Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:47, 9 February 2014

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Okura toraijin (kikajin) theory

I have never said this is anything other than a theory, and have not tried to add the text "Okura is Korean" (or "Okura is South Korean"!) to the article. This is a ridiculous straw man argument, clearly aimed at removing the whole discussion as part of some non-historical, non-literary agenda that runs contrary to the goal of Misplaced Pages. The theory is accepted by a great many respected literary historians (Nakanishi, Keene, Levy), and even its detractors (Aoki) see the need to go out of their way to criticize the theory. Almost no in-depth works on Okura written in the last 30 years dismiss the theory out of hand or completely ignore it. Basing an encyclopedia article's "NPOV" on a very few (old?) dictionary entries on Okura that just happen not to mention the theory is patently ridiculous. 182.249.240.31 (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like 182.249... is Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address is not allowed. See WP:SOCK. 114.164.233.125 (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Okura's origin （The commentary by juzumaru）

"Yamanoue Okura is a Japanese" is Common Sense of the historical science. And the hypothesis "Okura is a toraijin (foreigner)" doesn't have credibility. The reason is as the following content:

• According to "新選姓氏録(Shinsen Shojiroku)" (Newly Compiled Register of Clan Names and Titles of Nobility), Okura is a distant branch of the imperial family of Japan.（Quote the relevant part "山上朝臣 大春日朝臣同祖、天足彦国忍人命の後 右京皇別下"）Therefore, "Okura is a Japanese" is common sense. Main Japanese encyclopedias are written "Okura is Japanese." And this record is quoted in plural treatises. （Show an example 「類衆歌林」覚え書き 86page 「粟田真人は、文武四年に藤原不比等と共に律令選定を命ぜられており、この頃より不比等とのつながりが窺われよう。また、新選姓氏録などから山上憶良と同族出身である事が推定されるばかりか、大宝元年には憶良と共十分なように恩われる。」)
• Yamanoue-Okura was a Japanese low-class bureaucrat of the about 7th century. Therefore, his life not recorded in detail. The name of the Okura(憶良) is close to the Chinese style than Japanese style. Therefore, someone claims "Okura is not Japanese. He is immigration."
• This claim has been denied by Professor Aoki Kazuo experts ancient Japanese history. According to his book (「憶良帰化人説批判（Okura-Kikajin-setsu-Hihan）」, "Okura was given a title of "臣 (Omi)" from the Japanese emperor. The title of "臣" (Omi) is not given to a Kikajin(Descendants of foreign immigrants). Therefore, Okura is not Kikajin(Descendants of foreign immigrants).")
• Nakanishi Susumu is the scholar who is affirmative in this hypothesis (Okura is a Kikajin (Descendants of foreign immigrants)). However, he admits that this hypothesis can not be proven. According to his description, "Okura's Son (Yamanoue-Funanushi) given a title of "朝臣 (Ason)" from the Japanese emperor. The title of "朝臣 (Ason)" is not given to a Kikajin(foreign immigration). Therefore, Okura is not Kikajin(Descendants of foreign immigrants)." (「朝臣姓を賜った山上船主を憶良の子と推定すれば、憶良の帰化人たらぬことは紛れようもない。」（I have quoted the book written by Nakanishi Susumu "Soukoku-to-meisou Yamnoue Okura wo Megute (相剋と迷走 - 山上憶良をめぐって)" ）
• According to American-born Japanese literature scholar Donald Keene, "Okura wrote Kanshi (Chinese style poetry). But the emotion of his poetry is not Sino-Korean, was the spirit of the Japanese." (Quote from an interview with Daniel Keene of the book NHK Daily Manyoshu )
• Now, there is no treatise which quoted in the affirmative "Okura is Kikajin(Descendants of foreign immigrants).""
• And famous encyclopedia of Japan ("Nihon Rekishi Jinbutsu Jiten" published by The Asahi Shinbun / Heibonsha World Encyclopedia / "Dainihon Jinmei Jiten" (Dictionary of Japanese Biography) published by The Kodansha / Daijisen published by The Shogakukan / Daijirin) do not describe this hypothesis(Okura is a toraijin (foreigner)).

(This is the copy that I have explained Ross Hill in December 31, 2013. And 182.249.240.xxx was watching the talk. )

To stop the edit war

To prevent the edit battle, the page of Yamaue-Okura overwrites only 182.249.240.xxx's demand. (From the 12/24/2013, I stopped editing.)

• 182.249.240.xxx rewrite "Okura to have likely been of Immigrants to ancient Japan descent." to "Okura to have likely been of Korean descent. "
• 182.249.240.xxx erased "The Yamanoue clan was a tributary of the Kasuga clan, who is a descendant of Emperor Kōshō. "

I can add evidence to TalkPage if 182.249.240.xxx calms down. --Juzumaru (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Your original reading of Heian-era primary sources like the Shinsen Shojiroku is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Further, can you tell me which modern printed edition you are using, and on which page exactly is Yamanoue no Okura (not just "the Yamanoue clan") is mentioned??
• It's become increasingly clear that your "famous encyclopedias of Japan" are just the dictionary (and some encyclopedia) entries you found on Kotobank.jp, with the one that mentions the theory (MyPedia) strategically left out.
• Other encyclopedias, like Britannica Kokusai Dai-Hyakkajiten or Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten give extensive coverage to it.
• Also, every one of the secondary sources you list is either extremely old (Aoki, Nakanishi) or clearly quoted out of context (Keene was clearly only talking of the language Okura used; his A History of Japanese Literature actually accepts the toraijin theory).
• "Okura to have likely been of Immigrants to ancient Japan descent" is not English, and it's not my responsibility to improve your grammar when the original wording was fine, and more in line with what the sources actually say, and you only want to change it because of your POV.
• Please do not reply here again unless you are willing to actually respond to my questions.

