Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:37, 6 March 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.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Summary of controversy by Juzumaru

Introduction

Yamanoue no Okura was a poet during the early Nara Period. however, his detailed career such as date of birth and death is unknown.

The user 182.249.240.xxx demanded to edit the Yamanoue no Okura 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. his hypothesis was constructed by circumstantial evidence such as He was familiar with the Chinese culture. However his hypothesis was denied by validation based on historical facts of historians. (However, Nakanisi still clung to his hypothesis.)

I explain the chronology of this hypothesis in the next section.

supplementary explanation : Kikajin

Kikajin refers to people who came to Japan from abroad in a broad sense, but it also refers to people who became naturalized citizens of Japan from the Chinese continent via the Ryukyu Islands or the Korean Peninsula in ancient times in a limited sense.

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 He doubted as follows : "He was a lower class, but he was knowledgeable about Chinese literature. Therefore, isn't he a Kikajin ? (「卑姓の憶良のあの学殖は、どこで蓄え得たのか」) "
  • Nakanishi guessed that Okura's father was Okuni (憶仁) of Baekje's refugee (one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea). Okura and Okuni is using the same chinese characters(憶). In other words, Okura is Okuni's children.
  • At the same time, Nakanishi has pointed out the problem with this hypothesis. "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.（「(山上)船主を憶良の子と推測すれば、憶良の帰化人たらぬことは紛れようもない」)"
• 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 explained his hypothesis based on the Shinsen Shojiroku:

Ancestor of Yamanoue clan is Amatarashi-Hikokuni-Oshihito-no-Mikoto (足彦国押人命) Nakanishi was classified into three types of Amatarashi-Hikokuni-Oshihito-no-Mikoto's descendants (Hiko-oketsu/Hiko-kunibuku/Tagane-tsuki). Yamanoue clan has been classified as Hiko-kunibuku's descendants.
(中西は新撰姓氏録に山上朝臣が同祖とする粟田朝臣の祖先が「天足彦国押人命」と記されていることに基づいて、天足彦国押人命の後裔42氏族を古事記・日本書紀に照らして、ヒコオケツ/ヒコクニブク/タガネツキの3種類に分類した。そして、山上氏はヒコクニブクの子孫と定義した。)

Nakanishi concluded that Yamanoue clan is a tributary of Awata clan. And, Nakanishi guessed that Okura's father migrated to Omi province, and joined Yamenoue clan.
(中西は山上氏を近江甲賀に定住した粟田氏の傍流として定義し、天智・天武の医者として仕えた億仁は近江甲賀に住み、山上氏から一族に迎え入れれたと推測した。)

• 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 )

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

• 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.　(2014/02/15 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)

Okay, either I'm missing something, or something super-fishy is going on. Assuming good faith, I posted a straight response immediately above this comment. But then I started to wonder where Sonarclawz came from -- I've got all the articles in this area on my watchlist and I've never seen him edit here before. Checking his contributions I noticed the above was his first edit since May 2013, and before that he'd made five edits in June/July 2012, and all of his other 100 odd edits were in a two-week period in April 2012. How the hell did an inactive user of this level happen to return after basically two years in order to make a seemingly irrelevant comment (what does "Daijiten" refer to??) in an extremely niche area like this? 182.249.240.25 (talk) 09:59, 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)

