprints, and we can't tell if Frédéric actually used the words she attributes to him. She is also apparently not a historian, but a French-English translator, which is inherently worse for our purposes than a Japanese-English translator. Also, using an accurate translation of the actual Japanese name of the incident is better than using a made up English name unless that name is very well-established. We have already seen that no reliable sources use your title "Battle of Shigisan", and how do you expect us to decide between the different "variants"? First I need to know how many books use how many titles. (Additionally, "Handbook of Japanese Mythology" doesn't sound like a book that was written by a "historian" -- I don't mind that, I think we should take all reliable sources into account, but you are the one talking about "historians". "Kyoto a Cultural Guide" is also clearly not a history book.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Roth is only the translator, Louis Frederic, the author, is a well-regarded scholar of Asian civilization. In reality, these sources don't present too much variance. "San" means "mount" of course and "sen" is just a typo based on that, so Battle of Shigisan, Battle of Shigisen, Battle of Mount Shigi, and Battle of Mt. Shigi are in reality all the same name, in contrast with Teibi Incident which is not used in any form. Some like Sansom use "battle at Shigisan", but again that's actually the same name. It would be rather silly to quarrel over whether we should use "at" or "of" as if that was a big deal. What's important though, is that even if we go beyond the many sources that use Battle of Shigisan, Battle of Shigisen, Battle of Mount Shigi, or Battle of Mt. Shigi, all remaining sources that mention the battle still refer in one way or another to Shigisan/Mt. Shigi as the site of the battle. NONE of them mention "Teibi Incident" in any way, shape, or form. We could debate about what form of the word "Shigisan" to use, but one way or another Teibi Incident is right out. That way describing the conflict does not exist at all among researchers of history.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

CN, I speak both Japanese and French. I would be well-capable of examining what Frédéric actually wrote if I could figure out which of his books Roth chose to translate apparently some years after he died. But because the book is so jam-packed with misprints (and possibly misinterpretations by a French translator with little training in Japanese) I don't think we can use it as a source for specific things like terminology and spelling. The fact is that "Teibi Incident" is used -- it's used by translators who work with Japanese texts (the vast majority of reliable sources on this incident) that only refer to this incident as Teibi no nantoka. Anyway, what originally motivated me to move the page (based on my reliable source) was that the opening sentence of this article as it was -- and is now -- a mess. The use of the Nihongo template on the first bold instance of the article title is meant to show the Japanese name for the topic, not the Japanese name for one element of the English name for the topic. I actually don't mind this article being moved back right now, just as long as were on the same page that this article should open:

"The {{nihongo|'''Battle of Shigisan'''|丁未の乱|Teibi no Ran|extra=also called 丁未の変 ''Teibi no Hen'' or 丁未の役 ''Teibi no Eki''}} was a battle fought in ] between ] and ]. In Japanese it is also often called {{nihongo|'''''Mononobe no Moriya no Hen'''''|物部守屋の変||extra=literally "the Mononobe no Moriya Incident"}}, and some English-language sources refer to it as the '''Battle of Shigisen'''.<ref><small>Replace these with one or two ''good'' sources that are written by historians, don't have "Popular" in the title, and are either general overviews of Japanese history or specifically about the incident or period being discussed. Doesn't Sansom use this spelling?</small></ref>"

And by the way, Phoenix? This edit was a violation of the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Using Japanese in the article body, since the relevant article is linked to in the following sentence. I'm going to take Roth (which is different from Frédéric) to RSN. It's perfectly obvious that Roth doesn't know more about the content than she learned from reading Frédéric in French, given how she misspells Narihira's name in the article on him, but in the article on his brother immediately afterward spells it correctly. I don't know if this and the other mistakes originated with Frédéric -- I can't know, because I can't find the original French version of the book. Can you please help me in this, at least if you intend to continue citing "Frédéric" for very specific orthographic and terminological details? The fact that the book in question was translated from French into English, apparently after the author's death (work might have started while he was alive, if it took more than nine years), means that citing the book for very specific orthographic and terminological details

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Roth's book states that it is a translation of "Le Japan: Dictionnaire et Civilisation". Though I can't speak for the book as a whole, it seems likely that the term "Battle of Shigisan" was translated correctly because Louis Frederic refers to it as "la bataille de Shigisan" in some of his other works (see, for instance, this one.