182.249.240.10 (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, I want you to tell me:

1. which modern scholarly sources say Okura was a tributary of the Kasuga clan,
2. explain where you got your specific list of famous "encyclopedias" (and dictionaries) of Japan that specifically don't mention the theory, and
3. which modern (post-1980) sources discuss Okura in detail and don't even mention the toraijin theory.

182.249.240.31 (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, Juzumaru, please stop breaking up the discussion. Each new comment does not get its own section on a talk page. 182.249.240.10 (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

To 182.249.240.xxx: "Many modern scholars"

182.249.240.xxx wrote "Many modern scholars such as Susumu Nakanishi consider Okura to have likely been of Korean descent."

Can you introduce five or more scholars? （Is "Many" an exaggeration?） --Juzumaru (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

My original source (Keene) gives this as the establishment view of Okura's origins (i.e., many/most specialists accept it). He states that the theory was first established 30 years earlier by Watanabe in 1963. Nakanishi and Levy are two more. Miller (the source for the statements you initially removed from this article) is apparently another. That's five, only listing scholars mentioned previously in this discussion. Tell me though: why do I have to list scholars? I'm not saying this article should say "most scholars" or the like. Can you list two scholars who disagree? (I know there are at least two, but clearly you have not already read up on this, and you certainly can't find a source that says "the toraijin theory is a non-theory and should not be mentioned in an encyclopedia article".) 182.249.240.35 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

182.249.240.xxx could not introduce five or more scholars. Therefore I delete "Many modern scholars". This section is completed. --Juzumaru (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I named Watanabe, Nakanishi, Keene, Miller, Levy, Vovin. That's six! 182.249.240.33 (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Watabe Kazuo's hypothesis "his name is a China style. Therefore, he is a foreigner." 「（憶良の前半生）First half of Okura」(1969：NACSIS-CAT ID :AN00265261）
  • This hypothesis has been denied by Professor Aoki Kazuo experts ancient Japanese history. According to his book (「憶良帰化人説批判（Okura-Kikajin-setsu-Hihan）」, "Okura was given a title of "臣 (Omi)" from the Japanese emperor. The title of "臣" (Omi) is not given to a Kikajin(Descendants of foreign immigrants). Therefore, Okura is not Kikajin(Descendants of foreign immigrants).")
• Nakanishi Susumu is the scholar who is affirmative in this hypothesis (Okura is a Kikajin (Descendants of foreign immigrants)). However, he admits that this hypothesis can not be proven. According to his description, "Okura's Son (Yamanoue-Funanushi) given a title of "朝臣 (Ason)" from the Japanese emperor. The title of "朝臣 (Ason)" is not given to a Kikajin(foreign immigration). Therefore, Okura is not Kikajin(Descendants of foreign immigrants)." (「朝臣姓を賜った山上船主を憶良の子と推定すれば、憶良の帰化人たらぬことは紛れようもない。」（"Soukoku-to-meisou Yamnoue Okura wo Megute (相剋と迷妄 - 山上憶良をめぐって)" written by Nakanishi Susumu (1965：ISSN 0389-4029)
• According to the interview with Donald Keene, "Okura wrote Kanshi (Chinese style poetry). But the emotion of his poetry is not Sino-Korean, was the spirit of the Japanese." (Quote from an interview with Daniel Keene of the book NHK Daily Manyoshu ) (However, he does not declare origin of Okura.)
• Miller -Who?
• Levy - Who?
• Vovin -Who?

I will add the new information there. --Juzumaru (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did 182.249.240.xxx erased "The Yamanoue clan was a tributary of the Kasuga clan..."

Please explain why 182.249.240.xxx continues to erase "The Yamanoue clan was a tributary of the Kasuga clan, who is a descendant of Emperor Kōshō." --Juzumaru (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Because that's not a fact. It's an opinion/fringe theory of one scholar, Mori, who almost never publishes in this field. It is oppsed by the only other source any of us have found that mentions it (Vovin), and is based on what is almost certainly a misreading of a later source (憶良 is not mentioned anywhere in the Shinsen, and names beginning with憶 are only mentioned in association with immigrants from the Korean peninsula). 182.249.240.21 (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The Yamanoue clan was a tributary of the Kasuga clan...(山上朝臣の条にはその氏が大春日朝臣と同祖...)" was quoted from "Research of Shinsen-Shojiroku"（新撰姓氏録の基礎的研究）written by Saeki Arikiyo. (This book was awarded the Japan Academy Prize (academics) in 1984. .)
• Yamanoue-Ason (山上朝臣) is the Yamanoue clan. Yamanoue Okura belong to this clan. This is the fact that Nakanishi agrees.
• "names beginning with 憶 are only mentioned in association with immigrants from the Korean peninsula" is not related to Yamanoue-Okura. I quote the "names beginning with 憶 ".「The Atobekusushinoomi clan's ancestor is 憶徳 who came from Goryeo.」「The Ishino clan's ancestor is 憶頼 who came from Baekje.」These two clans are unrelated to Okura.
• Once again, Why did 182.249.240.xxx erased "The Yamanoue clan was a tributary of the Kasuga clan..." --Juzumaru (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Which sources should we be using?