I am merely responding to the RFC posted earlier. Forgive me if my knowledge of this rather complicated topic is not up to your mark. i am merely trying to assist you in finding a resolution of the topic raised. Sonarclawz (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What purges?? The NKBKD is an encyclopedia and there is no academic dispute over it. You are trolling here, but I honestly don't blame you since the OP blatantly violated point 3 on WP:RFC: there is nothing neutral or accurate about the opening comment. This RFC should be closed and a new one opened. Actually I totally blame you for the trolling. But that's a relatively minor problem. You'll get yourself blocked for it soon. 182.249.240.33 (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt if you will find a resolution to the RFC raised if you refer to those to respond to it as trolls, and argue with them over trivialities. Sonarclawz (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me what you think this dispute is about? None of your comments make any sense. This is why I think you are just here for a laugh and have no genuine interest in helping us resolve this dispute. 182.249.240.11 (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please. The President of the Nara Bunka is notable enough for his thoughts to be taken seriously. And if his opinion is presented here while clearly being attributed to him - with a reliable and direct source listed - then there should be no problem at all. You see, the article is about Yamanoue no Okura, and not about Nakanishi (something that you keep forgetting when you raise WP:BLP or all things), and therefore what he writes about the poet is a reliable secondary source. You may argue that it is POV, but that is acceptable if we clearly mention that it was Nakanishi who said it. Of course, you are uncompromising as indicated by Dwy, so there is no reason why you should treat this RFC with the respect it derserves. Sonarclawz (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Misplaced Pages disposes of this rather lengthy debate with a single sentence: "He was said to be a member of the Kasuga clan and coming from the Awada clan, but Nakanishi has claimed he came from Baekje." This is all that needs to be said about his origin. Trying to use Misplaced Pages to fight out an academic debate, by including irrelevant details such as support from the Nara Bunka, is a total waste of space. Furthermore both sides of this debate are unnecessarily combative when all that is needed is a single sentence. Shii (tock) 16:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Shii. It's pretty obvious that no one knows where he's from, so you might as well just state that it's unknown and provide a concise summary of the various theories, and that is all. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I am quite happy with the "single sentence" presented by Shii. --Dwy (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, a single sentence doesn't deserve its own section, but do whatever works. It's better to have more rather than less information. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of ending this dispute right now, and Shii's proposal is adequate, but using Japanese Misplaced Pages instead of the 22 other encyclopedias (including two specialist reference works that discuss the theory in detail) as our model is problematic, especially when virtually all the worthwhile research on Okura throughout the 1960s to 1980s was on this issue. I also think we should still mention "literary scholars such as Susumu Nakanishi" and "historians such as Kazuo Aoki". And Shii: look at the history: there is not equal blame to go around here. 182.249.240.11 (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of compromise, would you be willing to accept a single sentence that says "He is said to come from X, a theory which has some modern support, although literary scholar Susumu Nakanishi has proposed he is actually from Baekje"? It doesn't have to imply that Nakanishi was alone in his theory. Shii (tock) 04:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"literary scholar Susumu Nakanishi" → "literary scholars such as Susumu Nakanishi". We also can't use Nakanishi as (the only) source; I suggest going back to my original source, Keene, whose book is in English and is widely available, and also covers the theory and its history in detail. 182.249.240.36 (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Correction: Keene fails WP:V on the Awata clan point as, like most books written by literary scholars, it doesn't mention the Awata clan. We should use both Keene and Sekai Dai-Hyakkajiten (the only reliable source that refers to this as the 通説; I'll verify its date and author later this week). The main reason I'm opposed to relying on Nakanishi 1976 is that it probably fails V for other scholars supporting the the theory, and using a very old Japanese book that's impossible for most of our readers (all non-Japanese speakers and most Japanese speakers who don't live here) to access, when better sources are available, is a violation of WP:NONENG. 182.249.240.19 (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is that Nakanishi invented the theory and other scholars referenced him. It wasn't a matter of independent proposals. Shii (tock) 15:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Another reason I prefer Keene is that he correctly identifies Kazuo Watanabe as the founder of the theory, and Nakanishi as its most important proponent. Nakanishi didn't invent the theory. Also, if like Juzumaru and Dwy one takes the theory as having been rejected by historical consensusover the last 30 years, then Vovin 2012 could be considered an independent proponent who, after 30 years of silence, claimed "Okura's poems use Baekje loan words, therefore Okura was probably from Baekje". Note that I don't actually believe this to be independent: he states that the Nakanishi theory (as he calls it) is the established consensus. I'm not saying we have to include any of this in the article, just to say that while Nakanishi is the most prominent proponent, he's not the originator, nor even the only one who has presented evidence. Note also that we can't simply take your wording but replace "literary scholar Susumu Nakanishi" → "literary scholars" since with neither evidence nor specific notable scholarly the impression given the reader would be that this is an arbitrary theory rejected by most historians. 182.249.240.16 (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, it's not an RS, but matsuiism's blog quotes Kousei Man'you-ron (a book I don't currently have access) as saying 《憶良渡来人説は、早く土屋文明氏や井村哲夫 氏らによって提起されていたが、渡部和雄氏の 『憶良の前半生』（『解釈と観賞』昭和四四年 二月）によって改めて主張された。》 And Levy 2010 (perhaps accidentally) identifies Nakanishi 1976 as the original source for the theory. We could break down all of these "originator theories" and try to figure out which one is correct (my money's still on Keene's attribution to Watanabe 1963, and he appears to be following Aoki) and say "literay scholar X has proposed ...", or we could cite Nakanishi who is universally recognized as its most important proponent. 182.249.240.36 (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, Shii, can I ask where you got the idea that Nakanishi invented the theory? Could it be Dwy's incredibly inaccurate and biased opening comment in this RFC (in direct violation of point #3 in WP:RFC)? Of course it's not your responsibility to read the thousands of words in both English and Japanese on WP:ANI, ja:利用者-会話:Juzumaru, User talk:Ross Hill here and on WT:JAPAN, but we could have avoided misunderstandings like this (and Sonarclawz's one that was so far out it led me to believe he was trolling) if Dwy hadn't been so incredibly inaccurate and non-neutral in his opening comment. 182.249.240.2 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, how wrong of me to actually believe that this was nearing its end! We had almost reached consensus until you decided that it wasn't good enough. If you can't just reword the section appropriately, then I'll write it. I'm not supporting Dwy or Juzumaru in this edit war, but you've instigated this at least as much as they have. Your walls of text have more than gotten your views across. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Shii and I were having a friendly discussion about whether we should say "literary scholar Susumu Nakanishi" or "literary scholars such as Susumu Nakanishi". Shii seems to have got the wrong idea that Nakanishi originated the theory, but in light of the fact that he didn't, Shii's proposed wording is inappropriate. There is no edit war. 182.249.240.2 (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

For one, you could just simply mention both him and the originator, or any other scholars that remotely support the theory if it needs to be so obvious that it's widely held. His proposal was just a basic idea of what the section should say; it wasn't meant to be taken literally. You don't need his permission to reword what he said. Just rewrite the section and be done with it. The edit war between you and Dwy and Juzumaru has stopped for now, yes, but arguing any further is just a continuation of it. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it looks to me more like the meat of the proposal is a comprise in which I get to name one scholar who believes the Baekje origin theory but I don't get to imply that it's the consensus among all scholars and am limited to naming only one. Otherwise the proposal does not differ in any way from my original edit, and why on earth would you expect Dwy to accept that? I may of course be misinterpreting the proposal, though, which is why I'd rather wait for Shii to respond now that I've informed him of the correct origins of the theory, than continue arguing with you over what Shii actually meant. "Several literary scholars including Watanabe, Nakanishi, Keene, Levy..." is substantially the same as "Several literary scholars including Nakanishi...", anyway. 182.249.240.17 (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not really care whether "Nakanishi" or "several literary scholars", but let me point out several things. First, as Cckerberos pointed out above, Keene just discussed the theory in his book, but did not really endorse it himself. Levy said that his mentor's theory had a great impact in choosing his career as a non-Japanese writer writing in Japanese, but can this be said to be an endorsement by an expert in the relevant field? I doubt it. In Vovin's case, he just cited Nakanishi to support his borrow word theory, not the other way around. He just mentioned Nakanishi's theory but didn't discuss it in any detail. Watanabe did propose his own theory, but it does not seem to have much followers, and I doubt if he is worth mentioning here. And another thing about Watanabe is that Nakanishi reviewed Watanabe's theory in great detail in "Yamanoue no Okura" and clearly stated that his theory was established independently and on different logics from Watanabe's. It is apparent that 82.249.240.xxx is discussing Nakanishi's theory without actually reading his work and understanding what he said, which annoys me a lot.