Your suggestion for the opening sentence is fine, so I advise that we move the article title back to Battle of Shigisan. As noted, Teibi Incident gets zero results on Google Books and Hathitrust, so even though a few translators favor this translation in theory, no source, reliable or otherwise, has actually attempted it as a translation in practice. In practice, this incident is translated into English solely and exclusively as either Battle of Shigisan or an obvious equivalent of that.

Also, regarding Sansom, I have a copy of A History of Japan to 1334 on my bookshelf dated from 1974 and he uses "battle at Shigisan", though in the Google Books copy he uses "Shigisen". Apparently, he corrected the spelling in later editions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurtisNaito (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that. You haven't changed my opinion on the (English version of the?) Encyclopedia overall (I'm the one who wrote the most recent review of the book on Amazon.com) so it'll still see it's day. I don't mind using an English name that has been used in reliable sources, just as long we don't incorrectly imply that it is a translation of the Japanese name. The version of Sansom I read start-to-finish three years ago was the most recent reprint from Tuttle, but I don't remember what it said. Sansom died in 1965, so I'd be willing to guess the 1958 version on GBooks was the only one he himself checked. We also can't attribute "Battle of Shigisen" to him when he said " in a decisive battle at Shigisen". How about this: we include a footnote in this article, the Mount Shigi article, or both, with "Shigisan is sometimes spelled Shigisen in English sources." As you point out, there are a whole bunch of variants of "Battle of Shigisan", and so listing them all in the article is pointless, and giving special weight to "Battle of Shigisen" over all the other variants is unnecessary. I'd even be willing to say that Sansom's using it makes "a battle at Shigisen" the most prominent variant -- other similarly good sources also don't use "Battle of Shigisen" but rather something like "when a yonth of fifteen in that battle of Shigisen (587) which ended in the death of the Mononobe chieftain" (Murdoch). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Per my comment on RSN, "Shigisen" and the variants are apparently legitimate, since this event took place so long ago that the character 山 was not read in Japanese as san but sen. Perhaps we should add a footnote giving a brief outline of the different kinds of on readings and their history so as to explain why several western works call it "Shigisen". However, I don't have a source specifically giving this as the reason for particular western authors spelling it that way, only that in the 6th century it was likely pronounced that way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

We could put that in as a hypothetical explanation, but I still favor the typo theory. Even if the theory is correct that the name was pronounced this way at the time the battle occurred, I'm not aware of any source in Japanese which gives the mountain any other reading than Shigisan so it could be that the reading of "san" has existed from the time of the earliest extant recorded documents. It would also explain why in Sansom's work the rendition of the word was changed sometime prior to 1974.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Then can we just not mention it in the article? My Ariwara no Narihara example above still applies -- a redirect is adequate, and there's no need to state whether or not the spelling is an error when we don't have any sources for it, and in this case we have reason to believe it was actually deliberate and done for good reason. Sansom wasn't the first one to spell it as "Shigisen". I highly doubt Sansom followed other people's mistake knowing it was a mistake. I'm pretty sure he knew the Japanese language too well not to realize that 山 is usually pronounced さん. It seems like too much of a coincidence that Sansom accidentally misprinted the same way a number of earlier works had. We know he had read Murdoch, at least. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel the article should principally use either Shigisan (unambiguously the pronunciation of the battle's location in all extant Japanese sources) or else Mount Shigi (which is a translation used in several Western sources à la Mount Fuji). Regarding the status of Shigisen, it appears that so far we lack concrete data on how accurate this reading is, so at the present time I favor either leaving the article as it is, mentioning the existence of Shigisen one time without commenting on its accuracy, or your suggestion of deleting it from the article and redirecting it. Either option seems equally acceptable to me until clearer information emerges.CurtisNaito (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT with Phoenix7777, below) Not "all extant Japanese sources". Just all modern sources that you and I have been able to locate online in the last couple of days. I have retrieved highly reliable sources that state that san is the kan-on and sen is the go-on, and that kan-on readings entered Japan from China 200+ years after this battle. Although right now I don't know what we're arguing about, since we seem to agree fully on how the article should be worded. I also favour either not mentioning Shigisen at all, or just mentioning it without commenting on its accuracy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

As a creator of this article, I devoted a considerable time to explore what the meaning of the Sigisen until I found it is a misspelling or something of Shigisan. So I definitely request to include Shigisen without mentioning the relationship between the two or implying the misspelling of Shigisan―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC).