I'm not the one who removed the Miller source. The statement attached to the Mori source doesn't belong in this article unless Mori specifically mentions OKURA (not just "the Yamanoue clan"). I am willing to discuss whether Tomioka is more relevant than the Levy source, either here or on RSN, but it should be noted that the Levy source APPEARS to be more relevant (speech given by a specialist in this area, in English, published by a major academic institution) and was already upheld by consensus at RSN before it was replaced with the Tomioka source. 182.249.240.23 (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC) (H88)

While searching for Mori (apparently a historian with a background in the relations between Japan and the Asian mainland in the classical period) I found this. Apparently he gave an unconvincing argument about Okura's origins, based on what seems like an unintuitive reading of Shinsen Shojiroku. The article should not be citing a lone scholar's fringe POV as fact, and it's clear that User:Juzumaru, in his constant claims that I am trying to make the article say "Okura is Korean" is engaging in gross projection. And I think we can add Vovin to the list of scholars not convinced by Juzumaru's arguments. Also, his bogus encyclopedia argument has failed too (I'll post quotations when I charge my phone, but virtually all Japanese encyclopedias cover the toraijin theory). 182.249.240.10 (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like 182.249... is Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address is not allowed. See WP:SOCK. 114.164.114.173 (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So basically the response to a valid breakdown of the circumstances is "Yeah, well, you have an account". This ironically from an IP who clearly added this page to his WP:WATCHLIST because I edited ut in the past. Nice. 182.249.241.37 (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Hjr88

Article protected

I have just protected this article for all editing for three days to encourage dispute resolution. I'd suggest seeking input at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Japan and/or following the other steps at WP:DR. Please let me know if consensus on the contested issues is reached before the protection expires and I'll lift it (alternately, this can be requested at WP:RFPP. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like 182.249... is Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address is not allowed. See WP:SOCK. 114.164.114.173 (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Origin theories as covered in encyclopedia and dictionary entries on Okura

So yeah, I went to my local university library and picked out all (or most) of the reference works that had entries devoted to Yamanoue no Okura (or "Yamanoue Okura" or "Yamanoe no Okura"), and here is what I found, arranged in roughly chronological order:

That's 15 reference books. (I left out the ones Juzumaru already found on Kotobank.jp and the other ones I already cited, unless they said something different from what was previously stated.)

Of these 15:

• 6 don't mention the origin theories at all, and of these 6 most are very old or (being not Japanese) likely based only on older sources, 1 specifies that nothing is known of his early life, and 1 references Nakanishi's book (which I haven't read, but, according to Levy, propounds the Nakanishi theory).
  • If we assume English Britannica is based on old sources, then of these 6, 4 are pre-1980.
• Of the other 9, all 9 specifically cite the Nakanishi theory as a possibility, while only 2-4 specifically mention the Mori theory as an alternative.
• Of the 2 that clearly cite the Mori theory (mentioning the Shinsen Shojiroku by name), 1 gives it as one of a few pieces of evidence why, although neither theory can be "proven", the Nakanishi theory is weak, and the other 1 gives it as the establishment view that has been attacked from all sides in recent years, with no apparent consensus.
• Of the other 7:
  • 1 simply states "He was born in Baekje".
  • 2 mention no other possibilities and just imply that the Nakanishi theory is the most probable.
  • 1 (ironically written by Nakanishi himself) states that Okura has been considered a descendant of Emperor Kosho but some have questioned whether he might have been of foreign ancestry. (This might be referring to the Mori theory, although the imperial ancestry cited appears to be different from the Shinsen Shojiroku.)
  • 1 appears to say he may have been a cousin of Kakinomoto no Hitomaro, but gives the Nakanishi theory as just as likely. (This is probably citing the Mori theory, as Ame-tarashi-hiko-oshi-hito-no-mikoto is mentioned in both the article and the Shinsen Shojiroku passage.)
  • 2 cite the Nakanishi theory, but say it's weak because of Okura's title "Omi". This is not the same as the Mori theory.

(For convenience's sake, I'm following Vovin 2012 in referring to the theory that a young Okura fled the destruction of Baekje with his father, and its variants, as "the Nakanishi theory", and theories that Okura was a member of the Yamanoue clan, mentioned in the Shinsen Shojiroku as being of imperial descent along with the Awata clan, as the "Mori theory". Also, my analysis of the Mori theory is hindered by my only having access to free online versions of the Shinsen Shojiroku, therefore I have to trust that some bloggers got it right.)

Juzumaru's previous claim that no encyclopedia states "Okura is Korean" has actually turned out to be wrong (ブリタニカ国際大百科事典, 1st ed., simply states he was born in Korea), but I was never arguing that we should say "Okura is Korean" to begin with. It seems the idea that there was some family connection between Okura, the Awata clan and Emperor Kosho, is the second best-established theory regarding Okura's origins, as covered in general reference works. It therefore should be mentioned as one of the possibilities, but clearly should not be given as distinctly more likely than the idea that Okura originated in Baekje, which is obviously the most well-established theory.

Keene, Levy, and Vovin are apparently the only reliable secondary sources either myself or Juzumaru have consulted so far, and all of them take the Nakanishi theory as far more likely, going so far as to largely/completely ignore the Mori theory; all of Juzumaru's citations of i nterviews with Keene and very old books by Nakanishi are obvious misrepresentations, as I have already demonstrated; his claim above that he has quoted the work of Saeki is misleading, as he has not indicated where Saeki specifically refers to Okura and not just "the Yamanoue clan"; Aoki is actually a scholar I first told Juzumaru about, who may be an expert in Japanese history, but not more than Nakanishi or the others, and he just happens to be the main opponent of the Nakanishi theory (according to Keene). (Above I say "myself or Juzumaru", because 114, an obvious sock, should not have his/her opinions counted, and it seems likely Mori and Tomioka are only being used as excuses to undo my edits as revenge for some -- imagined? -- slight.)