Having said all that, I do not mind these things as long as "He was said to be a member of the Kasuga clan and coming from the Awada clan" comes first.--Dwy (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"several literary scholars"

Not "several". I have cited two works (Keene and Vovin) that give this as the consensus view, and not a si ngle literary scholar has been found who rejects the theory. Keene just discussed the theory in his book, but did not really endorse it himself Dwy has clearly not read the book. He says that one of the main reasons Okura's reputatation has impro ved in the twentieth century is the fact that he was born outside Japan. This claim doesn't make any se nse unless we take Keene himself as accepting the theory. Levy said that his mentor's theory had a great impact in choosing his career as a non-Japanese writer writing in Japanese, but can this be said to be an endorsement by an expert in the relevant field? I doub t it. Neither has Dwy watched the YouTube video, it seemed. He was not discussing these two in association with each other. The reason he took up writing in Japanese was that an entire separate mentor figure (K?b? Abe) said he should. In a different part of the speech he discussed the Okura theory and said that Okura was probably neither?Chinese nor?Japanese. Levy wrote his doctoral dissertation on one of Oku ra's Man'y? colleagues Hitomaro, and was the most recent translator of the Man'y?sh? (including Okura's poems) into English. He is an expert in the field, and said in a lecture Okura was probably neither Chin ese nor Japanese. In Vovin's case, he just cited Nakanishi to support his borrow word theory, not the other way around.? He just mentioned Nakanishi's theory but didn't discuss it in any detail. Vovin is yet another source that treats the Baekje origin theory as the establishment view and the Awata clan theory as a fringe view. His loanword theory doesn't make sense unless Okura had some connectio n to Baekje. It is apparent that 82.249.240.xxx is discussing Nakanishi's theory without actually reading his work an d understanding what he said, which annoys me a lot. Sorry, but if two scholars independently come to the same conclusion based on separate data (and Naka nishi was not "independent" from Watanabe, as he had already read his work) then we can't say the latt er of the two was the only scholar who came to this conclusion. You are the one who has apparently re ad neither "Okura Kikajin-ron" nor "Okura Toraijin-ron"; you only read the third work as an excuse t o rewrite this article in a manner that implies Nakanishi rejected his own theory. And again: Keene (wh o does support the theory) attributes the theory first to Watanabe. Please don't criticize me for not rea ding sources you are not citing to support your claims, when you are the one making claims about my sources without having bothered to read them. 182.249.240.40 (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is once again getting too personal, but it appears that in any case a compromise has been reached, if I read the tit-for-tat charitably. Shii (tock) 07:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Shii's proposal is appropriate. --Juzumaru (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over

The problem involving Okura's origins has been resolved. Thank you Sturmgewehr88 and Shii for your intervention. I've introduced auto-archiving on this talk page. No need to clutter up this page with a book-length argument (a lot of which was not in English) going forward. Cheers. 182.249.50.76 (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC) (Hjr88)

I specifically point out mistakes of historical knowledge. Please do not hide 182.249.240.xxx's writing in a hurry. --Juzumaru (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The Shinsen Shojiroku lists several clans of continental (Kudara, Koukuri) origin that had the title Ason. Please stop trying to continue this dispute beyond this point, and please stop altering earlier discussions in order to distort the context. 182.249.240.30 (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

All right. I will not update the edit. However, 182.249.240.xxx's war until the end, Don't hide this page until the end of 182.249.240.xxx's war. --Juzumaru (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no "war". Please refrain from using hostile language such as this. Your behaviour is an entirely separate matter, and should not be discussed on this page. If you continue your previous pattern of disruptive behaviour, though, I will report you on ANI. (ヒント：韓国に関する投稿はしばらくご遠慮になって、本当の「日本史」への関心を私たちに見せてください。) 182.249.58.75 (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. please do not hide the conversation on this page. And the talk page here is calling 182.249.58.xxx. About Yamanoue-no-Okura. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juzumaru (talk • contribs) 15:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome Hijiri88さん. And Juzumaru, don't worry; the argument will be archived. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"descended from Emperor Kosho" or "a member of the Awata clan"

@User:Dwy Regarding this edit: as far as I can see, the Shinsen Shojiroku says that the Yamanoues had common ancestry (同祖) with the Ookasuga/Awata clans, and it states under Ookasuga clan entry that this ancestor was Emperor Kosho. The Nakanishi source I added does not mention Ookasuga or Awata, though. I didn't think my edit would be controversial, because I was only tweaking the wording to say basically the same thing, but to match what is in reliable source rather than User:Shii's translation from a poorly composed sentence on Japanese Misplaced Pages. Additionally, "descended from Emperor Kosho" is actually the wording User:Juzumaru originally added; he can clearly agree to it, so I figured you would too. 182.249.53.159 (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Hijiri88, and I almost reverted Dwy's edit, but a discussion first would be better. And Dwy, I thought you agreed with Juzumaru on this point? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The core of the current consensus is to include only the essential and exclude all the unnecessary details. We agreed that the "Kasuga/Awata clan" is the essential and "descendant of Emperor Kosho" an unnecessary detail. I may agree to the inclusion of "descendant of Emperor Kosho" if properly worded, but I don't think I will ever agree to the exclusion of "Kasuga/Awata clan" because (in my opinion) it is not only what was recorded in Shinsen Shojiroku, but also the consensus view among modern scholars including Nakanishi.

As for Juzumaru's wording, I don't agree that Yamnoue clan actually "is descended from Emperor Kosho." It is a legend rather than a fact. Tradition has it that he was, but he was most likely not actually. It is something like we agree that Julius Caesar was said to have descended from Venus, but nobody believe it as a fact. --Dwy (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Dwy, it's difficult to understand what you mean by "legend" and "tradition". When you first got involved you were referring to the Shinsen Shoujiroku as a "contemporary official record", but now it is a "legend"? The fact is that our sources all simply say common ancestry with those two clans (and with Kakinomoto no Hitomaro) through a son of Emperor Kosho. Using vague, imprecise wording and referring to topics we don't have Misplaced Pages articles on (the Awata clan at least seems unlikely to ever get one) is not very helpful to readers, when we could just link them to the Misplaced Pages article on the emperor considered to be the common ancestor of these clans. How about something like "He was considered a descendant of Emperor Kosho (also the ancestor of the Awata and Kasuga clans, as well as Kakinomoto no Hitomaro), but literary..."? 182.249.240.31 (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And again, your opinions and what you consider to be "legends" and "facts" don't matter here. Neither do mine. All that matters is what published scholars think. 182.249.240.5 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been like 31 hours. Dwy has made two edits, three hours apart, on two other articles, but has not responded here. I'll give him a bit more time, but a couple of points should probably be noted here.