That's fine. Both myself and Curtis have said we don't mind that. But I definitely don't think we should move the page to "Battle of Mount Shigi", then, since we'd be obliged to mention both the Japanese names for the mountain as well. And we certainly can't claim that it's a mistake unless we have a sourc. Sansom's book having been amended either shortly before or after his death is not a reliable source. He followed Murdoch, whose book he had read, and several other earlier sources, so it's almost impossible it was a misprint. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The proposed lead Battle of Shigisan (丁未の乱, Teibi no Ran, also called 丁未の変 Teibi no Hen or 丁未の役 Teibi no Eki) is misleading. It shows as if "丁未の乱" and "Teibi no Ran" are a kanji script and a transliteration of "Battle of Shigisan". It should be Battle of Shigisan (Battle of Mount Shigi), also called 丁未の乱 Teibi no Ran, 丁未の変 Teibi no Hen or 丁未の役 Teibi no Eki.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The English name (you have been arguing) is "The Battle of Shigisan"; the Japanese name is 丁未の何とか. What's wrong with pointing this out? There is no possible equivalent of "Battle of Shigisan" in Japanese, so why do you want to put a parenthetical statement after "Battle of Shigisan", if it's not the Japanese name of the battle. It also seems problematic to include "Battle of Mount Shigi" as on of the variant names without mentioning "Battle of Shigi-san", "Battle of Shigi-sen", "Battle of Mt. Shigi", "Battle at Shigisan", and so on. Redirects are enough; we don't need to mention all the possible variants used in one or two sources. CurtisNaito seems to agree with me that we should stick to one spelling of Shigisan as the name of the battle. ("The Battle of Shigisan was fought at ]" is fine, though.) My proposed wording is also consistent with other articles on topics where the English name means something different from the original name (see Throne of Blood). How about "Battle of Shigisan (丁未の乱, Teibi no Ran, also called 丁未の変 Teibi no Hen or 丁未の役 Teibi no Eki, literally "Teibi Incident" or "Teibi Battle")"?

We could always ask for the page to be moved again to Battle of Mount Shigi, if you like? But that name is only similar to the more common English names for the battle if the reader already speaks Japanese, and so if we call the article "Battle of Mount Shigi", we're then obliged to clutter up the lead with the English variant names again.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is you can read and write Japanese. The template nihongo is designed to show English (kanji/kana, rōmaji). All other article used the template for that purpose. As I said above it shows as if "丁未の乱" and "Teibi no Ran" are a kanji script and a transliteration of "Battle of Shigisan" although it is not. If the English name is Teibi Incident, your format is correct. (Battle of Mount Shigi) is not an alternative name but a translation of "Battle of Shigisan". The readers don't know the meaning of Shigisan unlike you. So the meaning of Shigisan should be explained as early as possible.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

How about "The Battle of Shigisan (丁未の乱, Teibi no Ran, also called 丁未の変 Teibi no Hen or 丁未の役 Teibi no Eki, literally "Teibi Battle" or "Teibi Incident") was a battle fought in 587 between Soga no Umako and Mononobe no Moriya at Mount Shigi (Shigisan in Japanese)."? This way we specify that "Shigisan" is the Japanese word for "Mount Shigi", we avoid cluttering up the article with more than one English variant of "Battle of Shigisan" (those variants only differ based on their spelling of 信貴山 in English, and most only appear in maybe one or two sources), we avoid cluttering up the first part of the first sentence with anything, and we link to the Mount Shigi article in the first sentence. Regarding the sentence you added in the middle (edit conflict): that's actually one of the reasons I initially moved the page -- it's so much easier to work out these little details if the English and Japanese names are translations of each other. However, in this case we have an English name and a Japanese name (a few of both, really), so giving both in the Nihongo template and adding "literally, ..." is okay. I know technically the "English" parameter is for a "translation", but in practice that's not how it's used (I've hardly ever seen the template with the first parameter left blank), and the only people who would notice are Misplaced Pages editors, not readers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