Please also note that, unlike Juzumaru, I have included all the information I could find, even if it appears to contradict me. This is because I do not have a dog in this race: I don't frankly care if Okura came from the Korean peninsula or not, and am only trying to write a neutrally-worded encyclopedia using the highest-quality sources; Juzumaru has been trying to remove all references to Korea for ... his own reasons. I think we should mention all theories covered in reliable sources, weighted appropriately, and let the reader make up their own mind; Juzumaru apparently thinks we should remove all reference to the Nakanishi theory and cite the (apparently relatively obscure) Mori theory as fact, with no further elaboration.

I have presented a lot of quotations in this post. If anyone (other than Juzumaru) thinks I have misquoted or misrepresented anything, I would be all too happy to correct myself.

Cheers!

182.249.240.35 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC) (H88)

Good work. There's clearly sufficient grounds for including the Baekje origin theory in the article. I think you may be overstating Keene's position a little, though (it seems to me that while Keene discusses the theory, he falls short of actually endorsing it himself). If I may suggest a wording for the section, I would go with something like: "Yamanoue's origns are the subject of debate. Many scholars, most notably Susumu Nakanishi, consider it likely that Okura was originally a refugee from the Korean kingdom of Baekje who fled to Japan as a child following the Tang dynasty's invasion in 663, pointing to his unusual first name and the presence of Baekje loanwords in his poems. Some reject this theory, however, noting that Yamanoue's kabane of Omi was not granted to those of non-Japanese origin, for example." --Cckerberos (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Keene discusses it, sympathetically, and doesn't discuss any opposing views. It's also very difficult to read the paragraph beginning "Okura's distinctive style" on p.139 as not endorsing the theory, especially in contrast to how he treats Nakanishi's theory of Princess Nukata's supposed origins in Silla (notes 76 & 82). 182.249.5.70 (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

By,which I mean I like your wording. Do you wanna do the honours or shall I? 182.249.122.27 (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like 182.249... is Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address is not allowed. See WP:SOCK. 114.164.114.173 (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The editor using the 182.249.240.xx IP addresses has already established here and at ANI that he is a registered editor unable to use his account for technical reasons. He's not intending to violate WP:SOCK and there's no reason to keep edit warring over this point. Hopefully we won't see any more and we won't have to issue blocks or semiprotect the talk page.--Cúchullain /c 16:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As the edit warring continued immediately after this warning, I've blocked 114.164.114.173 (talk · contribs · count).--Cúchullain /c 17:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. See WP:CAN. 114.164.233.125 (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked User:Cuchullain, an admin who has dealt with the above sock-user in the past, to look at the obvious sockpuppetry/hounding issues. He did not comment on content, nor did I ask him to. User:Cckerberos was "canvassed" on WT:JAPAN where I posted a neutrally worded request for an outside opinion, following the advice of User:Ross Hill. 182.249.241.28 (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

114.164.233.125's editing pattern suggests they are not here to improve the article or the encyclopedia. Please stop edit warring immediately. If this continues you will be blocked again.--Cúchullain /c 14:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't gonna post any more evidence as it seemed redundant, but Juzumaru's last two edits imply he's gonna come back at the end of the month. I went to a different university library and got a copy of 日本古典文学研究史大事典, a work designed specifically to cover things like academic disputes. It says the theory came under fire in the 1970s and 80s, from 歴史学者 (perhaps to say "not literary scholars" -- this would fit every single scholar Juzumaru has cited, and is actually the wording used by the 日本古典文学大事典 as well), but this controversy has mostly died down by "now"(=1997). It doesn't seem to say which side won, but ... Levy and Vovin are the only literary scholars cited here from the last five years, and they both accept the theory as the orthodox view. 182.249.122.27 (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of controversy by Juzumaru

Introduction

Yamanoue no Okura was a poet during the early Nara Period. His past is wrapped in mystery. His origin is one of his mystery.

The user 182.249.240.xxx demanded to edit the Yamanoue no Okura's origin as follows:

1. overwrite "Okura to have likely been of Immigrants to ancient Japan descent." to "Okura to have likely been of Korean descent. "

2. Erase "The Yamanoue clan was a tributary of the Kasuga clan, who is a descendant of Emperor Kōshō. "

I was opposed to 182.249.240.xxx's demand. (The reason is written to the following section.)

As a result, 182.249.240.xxx accused me to the administrator. "Juzumaru's editing is a fringe POV and the Far-right politics." And He has petitioned the WP:BLOCK or WP:TBAN of Juzumaru.

Therefore, I decided that the discussion with 182.249.240.xxx was difficult. To prevent the edit battle, I stop editing of this article. And I want Members of WikiProject Japan to succeed this dispute.

The summary of my explanation is described in the next section.

About Okura kikajin theory

Okura kikajin theory (憶良帰化人説) is a hypothesis suggested by well-known scholar of Japanese literature, Nakanishi Susumu in about 1965. Nakanishi insisted that Yamanoue no Okura was a naturalized citizen from the Baekje. However, his hypothesis was constructed by circumstantial evidence such as poetry of Okura is not Japanese style. However his hypothesis was denied by validation based on historical records of historians. (However, Nakanisi does not retract his hypothesis.)

I explain this hypothesis in chronological order in the next section.

supplementary explanation : Kikajin

The meaning of Kikajin is people from overseas, especially from China and Korea, who settled in early Japan and introduced Continental culture to the Japanese.