I think it's worth examining what Dwy said on this issue in the past. Since he has all along been saying that we should use the Shinsen Shojiroku as our principal source, we must first examine what this ancient text actually says.

Note that before editing this article Dwy posted eight times on WT:JAPAN, and in seven of these eight posts he mentioned the Shinsen Shojiroku, numerous times claiming that "the Shinsen Shojiroku records Yamanoue as having been of imperial descent -- this is a FACT". Nowhere in any of his posts there did he claim Okura was "said to be a member of the Kasuga clan and coming from the Awata clan". This somewhat clumsy wording comes from User:Shii's translation of Japanese Misplaced Pages. This wording makes very little sense internally, and is completely useless to readers of Misplaced Pages as long as we don't have articles on either of these clans. However, the traditional story that Okura's clan (the Yamanoue clan) was RELATED to the Awata and Kasuga (Ookasuga) clans (and the Kakinomoto clan) is THE SAME as the traditional story that all of these clans were descended from Amatarashihikokunioshihito-no-mikoto, the son of Emperor Kosho. The difference is that if we just say "descended from Emperor Kosho" we avoid messy wording, avoid variant names of clans that don't have articles (Ookasuga vs. Kasuga), and link our readers directly to the relevant Misplaced Pages article. Why does Dwy oppose this? Is it just that he thinks linking to an article that states the historical consensus that this common ancestor was a legend, will cause readers to think the toraijin theory must be correct? This may or may not be the case, but it seems to me like we should be giving our readers the relevant information in a concise manner, backed up by reliable sources (read: not Japanese Misplaced Pages), and not clutter up the article with obscure discussions of ancient Japanese clan names that may or may not have some relation to the subject. Saying "common ancestry with X, Y and Z clans " works, but then we are forcing the reader to look elsewhere to find out who this common ancestor was.

182.249.240.39 (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether something is worth mentioning in an article is not to be judged by the existence of an Misplaced Pages article. We have different set of policies and guidelines like WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:NOT, etc. And I do believe that the ancient Japanese clan names are much more relevant than the obscure discussion of a mythical emperor who we do not really believe even existed.--Dwy (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Come on, that's silly. "Descended from an emperor" is immediately understandable as a statement, whereas these clans are much more obscure. Shii (tock) 15:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Legend or not, it still has been said that he was a descendent of the emperor. These are all just theories, but they should all be included. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If you add "he is said to have descended from emperor Kosho," we will have to state who said that (i.e., Shinsen Shojiroku). This is necessary to ensure the readers to correctly understand that it is something recorded in an ancient document, but not a historical fact verified by the modern scholars. Then, if we have to present the Toraijin theory, we will also have to add the modern historians' opinions, just to be NPOV. But all this will make us go away from the current consensus that a single sentence is just enough. If you are areally suggesting we add more information, I will have to come back to my original proposal (not as a goal, but a starting point, to which additions and revisions are to be made.) --Dwy (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to lengthen the sentence, just change "He was said to be a member of the Kasuga clan and coming from the Awata clan" to "He was said to be descended from Emperor Kosho". Shii (tock) 18:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That would make the sentence vague, imprecise, and misleading, as well as POV. And there are no policies or guidelines prohibiting the inclusion of information based on reliable secondary sources. We are actually encouraged to add information.--Dwy (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Vague? Naming a possible ancestor is not vague. These clans that have been extinct for a thousand years are vague, since no one knows anything about them other than that they are descended from this emperor as well. And what "POV" are you talking about? Just because it's a legend doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. WP:Drop the stick Dwy. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, as shown in Hijiri88's collection of your quotes referring to Shinsen Shojiroku, you explicitly stated that it is a FACT that Okura was a descendent of the imperial family, specifically a son of Emperor Kosho. Now that we've agreed to this, you've taken the complete opposite stance just to spite us. You obviously contradict yourself from what you originally said. At this point you're just trolling. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that Dwy is being unreasonable here. We need appropriate description for an English-speaking audience. Shii (tock) 23:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that Dwy has here done exactly what I predicted he would do. Neither he nor Juzumaru are HERE to improve the article, but rather to get as close to their preferred wording (Okura was not born in South Korea, despite what Korean ultranationalists on English Misplaced Pages have claimed.) as possible. Note that, as I already told them, I actually agree with them that Okura was not born in South Kore and that Korean ultranationalists have posted problematic material on English Misplaced Pages articles; this does not mean we should let this affect how we write the article. In pursuing this goal Dwy has deliberately misrepresented a respected scholar's views in the article, and now is fighting a battle he has obviously already lost, in order to keep direct reference to the legendary emperor Kosho-tenno. It's not difficult to see why he is so keen on not mentioning any concrete specifics: he wants to use vague wording so readers will come away with the conclusion that the imperial ancestry hypothesis is not just based on unintuitive readings of ancient myths and genealogies. His next step will surely be to post another RFC and claim in his OP that Shii, Sturmgewehr and I are "violating previously established consensus". (I'm not violating AGF here. Dwy did exactly this two weeks ago.) 182.249.240.43 (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel sick being called "silly", "unreasonable" and "deliberately misrepresenting a source," but I will not say much in reply here. Personal attack will not lead us anywhere and everyone can clearly see how nobly and gracefully Nakanishi acknowledged (but not agreed to) historians' objections to his theory if they just take a look at page 45 of his book "Yamanoue no Okura."