FTR, I'm also open to "The Battle of Shigisan (丁未の役, Teibi no Eki, literally, "Teibi Battle") was a battle fought in 587 between Soga no Umako and Mononobe no Moriya at Mount Shigi (Shigisan in Japanese). In Japanese, the battle is also called also called Teibi no Hen (丁未の変, literally "Teibi Incident") or Teibi no Ran (丁未の乱)." This removes some clutter in the opening sentence. But I'm actually not sure anymore what the "main" Japanese name is. GScholar has 役 come out on top 7-1-1, GBooks has 役 and 変 both at 7, 乱 at 4. It seems ja.wiki, which once again cites no sources, has followed the individual preferences of its editors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I accept your proposal of the translation of Shigisan. However why don't you understand my concern? Your usage of the template is wrong as long as the English name is Battle of Shigisan. Why do you disagree the following sentence? "The Battle of Shigisan, also called 丁未の乱 Teibi no Ran, 丁未の変 Teibi no Hen ... "―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Because the tradition of including the Japanese name of the topic in parentheses after the English name predates the Nihongo template and any "rules" about only formatting this way if it is a "translation" and so on. Also, I don't like including Japanese text outside of parentheses, unless we're actually discussing the Japanese text itself. Even if it's worded the way you say, it should be "The Battle of Shigisan, also called Teibi no Ran (丁未の乱), Teibi no Hen (丁未の変) ... " Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, while it's not a problem here anymore, your suggestion would set a precedent that every time the English name differs semantically from the Japanese name, we have to find out whether English-language sources ever use the Japanese name and word the opening sentence as "also known as" or "known in Japanese as" accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

General Google search also indicates that about 1/3 of the 乱 results are based on Misplaced Pages, and 役 comes out on top again if we exclude the Wiki results.

I think Hijiri88's version is acceptable in Misplaced Pages common practice. Aside from the films he listed, I noticed a lot of history-related article which do basically the same thing, like Satsuma Rebellion and Recruit Scandal.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with you. The Japanese name should be the most common Japanese name, probably the current title of the Japanese article Teibi no ran.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Read my earlier comments. Of the four "Japanese names" for this incident, Teibi no Ran is the second least common (Mononobe no Moriya no Hen doesn't even seem to exist). We should probably be going with Teibi no Eki or maybe Teibi no Hen. Or maybe we should be merging this article with Mononobe no Moriya -- that's how it was on ja.wiki until Kouko0515 irresponsibly split them and gave the article an extremely obscure name that apparently no specialists use. I also noticed almost no reliable Anglophone scholars refer to this battle by a "name", either. Of all the names, I honestly think Teibi no Hen is the best, since it appears to be based on Isshi no Hen, the "direct sequel" to this battle. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose an attempt to merge this article, because the battle was highly consequential to the history of Japan. Someday I can foresee this article including not only a section on the background and details of the battle itself, which would certainly include some details of Mononobe no Moriya's life along with other data, but also a section on the far-reaching aftermath of this battle which brought the new religion of Buddhism to the forefront for the first time in Japanese history and directly paved the way for the installation of Shotoku, the greatest leader in Japanese history, as regent. Many individuals are part of the story of the battle and its consequences, not just Mononobe no Moriya. I should also add that the claim that "almost no reliable Anglophone scholars refer to this battle by a 'name'" is not quite accurate. There are at least one dozen reliable sources who explicitly name it, and even the few who don't do make reference to Mount Shigi as the site of this decisive battle.

Regarding the main Japanese name of the battle, I don't have a strong opinion but lean towards Teibi no Eki based on Google Books, Google Scholar, and Hathitrust searches.

Regarding Shigisen, for the time being I still lean toward the theory that this is a typo. None of the sources that use Shigisen provide a direct citation to a particular ancient Japanese record, so in reality we have no proof that the original romanization mistake was not simply copied by subsequent authors. Part of the reason why I say this is because in Japanese the battle is referred to as the Teibi Incident, and yet all the scholars who use Shigisen calls it the "battle of Shigisen", including, for instance, Charles William Hepner and James Murdoch. If all of these authors had independently viewed the same ancient accounts, wouldn't at least one of them opted to use the name for the battle that the ancient chronicles used? Did each one of them really decide independently to forgo the battle's Japanese name and invent the exact same alternative? It seems unlikely, but granted, there is a possibility that the original sources actually did use the name Battle of Shigisen, with the modern Japanese name of Teibi Incident being a later invention. Still, I consider renaming the article to "Battle of Shigisen" to be a possibility, while adding a footnote explaining that the name was pronounced that way prior to the Heian Period. Of course such a footnote would technically constitute original research, but in this case we have no other choice because I'm sure that you're aware that it would confuse readers if we state that the Battle of Shigisen took place near Shigisan. If there continues to be disagreement then it might be better to eliminate all this speculation once and for all and simply rename the article Battle of Mt. Shigi while noting, perhaps in a footnote, that scholars have romanized the name Mt. Shigi as both Shigisen and Shigisan.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Start-Class Japan-related articles
• Low-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Japanese military history articles
• Japanese military history task force articles