Okura kikajin theory

• 1965 : Nakanishi Susumu presented an article titled 'Thought and conflict about the Okura 「相剋と迷妄--山上憶良をめぐって」'
  • Nakanishi thought as follows : "He was a lower class, but he was knowledgeable about Chinese literature. Therefore, isn't he a Kikajin ? "
  • At the same time, Nakanishi has pointed out the problem with this idea. "Son of Okura was given the title of Ason(朝臣). This title is granted only to the descendants of the emperor. （Therefore, he is not a Kikajin.）"
• 1969 : Watanabe Kazuo presented an article titled 'Okura-no-Zenhansei 「憶良の前半生」"the first half of Okura's life.'
  • The hypothesis of Watanabe is as follows : "The name of the Okura(憶良) is not common for the then Japanese. His name is close to the Chinese style than Japanese style. Therefore, "Okura is not Japanese. He is kikajin."
• 1969 : Nakanishi Susumu presented an article titled 'Okura-Kikajinron 「憶良帰化人論」"Okura toraijin (kikajin) theory"'
  • Nakanishi's hypothesis is composed by the following circumstantial evidence:

1. Okura was knowledgeable in Chinese literature. because Okura is a kikajin.

2. refugee of Baekje (one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea) that Okuni (憶仁) is recorded in the Nihon Shoki. (日本書紀 29巻 朱鳥元年五月戊申条(Nihon Shoki Vol.29,Record of May, 686)) Okura and Okuni is using the same chinese characters(憶). In other words, In other words, Okura is Okuni's children.

• 1973 : Aoki Kazuo presented an article titled 'Okura-Kikajinron-Hihan 「憶良帰化人論批判」 "To criticize the Okura kikajin theory"」
  • Aoki has denied the Nakanishi's hypothesis by using a historical fact.

1. "Okura was given a title of "臣 (Omi)" from the Japanese emperor. The title of "臣" (Omi) is not given to a Kikajin. Therefore, Okura is not Kikajin.)

2. The name of the 憶良 can be read Japanese style. (憶良 is able to read as "Ora")

3. There is no historical record "Okuni is a father of Okunra." The family name of Okuni is not 山上(Yamanoue).

4. According to "新選姓氏録(Shinsen Shojiroku)" (Newly Compiled Register of Clan Names and Titles of Nobility), "栗田朝臣：朝臣：大春日朝臣同祖。(Awata clan is "朝臣 (Ason)" class. Ancestors of this clan is Kasuga clan. of descendants of the Japanese imperial family) 山上朝臣 朝臣 同氏。(Yamanoue clan is also "朝臣 (Ason)" class. Their ancestors is the same as Awata Clan. )" In other words, Yamauchi clan is not a descendant of Kikajin.

• 1981: Higo Ryuukai (Professor of the Faculty of literature, Meiji University) presented an article titled 'Origin of Yamanoue Okura・A supplementary sequel '「山上臣憶良の出自・補続--憶良帰化人論をめぐって」
  • Higo has denied the Nakanishi's hypothesis by using a historical fact.

1. Kikajin that came from Korea do not use the name of the parent to the child's name. "憶" cannot be used for a name by parent("憶仁") and child("憶良").

2. Kikajin that came from Korea inherits an occupation. However, Okura has not inherited the occupation (Doctor) of Okuni.

3. Okuni was given an title (勤大壱) from the emperor tenmu. However, Okura does not inherit the high title. (At first, Okura was a government official without a title.)

Currently, there is no historian who supports the hypothesis of the Nakanishi.

supplementary explanation : 朝臣(Ason) / 臣(Omi)

• In 684, 'Yakusa no Kabane' (eight official titles to be conferred upon nobles) was established by Emperor Tenmu.
  • 朝臣(Ason) ranked 2nd by the Yakusa no Kabane. The title given to the Imperial Family's distant cousin
  • 臣(Omi) ranked 6nd by the Yakusa no Kabane. This title succeeds to a title of the Japanese ancient regime. （Many clans is a branch of the Japanese imperial family.）

• According to Shoku Nihongi (Chronicle of Japan Continued), Okura was given no title in 701. ("无位山於億良") Okura gave the title of 臣(Omi)in 714.
• According to Shoku Nihongi (Chronicle of Japan Continued), The son of Okura (Yamanoue no Funanushi) gave the title of 朝臣(Ason) in 768.

Should we erase Shinsen Shōjiroku ?

• I have quoted from the "Research of Shinsen-Shojiroku"（新撰姓氏録の基礎的研究）written by Saeki Arikiyo as follows :

"The Yamanoue clan was a tributary of the Kasuga clan...(山上朝臣の条にはその氏が大春日朝臣と同祖...)"
("Research of Shinsen-Shojiroku" was awarded the Japan Academy Prize (academics) in 1984. .)

• 182.249.240.xxx continued erasing all reference to the Record of Shinsen Shōjiroku that "The Yamanoue no Okura was a tributary of the Kasuga clan."
• About the reason to erase, 182.249.240.xxx answered as follows. :

Because that's not a fact. It's an opinion/fringe theory of one scholar, Mori, who almost never publishes in this field. It is oppsed by the only other source any of us have found that mentions it (Vovin), and is based on what is almost certainly a misreading of a later source (憶良 is not mentioned anywhere in the Shinsen, and names beginning with 憶 are only mentioned in association with immigrants from the Korean peninsula). 182.249.240.21 (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "names beginning with 憶 " is recorded in the Shinsen-Shojiroku as follows :
  • 1.The Atobekusushinoomi clan's ancestor is 憶徳 who came from Goryeo. (出自高麗国人大兄憶徳也)
  • 2.The Ishino clan's ancestor is 憶頼 who came from Baekje. (出自百済国人近速王孫憶頼福留也)
    

• These two clans are divided into 'Shoban'. The clans of 'Shoban' were clans of kikajin (people from overseas, particularly from China and Korea)
• Yamanouchi Okura's clan are divided into 'Kōbetsu'. The clans of 'Kōbetsu' were clans descended from the Japanese imperial families.