Now that 182.249.240.*** has started adding not too important trivia in the article, it is apparent that we are not in agreement as to adhering to the "single sentence." I already pointed out above that we should add some information to the current version of 182.249.240.***'s. I will take the liberty of mading the revision.--Dwy (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is the trivia? I do not see it. Shii (tock) 17:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit by Dwy 17:15 23 Feb 2014

User:Hijiri88: "but this theory is not supported by historians." was this part of the consensus? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Sturmgewehr88: No, it most certainly was not. Dwy has now gone back to adding poorly-sourced POV material -- two historians who criticized the toraijin theory decades ago are not a reliable source for the claim "this theory is not supported by historians". If this theory were not supported by historians in general then it wouldn't be the most common theory cited in respected, third-party encyclopedias. Dwy has again resorted to translating rekishi-ka as "historians" when a better translation would be "some historians" or "several historians". (Set aside the fact that rekishi tends to mean political history, as opposed to the more relevant literary history.) Further, inclusion of an additional footnote that encourages readers to consult Saeki (one of the two principal opponents of the toraijin theory) is obvious POV-pushing. I think given the lengthy discussion that has already taken place here DWY's BOLD edit should be REVERTED and t hen DISCUSSED here before being re-added. I sincerely hoped this dispute had ended, although Dwy's comments in the section above (if we have to present the Toraijin theory, we will also have to add the modern historians' opinions) had already given me reason to suspect otherwise. Note also that all of Dwy's "modern historians" have been inactive since the 1980s, while modern, reputable, still-alive historians like Keene 1999, Levy 2010, Vovin 2012, Guo 2011 and an ever-unrepentant Nakanishi have continued to prop the toraijin theory up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I erased the POV addition. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And I removed the footnote. The name of the prince might be worth mentioning, but two footnotes for the same sentence is too much, and the second half of the footnote was clearly designed to promote a POV as Dwy already admitted was his intention. And again, I should note that when Dwy says "modern" he means "pre-1990". My above list is limited exclusively to genuinely modern sources, but I could name a dozen more who defended the theory when it was actually under dispute. Right now I'm reading a book that I found because I went into Junkudo and asked for a book on Yamanoue no Okura: Murayama Izuru's 1983 work is old' in a sense, but it's still in print, and it's apparently the most widely-available book with "Yamanoue no Okura" in the title. My copy is of the 23rd edition from October 2005.

I also reverted Juzumaru's changing "Korean kingdom of Baekje" to "Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea". It's pretty clear that Juzumaru is still under the impression that User:Shii and I are trying to promote a malicious South Korean agenda. Juzumaru, listen up: "Korean" here refers exclusively to the geographical location of Kudara -- it does not mean "Okura was South Korean, not Japanese".ここの「Korean kingdom of Baekje」は百済の地理的な位置だけ意味しているのです。英語のニュアンスにも関わりますが、「憶良は日本人ではなくて韓国人」という意味になりません。私たちネイティブの英語を「直す」のはどうかこれからご遠慮ください。

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the current version mentioning Toraijin theory only is POV, and we have to include the objections from historians so as to make it NPOV. In the archived discussion, 182.249.240.*** tried the analysis of 15 reference books, but the conclusion there appear to be completely wrong to me. In my interpretation (I haven't checked those reference books myself. I rely entirely on the descriptions given by 182.249.240.***):

• 1 presents Toraijin theory in a straightforward manner. (ブリタニカ国際大百科事典)
• 1 presents Toraijin theory as a possibility. (コンサイス日本人名事典)
• 4 present Toraijin theory as a second alternative, after giving some other explanation first.

(伊藤 博 -- first explanation being "後裔(descendant) of Ame-tarashi-hiko-oshi-hito-no-mikoto.")

(中西 進 -- first explanation being "descended from Emperor Kosho.")

(遠藤 宏 -- first explanation being "Origin unknown." In this case, Toraijin theory is further qualified with "unproven")

(井村 哲夫 -- first explanation being "a branch of the Awata clan."

• 6 fail to acknowledge Toraijin theory (or any other theory.) (日本と世界の人名大事典, 平田(?), 川口 常孝, 岩波日本史辞典, 市瀬 雅之, Encyclopedia Britannica)
• 3 actually dismiss Toraijin theory as unlikely. (和田 萃, 稲岡 耕二(國史大辭典), 日本史広辞典)

To me, it is clear that the most common view here is that nothing concrete can be said about Okura's origin. Toraijin theory is far from being the most common view, but it is more like a minority/fringe view. So we can just let it go without saying anything, or if we have to mention Toraijin theory, we certainly must mention the historians' objections as well (and that is what Nakanishi did in his book "Yamanoue no Okura.")

As for "historians in general vs. some historians," it is obvious that Hijiri 88 is arguing without reading the cited sources. Aoki states that he asked a few of his fellow historians whether they thought it a common sense that a foreign immigrant cannot be an "Omi," and all of them replied in the affirmative. Also, Saeki extensively describes the development of previous studies, from Tsuchiya Bunmei to Murayama Izuru and Takagi Ichinosuke, in which none of the historians supported Toraijin theory. I can therefore safely say (based on these sources) that historians does not support Toraijin theory. If anybody wants to argue otherwise, I request them to name at least one historian who advocated that Okura was born in Baekje. Keene, Levy, etc. are not historians (as opposed to literary scholars) for this purpose (and as I pointed out earlier they cannot be said to have really supported Toraijin theory.)

Of the books I have read so far, the newest one is Inaoka Koji (2010) Yamanoue no Okura. In this book, Inaoka basically takes the same position as he did in 國史大辭典 mentioned above, and says that the chance of Okura being a Toraijin is slim.

As for the footnote, Hijiri 88's allegation that the footnote was "designed to promote a POV" is absurd. I just cited Saeki because he is the authority in the field. If Saeki bothers Hijiri 88, I am quite happy to cite Nakanishi as well.--Dwy (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but at present everyone here except the SPA Juzumaru disagrees with you. The current article looks the same as the majority of general reference works covering this subject. You're going to need to convince either User:Sturmgewehr88 or myself or User:Shii or someone to agree with you on this (without resorting to WP:CANVAS, of course), or else you can't edit the article. Additionally, I have been avoiding analogies since the start, but since you have no problem with them I guess I will be more liberal. We don't consult "historians of ancient Greece and Rome" when we talk about the historical Jesus or the historicity of Jesus; their specialist field is at best peripherally related to the subject. If the vast majority of them thought that Jesus didn't exist, this view would be noteworthy, but a couple of them writing more than 30 years ago is a different matter. When we talk about the historical Jesus and the historicity of Jesus we ask New Testament scholars, because the New Testament documents are the only sources of any use when studying the historical Jesus and "historians of ancient Greece and Rome" study a field that is at best peripherally related to this area. (There is in fact at least one degreed scholar in the classics who thinks Jesus didn't exist, but his view is not cited in any of our articles as a mainstream theory.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me continue the analysis of reference books:

Of the 15 encyclopedias investigated by 182.249.240.***, nine actually mention toraijin theory. of these nine reference books:

• 3 acutally dismiss the toraijin theory as unlikely (和田 萃, 稲岡 耕二, 日本史広辞典),
• 1 says the origin is unknown and the toraijin theory is "unproven." (遠藤 宏)
• 1 mentions "Awata clan" first and then, the toraijin theory, adding that the dispute remains undecided. (井村 哲夫)
• 2 more mention other theory first, thereby indicating that the toraijin theory is not the most common view. (伊藤 博, 中西 進)
• 1 mentions the toraijin theory as a possibility.(コンサイス日本人名事典)
• Only 1 presents the toraijin theory straightforward. (ブリタニカ国際大百科事典)

It is fairly clear that the toraijin theory is not the most common view as 182.249.240.*** and Hijiri 88 claim.

As for Keene, it is interesting to note that in the "note 9" of Seeds in the Heart page 160, which is now presented in the article as a source for toraijin theory, Keene actually cites Aoki's Okura Kikajinsetsu Hihan, saying that although Aoiki is probably the most adamant opponent, his book best summarise the toraijin theory. If we follow the logic of Hijiri 88, Keene encourages reader to consult the other one of the "two principal opponents of the toraijin theory."--Dwy (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between not saying anything about the toraijin theory and simply stating that Nakanishi is the best source for information on him, and stating that Aoki is probably wrong in criticizing the toraijin theory but stating that he provides a useful summary of the debate. Again, if all we (or Keene) are saying is "literary scholar Susumu Nakanishi has theorized that Okura was born in Baekje" then any of these sources are sufficient. User:Shii, User:Sturmgewehr88: how would you propose dealing with this? Should I carry out my earlier threat to take Dwy, who is obviously WP:NOTHERE and politically motivated to not work with us on this, to ANI? Or would you be willing to help me create and RFC/U? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Dwy: the "most common view" is that Okura is a Classical Japanese poet. The rest of it is just a theory that doesn't really matter. "His origins are unknown, but it could be A or B". You don't need to point out that point A is more accepted than point B, you just have to mention both of them and be done with it, 分かりますか？

@User:Hijiri88: if Dwy crosses the line, immediately report him. You should both drop this, as the article is good now. Also, could you explain RFC/U for me? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sturmgewehr, this article is perfectly good and no more editing on the subject of origin needs to be done. Shii (tock) 03:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Hijiri88: Please do go to ANI and SAY WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT MY "INTENTION" THERE! Here, we want to discuss the edit by examining the merits of sources and those absurd accusations of yours do not belong to this talk page! --Dwy (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy, calm down. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Sturmgewehr88: I agree with you completely. The article is good and we should drop this now. If Dwy continues to violate consensus and accuse me of misrepresenting sources then it will be time to take other measures.

@User:Shii: I agree with you completely. I intend to make some more non-origin-related edits in the near future, but the current one-sentence summary of the origin theories is satisfactory. I stand by my original claim that this article could be FA-material in the future.

@User:Dwy: I agree with Sturmgewehr88 completely. You should calm down. The article currently cites both the toraijin theory and the imperial origin theory. User:Juzumaru has said he is happy with this. It is not entirely clear what you want: your most recent edits to the article indicate that you want the article to say "this theory is not accepted by historians" -- this would be a violation of NPOV, and you have not presented any sources that actually say this. If you want the article to say this, then I am going to have to ask that you bow to consensus here, or else we're going to WP:DRN. Additionally, asserting that Keene and Nakanishi, who both have doctorates in literary history and have both spent over half a century teaching and writing about history, are "not historians" is patently wrong. Please cease making claims like this.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Hijiri88: I've been calm all the time. You were agitated with the ANI thing so I asked you to go ahead, but not to try to involve me in the fuzz.

And are you trying to give an impression that Keene suggested that Aoki was "probably wrong"? I don't think he said anything like that.

@User:Sturmgewehr88: When you say "His origins are unknown, but it could be A or B," you have to be careful in choosing what should come as A and B. If one is Toraijin theory, the other one is definitely not "imperial origin theory." As Juzumaru described above, a hot debate took place between literary scholars(国文学者) and historians (歴史学者) from mid 1960s to early 1980s. It was not Toraijin theory vs. imperial origin theory. They debated whether or not Toraijin theory is valid academic theory. Basically, therefore, we should say "His origins are unknown, but literary scholars presented Toraijin theory while historians argued that the theory was invalid."

@User:Shii: I do not agree that "this article is perfectly good." The article is actually a miserable stub, and it need to be expanded. And problem with the current article is that the criteria for the inclusion of information is arbitrary and impossible to understand. For example (with reference to 182.249.240.***'s reference books again):

• "born in Baekje" is included while only 5 out of 15 reference books actually mention Baekje.
• Objections to Toraijin theory are not mentioned when 5 out of 15 reference books put some qualification to Toraijin theory, such as "unproven", "questionable", etc.
• "Emperor Kosho" is mentioned when only 1 out of 15 reference books mentions him.
• "Kakinomoto Hitomaro" is mentioned when only 1 out of 15 reference books mentions him.
• "Shinsen Shojiroku" is not mentioned when 2 out of 15 reference books mention it.
• "Awata clan" is not mentioned when 2 out of 15 reference books mention it.

I believe all of these should be included as long as we have reliable sources. Of course, we will have to discuss the neutral wordings (and agree on the appropriate choice from "historians", "some historians", "most historians", "historians including...", etc.), but that cannot be a reason for excluding the information altogether. --Dwy (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And there are a few things I think should be added to the article:

• In 701, OKura, who has no official title or rank, was chosen to join the envoy to Tang China. Some argues that this was because of his knowledge of Chinese culture and language that he had acquired as a son of a Baekje immigrant. (Of course you have no problem with this because this is not Japan-POV?)
• Others argue that he was chosen on the recommendation of the head of the mission, Awata no Mahito because of the close kinship between the Awata clan and Yamanoue clan. (I think you said you don't want to know about Awata clan?)
• Some literary scholars claim that profound sorrow is reflected in his works, which he suffered as a result of having lost his country in war and had to come to live a miserable life as a refugee in Japan. (Again, this will be OK, but if we keep avoiding Japan-POV, won't the article become somewhat K-POVish?

I really have no idea what other editors will say to the inclusion of these pieces of information and how I can proceed with them. --Dwy (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy, what I said is that the two opposing views are the torajin and imperial descent theories. Including the latter automatically creates the assumption that the former isn't universally accepted. Besides, if we state "torajin theory exists, but may be incorrect", then the reader would wonder "ok, if torajin theory is incorrect, then where did he come from?" Torajin theory isn't the "centerpiece" as you make it out to be. The current wording is fine as it is anyway. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Here again, arguments are apparently being presented without reference to the cited sources. None of the historians (or literary scholars for that matter) claimed that the Yamanoe clan was actually descended from Emperor Kosho. They just consulted Shinsen Shojiroku because it was a most relevant historical document, and Nakanishi and other Toraijin theory advocates did exactly the same.

In case you are not aware, Emperor Kosho is regarded as more of a legend than a reality. As for Wani clan, from which Kasuga, Awata, Yamanoue and Kakinomoto clans were all branched out, Japanese Misplaced Pages article mentions a theory that they might have come from Korea in the second century, showing, at the same time, a (legendary) family tree starting from Emperor Kosho.

And to the question "where did he come from?", you already have the answer that "his origins are unknown." --Dwy (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond in full right now, but I should correct Dwy's re-analysis of the encyclopedias I cited on a few points: (1) Emperor Kosho is only named in one of fifteen, but his son Amatarashi... is named in another one, and "common ancestry with the Awata clan" is mentioned in one more; (2) "the Awata clan" is named in two, but one of these is, as discussed above, a veiled reference to Emperor Kosho, while only one says "branch of the Awata clan"; (3) Hitomaro is a related article that has been linked to Okura in a reliable source -- this has nothing to do with "POV", and counting encyclopedias on the subject seems like nitpicking; (4) Keene accepts the toraijin theory, so when he says "Aoki was perhaps the theory's most articulate opponent but his summary is useful" he does not mean to say "and he was probably right". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy, I'm well aware of the Emperor's legendary status. That is why we're discussing theories and not facts. You were pushing the Shinsen Shojiroku as if it were the One True Faith, that is until it didn't support your POV. And if we just state "his origins are unknown" in the article, then maybe we shouldn't include any possible theories about his origins, shouldn't we? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sturmgewehr88: So who are the main advocates of "imperial origin theory"? Can you name any mainstream scholar arguing that Okura was actually descended from Emperor Kosho? I don't think so, and that's why I say there is no such thing as the "imperial origin theory." It is just a "tradition" of imperial origin.

And as for the "tradition", can you name any mainstream scholar who denies the existence of the tradition recorded in Shinsen Shojiroku? Or any mainstream scholar who denies the relevance of Shinsen Shojiroku to the issue of Okura's origin? I don't think so, and that's why I say mentioning Shinsen Shojiroku cannot be a POV.

Is mentioning the historians' objection to toraijin theory a POV? Nakanishi did mention the objection in his book Yamanoue no Okura. Keene mentioned the most adamant opponent, Aoki Kazuo in his Seeds in the heart. When toraijin theory is mentioned in encyclopedias, most of them mention an opposing view, and many of them say toraijin theory is unlikely, unproved, etc. I don't think I am pushing a POV in proposing to provide a neutral description of the debate between the literary scholars and historians. --Dwy (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy, your non-NPOV comes from your nitpicking of the Shinsen Shojiroku. It itself supports imperial descent theory, as you have pointed out numerous times in the past, but because we've added this to the article you've decided to deny it. Tradition or not, it is the opposite of torajin theory. From what you've been saying, I think you want the article to say, "Susumu Nakanishi thinks Okura is from South Korea, but he is wrong." You must not be WP:HERE. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never said we should say "Nakanishi is wrong." I am saying we should say "Saeki, Aoki, and other historians do not support Nakanishi," which is,IMHO, perfectly NPOV.

And I am not interested in a Wikipedian's interpretation of Shinsen Shojiroku. Please name one mainstream scholar who, based on Shinsen Shojiroku, argues that Okura was actually descended from Emperor Kosho.（I can name a mainstream scholar who, based on Shinsen Shojiroku, argued that Okura was NOT descended from Emperor Kosho -- Susumu Nakanishi.) --Dwy (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"This theory is rejected by historians" = "Nakanishi is wrong". There's no two ways about it. And you have not provided a single shred of evidence that "this theory is reject by historians". Nakanishi IS a historian -- the MOST HIGHLY-REGARDED HISTORIAN STUDYING THIS AREA. Your dismissive attitude toward literary historians is not sincere, of course: you are only trying, as Juzumaru before you, to pretend that Sturmgewehr, Shii and I are trying to promote some modern-day ROK political agenda, but avoiding saying so directly. The fact is that Keene, Levy, Nakanishi -- these are all trained and recognized historians, while the two historians you have cited are not trained in this area. You have only been able to name one literary historian (Inaoka) who takes a skeptical attitude toward the toraijin theory, but it's beginning look like he's the only one. User:Hijiri88

User:Dwy, you saying that Susumu Nakinishi is a mainstream scholar who doesn't support the imperial descent theory doesn't mean a thing, because he's the posterboy for torajin theory, which you also don't agree with! If you're not WP:HERE, then go away. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, Dwy is now being completely ingenuous by citing Nakanishi's Epoca article as both "the ONLY encyclopedia article to mention Emperor Kosho" and "an encyclopedia article that presents the toraijin theory AFTER citing a competing theory" (failing to note that this "other theory" is"descended from Emperor Kosho"). Additionally, citing Nakanishi as a reason to change the article's current reading is ridiculous: I have read one encyclopedia article written by Nakanishi (Epoca) that says exactly what our one currently does, and another one edited by him (in his Man'youshuu Jiten) that essentially just says (if memory serves) "He was probably a toraijin". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

About rewriting of Three Kingdoms of Korea

Hijiri88（182.249.240.xxx）rewrote "Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea" to "the Korean kingdom of Baekje ". "Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea" is the historically correct term.　but, he claims in this way.

Linking to an article on Korean history seems irrelevant, but we need to mention Korea for geographical context because 99.999% of English Misplaced Pages readers don't know what Baekje is.

"Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea" is used in many articles in Misplaced Pages.
"99.999% of English Misplaced Pages readers don't know what Baekje is." is also your personal opinion, isn't it? If you can not prove 99.999%, Back to the historically correct term("Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea"). --Juzumaru (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict: See my comment in the section above.) "Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea" is unnecessary here. Just leave it out. And yes, that is my opinion. It's my opinion that was formed by growing up in an English-speaking country and interacting with thousands of English-speakers. I would estimate that less than 1% of them have ever heard of Baekje. In this context, though, all we need is the word "Korea" to give geographical context. Juzumaruさんの英語のレベルがウィキペディアの基準を満たしていないのはUser:Ross Hillをはじめ何人かが認めています。英語のニュアンスですが、「Korea＝韓国」ということはありませんよ。これは英語が足りないJuzumaruさんの勝手の思い込みです。User:Shiiも私も韓国人でもないし韓国の政治的な別目的（＝下心）を持っているわけでもありません。 If you continue your harassment of me I will report you on ANI again and this time you won't get off the hook by lying and pretending to move to Japanese Misplaced Pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is unclear why we need to explain about the Three Kingdoms here. Shii (tock) 15:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

According to Nakanishi, Yamanoue's father was exile in Japan by the wars of the three kingdoms. the war of the Three Kingdoms and the destruction of the motherland, had a strong influence on his poetry. Therefore I recommend this term.（山上憶良の作風は韓国の三韓時代や百済の滅亡の影響を受けているというのは中西先生の主張なのですが？）--Juzumaru (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can you cite a source that specifically says this? As far as I recall Nakanishi's claim is that Okura and his father left Baekje for Japan when Okura was still an infant. How could these specific political circumstances in a country he didn't know have affected his poetry? I know they say that the destruction of his original homeland of Baekje had an influence on his poetry, but that's not a valid reason to include a wikilink to the article on the Three Kingdoms. Additionally "Nakanishi said so" was not the reason you originally gave ("historical accuracy"), nor have you seen it as a valid reason for anything else I've written over the past two months. Could you please tell us your actual motivation for wanting to change "Korean kingdom of Baekje" to "Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea"? Do you still actually think that myself and User:Shii are attempting to say "Okura was born in Baekje, which is South Korean"? Because that is not how I read the current sentence, it's not how Shii reads the current sentence, and it's not how any native speaker of English would read the sentence. すみませんが、Juzumaruさんの本当の目的を教えていただけますか？前回は「『Korean kingdom of Baekje』という表現は正確な史実ではない」という理由だと述べましたが、今は「中西氏によると三韓時代は憶良の作風に影響を与えた」と述べるようになったようです。しかし、あなたは２ヶ月前から「中西氏は歴史がわからない人だから彼の論文を参考にするべきではない」とばかり述べていましたよね？これらによって、Juzumaruさんが「正確な史実」やら「作風に影響を」やら言いながら、「朝鮮半島にあった王国の百済」を「三韓時代の三韓のうち一韓の百済」に書き変えようとしている本当の理由はまた別だと考えられます。この英語がまず変で読みづらいというのを別にして、本当の理由を教えてもらうまでは残念ながら記事を書き変えさせるわけにはいきません。 Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(Sorry for being bad at English.) I think that you should just quote a proposal of Nakanishi. You do not read the writings of Nakanishi. Therefore, you do not understand my intention.

I do not have time, therefore it explains the question about me in Japanese. （please read here ）. 歴史用語のニュアンスですが、「Korean Kingdom ＝ Unified Silla」ということなりますよ。--Juzumaru (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I read Okura Toraijin-ron. This was the one that was in my local library. Which one do you want me to read? そして、あなたの英語が間違っているんですよ。Korean KingdomじゃなくてKorean kingdom of Baekje（つまり、朝鮮半島に位置する百済という王国）です。英語を母国語とする私に「歴史用語のニュアンスですが」など言わないでください。もう英語版ウィキペディアをご退去ください。２ヶ月前に約束したとおりに。約束を守らなかったら再びとANIに。 Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit by Hijiri88 16:51 5 March 2014

User:Hijiri88, I think that it was good to include the imperial calendar year in the article alongside the Western calendar year. Let it say "733 (Tenpyō 5)"? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I can agree to that. But I don't like the citing of 14 pages as a source. User:Dwy, what page is this information actually on? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I should stress I'm only willing to compromise with you because you're a good faith user. I still don't recognize Dwy's argument that Misplaced Pages users who want to check pre-modern manuscripts that don't include the western calendar won't be served by the 733 date. No one checking those manusripts needs an annotation here anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I sincerely appreciate it. And I agree, only the specific page should be quoted. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 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