In other words, 182.249.240.xxx's historical knowledge is a mistake. Therefore 182.249.240.xxx's demand should be rejected.

supplementary explanation : Shinsen Shōjiroku

• Shinsen Shōjiroku is an ancient clan-name register or directory that was compiled by an order from Emperor Saga in the early Heian period.
• For the 1182 clans that lived in Heian-kyo (the ancient capital of Japan in the current Kyoto) and the Kinai region (the five capital provinces surrounding the ancient capitals of Nara and Kyoto), "Shinsen Shojiroku" describes the origin of their family names, how the pedigrees branched and other information by classifying the clans, based on the place of origin, into Kōbetsu (皇別) (clans that branched out from the Imperial Family), Shinbetsu (神別) (clans the branched out of the Ancient powerful clan (Descendants of the God of the region)) and Shoban (諸蕃) (descendents of immigrants from Korean Peninsula, Mainland China, and other areas) to clarify their ancestors.

Conclusions

about this dispute, Steven D. Carter Department of Asian Languages Stanford University, describes the most appropriate.

"One of the most distinguished members of Otomo no Tabito's Kyushu salon was a scholar named Yamanoue no Okura. Some scholars contend that he was born on the continent to a scholarly father who emigrated to Japan and eventually became physician to several Japanese emperors. Whatever the case, Okura was raised in Japan, although with a Chinese- style education in the classics and, of course, in poetry. " ("Traditional Japanese Poetry: An Anthology" by Steven D. Carter Stanford University Press, Stanford, 199 - page44 )

In addition, I think that we should accept Cúchullain's proposal tentatively.

"Yamanoue's origns are the subject of debate. Many scholars, most notably Susumu Nakanishi, consider it likely that Okura was originally a refugee from the Korean kingdom of Baekje who fled to Japan as a child following the Tang dynasty's invasion in 663, pointing to his unusual first name and the presence of Baekje loanwords in his poems. Some reject this theory, however, noting that Yamanoue's kabane of Omi was not granted to those of non-Japanese origin, for example."

Trivia

• American-born Japanese language author, Hideo Levy speech at the forum by the Agency for Cultural Affairs in 2006. He mentioned the hypothesis of Nakanishi and supported it. (Agency for Cultural Affairs)

僕が若い頃にずっと読んでいた万葉集の中には、大陸からの渡来人、帰化人、実に大きな歌人も日本語を書いていたということを、思い出しました。その名前は、一番有名な方は言うまでもなく山上憶良ですね。これは中西先生だけではないのですが、中西説が一番有力な学説ですが、恐らくは朝鮮の扶余（ぷよ）ですね、百済の扶余から子供時代に日本に渡り、日本の宮廷人となり、日本の歌人となり、恐らく柿本人麻呂や山部赤人と並んで万葉集に残るようになるということ。

• Levy described Okura kikajin theory like this. (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)

万葉集を読み、翻訳していた頃に、アジア大陸からの渡来人の歌人もいただろうという学説を知った。朝鮮半島の百済出身だという説がある山上憶良である。渡来人は異国の文化や技術を導入したのだが、逆に彼らの中の何人かは、こちらの文化の内部に入り、こちらのことばを自己表現の媒介にしたらしい。その営みには本物の『国際化』を暗示するものがあるのではないか、と 1300 年前の日本への移民が詠んだ複合的で美しい日本語を読みながら、思った。

Summary

• When Levy had translated the Man'yōshū, he knew this hypothesis.
• Some Kikajin（foreigners）seemed to do self-expression in Japanese poetry
• Levy thinks that this hypothesis suggests true globalization.

--Juzumaru (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This concludes my explanation.　(2014/02/01 Update)

I will do some corrections in the future. And, I verify the thesis of Hideo Levy. (I was not found in the thesis of Donald Keene written in the Japanese which supports an Okura kikajin theory.) --Juzumaru (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Juzumaru, this is not an article about Japanese history, it's an an article about classical Japanese literature. The two are different fields. If no scholars of "Japanese history" accept a theory but the majority of literary scholars do, that doesn't mean we shouldnt include it. Your Shinsen Shojiroku claim, on the other hand, is a fringe theory. If you touch this article before actually addressing the issues raised here, and ceasing to completely ignore me and prop up straw men, I will revert you. Also, please actually read the Keene source I cited a year ago. Its language is irrelevant, but it IS available in Japanese (ドナルド・キーン『日本文学史』). 182.249.241.7 (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

> this is not an article about Japanese history, it's an an article about classical Japanese literature.

Yamanoue no Okura is not a fictitious character. He is a real person in history.

I said this article is about literature, not history, because the two are different fields. None of the historians you have cited earned degrees in Man'yo scholarship like Nakanishi, Levy, etc. They are scholars of 日本史 (or 東洋史 or some such), NOT 日本文学. Because the scholars you cite are not specialists, none of them has ever been allowed write an encyclopedia article on the topic. And, as is covered in 日本古典文学研究史大事典's summary of the controversy noted, they have been silent on the issue since the 1980s. Specialist encyclopedias like the 日本古典文学大辞典 or 日本古典文学研究史大事典 all specify that it is 歴史学者, not 日本文学研究者, who reject(ed) the Nakanishi theory, and most general reference works, as I have already demonstrated, give it as the most likely or only theory of his origins. 182.249.240.4 (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

> Your Shinsen Shojiroku claim, on the other hand, is a fringe theory.

182.249.241.xxx has to prove "explanation of Aoki Kazuo is fringe theory."

Unlike the Nakanishi theory, Aoki's claims get virtually no coverage in reliable tertiary sources. What more proof do you need? 182.249.240.24 (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

> please actually read the Keene source I cited a year ago.

How many pages of that book (ドナルド・キーン『日本文学史』) do I have to read?

My Japanese version (古代・中世の篇Ⅰ) is missing, but it's primarily the second paragraph of the section discussing Okura in chapter 3 (page 139 in the English version) and note 9 in said chapter. But I already told you this much. 182.249.240.24 (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

And why does your "summary of the controversy" end in 1981? I've already named four specialist sources from within the last 20 years that cover the toraijin theory and basically dismiss all your claims. 182.249.241.3 (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

> And why does your "summary of the controversy" end in 1981?

It is because the verification of Nakanishi's hypothesis is completed in 1981. The evidence to prove a hypothesis of Nakanishi is not announced afterwards.

All but two of the post-1981sources that have been cited by any of us mention the theory, and virtually all of those accept it. 182.249.240.24 (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

> I've already named four specialist sources from within the last 20 years that cover the toraijin theory and basically dismiss all your claims.

There is no thesis of Yamanoue no Okura in the source that 182.249.241.xxx presented. As an example, 182.249.241.xxx's evidence is one paragraph of the speeches of a Japanese translator, Hideo Levy.

I don't know what you mean by "thesis" (これだけ、日本語でお願いします？), but all of them accept the theory as being about as close to a "fact" as these things can be. 182.249.240.24 (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The explanation of Juzumaru is constructed by an academic treatise about Yamanoue no Okura.--Juzumaru (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, your poor English may be at fault, but ... WP:NOR? ja:Misplaced Pages:独自研究は載せない? I think you aren't getting what Misplaced Pages is all about. 182.249.240.24 (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the suggestion above was from Cckerberos, not me. I've only commented on administrator matters.--Cúchullain /c 22:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Origins -- Dwy's edit on 12:30, 8 February 2014

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the "Origins" section include explanation on how Nakanishi argued his Okura toraijin (kikajin) theory based on Shinsen Shojiroku. Dwy (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

182.249.240.xxx has been insisting that Susumu Nakanishi's theory that Okura was born in Baekje should be presented as the majority opinion in the relevant academic field. As you can see in the discussion here, I do not agree on that, but 182.249.240.xxx has taken so uncompromising stand so I conceded to let it go for the moment. As it happened, the article relied entirely on a tertiary source for the description of Nakanishi's theory, and the information given was terribly insufficient both in quality and quantity. So I made a revision based on Nakanishi's own work, strictly adhering to what he wrote. To my great surprise, however, 182.249.240.xxx reverted my edit, saying it was POV. I cannot believe this because the only reason I wrote about Nakanishi theory was that 182.249.240.xxx so adamantly insisted it was the majority view. How can a majority view be POV? I have no idea at all. Maybe 182.249.240.xxx just liked the "Okura was born in Beakje" part and was not interested at all in how Nakanishi argued to come to that conclusion? I really don't know what to do.--Dwy (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Note Dwy could not possibly have been surprised that I reverted him, as I asked him numerous times on WT:JAPAN not to post that version of his text until he presented some evidence that other encyclopedias treat the Baekje origin theory as dismissively as his edit did. Nakanishi has never written that his theory is "not supported by historians". He is himself the premier historian in this field, and the theory is by far the best-established among specialists in this field, as I already demonstrated above. This is pretty consistent with how Dwy and Juzumaru have been misrepresenting and distorting sources throughout this discussion. Note also that Juzumaru and Dwy have throughout this discussion (and most recently in the article itself) been deliberately mistranslation the word rekishi-gakusha with the generic term "historians" or equivalent, where in this context rekishi-gakusha refers to political historians as opposed to literary historians who specialize in this field. Wikipedians, use your brains: neither Dwy nor Juzumaru have ever edited in the area of classical Japanese literature before, where virtually every edit I have made is in this area; all of Juzumaru and Dwy's article edits, further, work to promote a particular 21st-century political POV. 182.249.240.31 (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Dwy wrote a more in-depth description than what is there presently. The only thing that I would change is "is not supported by historians", and I'd replace it with "is not universally excepted" and then explain other minority views. There should be historians explicitly mentioned 182.249.240.36 (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)(i.e. their name). I changed 182.249.24xxx's current version for violating WP:NPOV with the word "attacked" which obviously shows that he's being defensive. I think at this point, after reviewing all this debate and all of the listed sources, that the Origins section should basically say "his origins are unknown, however the major theories are that he is of Korean ancestry or that he is of royal Japanese ancestry", and of course say more about each theory than what I just wrote. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if my wording was not fully NPOV. You must understand that I have been forced to be somewhat ad hoc in my editing of this article, all the while with someone in the wings calling me names and attacking me. However, I think we should ask ourselves why Dwy'first draft said "literary historians" but was changed to "literary scholars", and where it was originally rejected by "some historians" where now it is rejected by "historians". Throughout this entire discussion both Dwy and Juzumaru have been taking a very derogatory view of scholars who specialize in this area, avoiding referring to them as historians where possible and referring to Levy as an American-born Japanese "author" (obviously a reference to how, after publishing two scholarly books on the Manyoshu, he switched careers to write fiction). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.249.240.28 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, please note that of 11 encyclopedias covering the origin theories, all eleven cover Nakanishi's theory, where only four mention the Shinsen Shojiroku (two others list the same theory without mentioning its source). 182.249.240.28 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The historian named on the opposing side should undoubtedly be Aoki Kazuo, "perhaps the most articulate opponent" (Keene 1999 : 160, note 9). However, I still think we should point out that he, like the other principal opponents of the theory, was not a specialist in this area. Of the three specialist reference works discussing the theory and its opponents (Keene, Nihon Koten-Bungaku Kenkyuu-shi Daijiten and Nihon Koten-Bungaku Daijiten) two of them specify this, and the third basically dismisses the opposing views and supports the Nakanishi theory. 182.249.240.36 (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So, we all agree to write about Nakanishi’s theory. The only issue is whether we should rely on the brief summary in tertiary sources or on Nakanishi’s original work that argues the matter exhaustively in 23-pages. To me, the answer is obvious.

Nakanishi didn’t just say Okura came from Baekje. He also gave us in-depth explanation why he thought it likely, and “Shinsen Shojiroku” forms the central part of the explanation. Again, this is quite obvious to anyone who has read Nakanishi’s book directly.

I am not too crazy about writing about the “major theory” that he is of royal Japanese ancestry (as opposed to the “fact” that there exists a historical document recording a family legend to that effect) . This is a barren field that few academics ever wanted to plow, and I doubt that there is any noteworthy academic work having attempted to verify Okura’s imperial genealogy.

I am actually of the opinion that the issue of Okura’s origin belongs to the field of history, rather than literature, and I believe that is why Nakanishi (as a literary scholar lacking specialist knowledge in history) asked for the opinion of historians.

I revised my draft edit from “refuted by SOME historians” to “not supported by historians” because I thought that the revised wordings were more faithful to Nakanishi’s original statement 「帰化人の推定について史家の意見を仰いだところ「臣」たることに異議があった」.（Nakanishi Susumu (1973), “ Yamanoue no Okura”, Kawade Shobo Shinsha, p.45）

I do not remember writing"literary historians." There may be some confusion on the part of 182.249.240.xxx.

It is not me or Juzumaru who are “taking a very derogatory view of scholars who specialize in this area.” It is actually Aoki Kazuo who claimed that Nakanishi neglected the basic principles of uji/kamane system, and he was not capable of sensible genealogical analysis. （Aoki Kazuo (1973), “ Okura Kikajin-Setsu Hihan”, Manyoshu Kenkyu, vol.2, Hanawa Shobo, p.271 --Dwy (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be a little hazy on when Nakanishi wrote what. The book you are referring to is at least the third in a line of works Nakanishi wrote discussing the theory, and he wrote it over a decade after first taking up the theory (in his article "Okura Kikajin-ron") originally proposed by Watanabe Kazuo. He is the theory's most prominent proponent, but citing him as justification for rewriting this article in a manner that implies the theory is not accepted is absurd. Neither Juzumaru nor you have cited a single source from the last 30 years that rejects the theory, but most of the sources supporting it (Keene, Miller, Levy, Vovin) are from the last 20 years.Explain this, and name at least three reputable academics who rejected this theory within the last two decades to support your explanation. So far you have only been able to cite one book by one scholar, a 40-year-old book that propounds the theory and you are misrepresenting as being critical of it? Why are you doing this? What is your motivation? Why have almost all of your article edits been to articles about geopolitical disputes between Japan and South Korea?? 182.249.240.7 (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to completely agree with Dwy here as he is merely making a concisely correct argument. Nakanishi did (and that is a historical fact) neglect the basic principles of Kabane. Aoki Kazuo cannot be faulted for merely voicing this very apparent fact. The way Daijiten simply dismisses the theory without providing (IMHO) sufficient justification is another argument in favour of Dwy's stand. It is for this simple reason that one cannot propose that Susumu Nakanishi's theory that Okura was born in Baekje should be presented as the majority opinion. Sonarclawz (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Which Daijiten are you talking about? The Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten says the theory has great explanatory power but still has problems and is not universally accepted. The Nihon Koten Bungaku Kenkyuu-shi Daijiten says the theory had its proponents and its critics, but the dispute has died down since the 1980s. Every single secondary source from the last 30 years (that has been cited here) supports the theory. It's also worth noting that Dwy apparently doesn't understand WP:PSTS. When discussing Yamanoue no Okura Nakanishi is a secondary source and the NKBKD is a tertiary source; when discussing Nakanishi Susumu (and his theory) Nakanishi is a primary source and the NKBKD is a secondary source. Additionally, Nakanishi (unlike Okura) is still alive, so by citing Nakanishi's book but changing the emphases in order to heavily imply Nakanishi said something he didn't, Dwy has effectively violated WP:BLP. 182.249.240.14 (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a second, IP-san. I cannot see why Dwy is not trying to imply that Nakanishi said something that he did not, for the pure sake of trying to justify that WP:BLP not just applies, but has also been violated. The dispute over the Nihon Koten Bungaku Kenkyuu-shi Daijiten may have died down after the purges conducted in 1985, and has not been heard of since the subsewuent incidents in '87, but the proposed edits are only trying to state the obvious. I am clearly referring to the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten which is very justified in its approach even if it has not been accepted universally. I completely agree that Nakanishi is a secondary source, and I also understand that by virtue of this, his statements are accepted in WP as a neutral and reliable source. WP:PSTS can only apply if NKBKD is used as a secondary source in a case where Yamaoune no Okura is already being described in a primary source like the daijiten. thank you for understanding my point of view and supporting me. Sonarclawz (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Stub-Class biography articles
• Stub-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• Automatically assessed biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment