Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 12:49, 9 February 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Japan: Military history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 03:51, December 27, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles Military history: Asian / Japanese This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Japanese military history task force

Move from Battle of Shigisan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Early Samurai AD 200-1500 by Anthony Bryant

-Japan Encyclopedia by Louis Frederic

-Handbook of Japanese Mythology by Michael Ashkenazi

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

-Ancient Japan by Jonathan Edward Kidder

-The Civilizations of the East: Japan by René Grousset

-A History of Japan to 1334 by George Sansom

-Japan at War: An Encyclopedia by Louis G Perez

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

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

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

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

-An Outline History of Japan by Herbert Henry Gowen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article should be merged unless an editor can come up with a primary source other than the Nihon Shoki account, covered in secondary sources, which gives further details. The details in the Nihon Shoki are too vague and thin to permit anything but a stub, which is no excuse for pretending a page eventually can be made of it. Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There are no primary sources on the Battle of Shigisan. The Nihon Shoki was written one hundred years after the event and it doesn't appear that it was written by participants of the battle, so it isn't a primary source. The Nihon Shoki does supply some details of the battle, but among secondary sources it does not supply all the details. For one evident example, the location of the battle (Mount Shigi) is not mentioned in the Nihon Shoki, whereas it is mentioned in other secondary sources. In fact there is a shrine that still stands today near the site of the battle which was established by Shotoku himself as a way of paying his respect to the deity who was said to have aided the Soga forces in battle. I don't believe this is mentioned in the Nihon Shoki either.

At any rate, this article deals with one of the single most consequential events in Japanese history and it could end up being expanded a lot in time, so I strongly advise against deletion.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Phoenix7777, do you have a preference for the main title of the article? Do you favor Battle of Shigisen, Battle of Shigisan, Battle of Mt. Shigi, or Battle of Mount Shigi?CurtisNaito (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I definitely support "Shigisan" because Shigisen is quite likely a misspelling. So even if the usage of Shigisen is a little more common than Shigisan, we should be a position to "correct" the misspelling from this Misplaced Pages regardless whether the guideline says. Hijili's "Go-on" theory is unlikely because the old accounts that referred to Shigisan were written in Classical Chinese. So no one is expected to use the "Go-on" pronunciation of the word 信貴山 in 19th century or later.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So even if the usage of Shigisen is a little more common than Shigisan, we should be a position to "correct" the misspelling from this Misplaced Pages regardless whether the guideline says.

I,e. WP:OR. It's not what Hijiri or you or I think. We have no remit on wikipedia to alter sources, esp to challenge scholars like George Sansom who, were it an error, had numerous occasions to correct it and didn't, by making hypotheses. Read the rules.Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither of you know what you are talking about. All the sources mustered have been collected to verify the use of battle of Shigisan.

The text reads:-

a battle fought in 587 between Soga no Umako and Mononobe no Moriya. The battle took place at the riverside of the Ega (餌香川?) river in Kawachi Province, Japan near Mount Shigi.

The Mononobe clan, the most powerful opponent of Buddhism, was practically exterminated in the battle

A battle fought in 587 is mentioned in the Nihon Shoki. The Japanese wiki rightly refers to the incident in its appropriately entitled article 丁未の乱 (Teibi no Ran), which consists almost entirely of the description, with the same WP:OR problems, contained in the Nihon Shoki, which is the WP:Primary Source. There is no mention of the extermination of the Mononobe. To the contrary, they fled, hid, dispersed and changed their identities.

The Nihon Shoki (Sakamoto Tarō, Ienaga Saburō, Inoue Mitsusada, Ōno Susumu (eds.)Nihon Shoki, Iwanami Koten Bungaku Taikei 68, vol.2 pp154-171 for the whole context) refers to three incidents which later literature sums up as Teibi no Ran etc.

• (1) Mononobe no Moriya (物部守屋) mustered troops from 志紀郡 (shiki no kohori) at his house where he had built an inakï (稲城) or rice(-seedling) stockade/fort (toride). His soldiers were so numerous they spilled out over the plain (野) near his house in the Kawachi area east of Osaka (澁川 (Shibukah(w)a/衣摺 (Kinusuri, now Kizuri). The ohomurazi’s army (大連軍) were finally beaten only after a fourth assault, and were dispersed, fled, changed their names or otherwise were lost to history. The kanbun just has, in writing of the event's aftermath 平亂 (turmoil quelled).
• (2) The lonely retainer Yorozu (萬 'Myriad') made then a single-handed resistance, leading to his suicide.
• (3) A report that several hundred corpses were found at Yeganokah(w)ara (餌香川原=恵我川), looking like a drybed execution site of prisoners captured.

There is no mention of a hill or mountain.

Thus the only battle mentioned, the one that defeats the Mononobe, occurs in eastern Osaka's Kizuri area. In an independent entry, we are told that several hundred corpses were found on the 餌香川原, the dry river bed of the Ega river. These two facts are not connected in the text. Thirdly, and all the worse for this page, is that the battle of Mt Shigi, which is in Nara prefecture's northwestern Ikoma district, is then used to refer to the two facts related re (a) Kizuri (b) the corpses at Ega no kawa.

To write that a battle occurred at Mt Shigi and the dead were at Ega river in Kawachi is wonderfully imaginative. All this is synthesis. I guess if you use the Nara Kintetsu line from Osaka to Ikoma you could haul of those corpses west or east, but the problem is that our narrative bundles up three place names, to refer to one battle, in defiance of geography.

Got that? Now, (a) get out your maps, and figure how this total mess in the way this synthesis has been patched up can be sorted out. Give me the distance between Mt Shigi and both Shibukawa and the Ega river in Kawachi and show me how they all refer to the one battle plain, despite the distances (b) use sources not to prove that the battle of Shigasan/Shigisen is attested, but rather that the sources confirm the fabricated synthesis we have on this page, which to anyone who has lived or travelled in this area, just 'don't add urp'. (c) Please use Japanese sources because the English sources so far used used attested to a name for a battle, not to the nature of the battle.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well if it can't be proven that the battle took place near the Ega River then it's simply a matter of deleting the words "Ega River". The other parts of the article are accurately cited so nothing else needs to be changed. The Nihon Shoki is an important secondary source, but this article is substantiated through several other secondary sources. Sansom's account, for instance, states that the Mononobe clan was annihilated. I don't know where Sansom got that information but there's no proof that it came from the Nihon Shoki.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It is simply a matter of never writing anything in wikipedia, esp. if there's a problem, until you have a fair grasp of sources, and can check that what is written corresponds to the sources, word for word. There are no other parts of the article. All you need for 'almost exterminated' is Sansom p.49. Never pile up various sources for several distinct statements, as is done here. You are wrong that Sansom states the Mononobe clan was annihilated. 'Family' and 'uji' are two different things. Sansom says 'at Shigisen', without telling us where that is. He doesn't identify this as 信貴山. That comes from the emaki role, with no secondary source in English justifying our making this connection. Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did assume that Sansom's mention of the "Mononobe family" referred to the Mononobe clan. I suppose we can change the word from "clan" to "family" if you think that this would more accurately reflect Sansom's words.

However, I'm not clear on the rest of your argument. It seems like you are implying that Sansom's mention of Shigisen/Shigisan does not in fact refer to the modern-day Shigisan. Are you proposing that the Battle of Shigisan and the Battle of Shigisen might have been two separate and unrelated battles? There is no doubt that the Mononobe clan was defeated at a battle near modern-day Shigisan(信貴山). Are you saying that the battle at Shigisen described by Sansom is not referring to that battle, but a different battle?CurtisNaito (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing more than what impeccable sources tell me, and even that can be provisory. Give me sources to convince me that 'there is no doubt' that the Mononobe were defeated near modern day Shigisan. This is not what the only primary Japanese source we have says. There is therefore a source Sansom and others are using which we do not know of. What I do not know, I don't edit in. The Cambridge History of Modern Japan vol.1 doesn't mention this 'famous battle'. Several Japanese encyclopedic histories I have only mention the Mononobe were destroyed by Soga no Umako's forces, without the details we have, not even mentioning the Japanese names. So I withhold judgement. One assumes nothing. Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the Japanese articles ja:信貴山 and ja:丁未の乱, There are three places related to this battle, Shigisan (信貴山), Ega River（餌香川), and Kawachi Inamura Castle（河内稲村城). Inamura Castle is a stronghold of Mononobe no Moriya. Shigisan is a place where Prince Shotoku met Bishamonten and had a revelation "Believe(信) and respect(貴)" en route to Inamura castle. The battle took place at the riverside of the Ega river. This means the name of the battle came from the mountain in which Prince Shotoku had a revelation prior to the battle. Of course, we should find a source to support this.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, familiarize yourself with the basic rules. Misplaced Pages is not WP:RS. It is a compendium of external reliable sources. So your argument is void.Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be stressed that the Nihon Shoki is a secondary source, not a primary source. There is no reason to place the Nihon Shoki above Sansom, who is also a secondary source and surely used other data than just the Nihon Shoki in compiling his account. Granted, even if a primary source could be found, Misplaced Pages generally regards secondary sources as more valuable than primary ones. The way you are speaking it seems like you want to conduct your own personal inquiry on the veracity of this battle, but remember that Misplaced Pages generally avoids original research and instead favors what the available sources day.

The existence of the temple 信貴山朝護孫子寺 near modern-day Shigisan is proof that some believe that the decisive defeat of the Mononobe took place not too far from modern-day Shigisan. I think that your taking your policy of "assuming nothing" to a fairly extreme degree when we can't even assume that Sansom's 587 AD Battle of Shigisen/Shigisan at which the Mononobe clan was defeated is the same thing as the 587 AD battle believed to have taken place near modern-day Shigisan at which the Mononobe clan was defeated.

The article needs a lot of work of course, but it wasn't helpful that you deleted a reliable citation on two occasions simply on the basis of your unusual theory that Shigisan(信貴山) does not equal Shigisen.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You both consistently defended bad sourcing, without attending to the obvious problems, using vague, non-wikipedia based opinions. I don't hold that Shigisan is not Shigisen. We have a confusion in sources and cannot proceed to make inferences, deductions, or edits that reflect a personal feel for the 'truth'(WP:V). All of this is elementary, gentle(wo)men. You are arguing too much, and not looking for the sources that might resolve the numerous problems associated with this page. We still have the anomaly that a rare English term is given for a putative battle which is not known in Japanese sources. All of these Western sources are somewhat dated, and several are secondary recyclings of what one or two early scholars state. Given the topic, this can only be resolved through an investigation of the best Japanese scholarship on that period. Until someone does that, everything is moot. Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge?

The above section ran way too long without a section-break.

Curtis: How can you explain good sources copying the mistakes of their predecessors? Sansom is a much better source than any of the English ones that refer to the mountain where this battle took place as "Shigisan". It seems much more likely that they did their homework, found that Motoori or Hirata or one of those had determined that the correct ancient pronunciation was "Shigisen" and went with that. You have yet to come up with a single Japanese source that describes this battle and unambiguously spells it しぎさん. Further, it's not true that none of the English sources that use "Shigisen" cite ancient primary sources. As far as I know (and I'm not that familiar with the contents of the Kujiki, which apparently preserves traditions of the Mononobe clan), the only ancient source we have for this incident is the Nihon Shoki, which all of them seem to cite. Please read WP:PRIMARY again: the Nihon Shoki was compiled from earlier, now lost, sources, and is the closest source we have to the event. It's possible the Man'yōshū contains poems written by people with a memory of the battle, but not as likely.

Additionally, no Japanese sources use the name "Battle of Shigisan" or anything like it. Very few of them use any name for the battle, and I can't find a single encyclopedia anywhere other than Misplaced Pages that has a separate article on this battle. Nussbaum doesn't have one; and the only place he uses "Battle of Shigisan" is in an inaccurate sentence where he claims that the Soga clan went into decline following the battle, despite directly contradicting this statement in the "Soga no Umako" article on the same page. This is clearly another in the increasingly long list of errors in Nussbaum.

The only English source other than Nussbaum that uses "Battle of Shigisan" is an article in a another tertiary source written by scholar of medieval history and edited by a professor of modern Japanese history. Worth noting, probably, is that that encyclopedia chose to merge discussion of the battle in with the closely linked Isshi Incident, and consistently misspells Nihon Shoki as "Nihon shōki" and refers to Empress Kōgyoku variously as "Great King Kōgyoku" (isn't "King" gender-exclusive?) or (when correctly identifying her as a woman) "Kyōgoku". The only other source that appears at actually calls it the "battle of Shigisan hill".

It's possible the reason no encyclopedias have articles on this subject is that our only primary source (again, assuming the Kujiki and Man'yōshū are silent) gives a brief description and no name. (@User:Shii: Can you help us with this? I think it's pretty obvious you're more of a Kujiki-expert than me.)

So how about this: we create a larger article called "Soga-Mononobe conflict" or "Soga-Mononobe struggle", and merge this article and all the information we can agree on in there. This is a descriptive title that does appear in reliable sources and yet doesn't imply incorrectly that it is some sort of "official name". In Japanese, different permutations of this "title" are more common than everything else combined.

The utter lack of any common Japanese name for this incident indicates that all of the 丁未の何とか names are recent coinages, based on the (AFAIK) only other pre-Nara "の変". But every single "name" in both Japanese and English is probably still too weak to form an article title.

Additionally, if this article was merged into a larger one on the Soga-Mononobe conflict. Curtis, your proposal to expand the article with a discussion of the long-term impacts would be inappropriate here, given how little we can say about the actual battle relatively speaking, but would probably be right at home in a "Soga-Mononobe conflict" article. And we would also be able to include all the tidbits about different names for this battle because in the context of a larger article a list of names wouldn't risk making the page unreadable.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And Phoenix: We don't need to find reliable sources to verify unreferenced material from Japanese Misplaced Pages, and we don't even need to check every secondary source that has been written about the event. We just need to not include unverifiable and/or inaccurate information in an article on an event described in a single exact source a century after it took place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. A merge into any pre-existing article on that period context is required by the rules. The rule of thumb is, to create a fork or new page like this when the material in another article exceeds the ideal proportions and requires a spill-off page to make a main article on the specific detail. Here this is technically impossible. Nothing is lost in doing this. All this arguing based on googling for '(battle of Shigisan)' has distracted editors from actual close reading of numerous detailed books on the period in which the Mononobe were crushed in 587.Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Phoenix, Delmer Brown on 'Yamato disruption' (his term for the upheavals of that period ('hen')) makes reference to two distinct military clashes between Soga no Umako and Mononobe no Moriya, in this precise period. Not one.(The Cambridge History of Japan 1993 p.161). We simply are not permitted to decide as wikipedians, which of these two clashes is referred to as the 'battle of Shigsan/Shigisen' until direct secondary source evidence clarifies it, or sorts the crux out.Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The Battle of Shigisan was indisputably the last of the two. Sources often call it historically "decisive", and they mention either the death of Mononobe no Moriya, which only happened once, or the annihilation of the Mononobe Clan, which also only happened once. It's not surprising that no account of the battle mentions any further clash between the victorious Soga and the annihilated Mononobe.CurtisNaito (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use words like 'indisputably'. I haven't raised this point yet, but when dealing with any 'historical' event in the Nihonshoki and other early sources, it must be by attribution for the simple fact that source criticism, the academic teasing apart of how such works were created often centuries after the 'events', has shown that history is contaminated, bent or manipulated in order to read back into the past the ideological and familial power situation of the early 8th century. This incident itself is regarded as being suspect in many aspects, perhaps even legendary. 聖徳太子's presence in battles, and temple construction related to vows, etc., is variously dismissed as later embroidery. In these cases, one is obliged to refract the narrative through scholarly commentary on whether it is reliable or not. The Mononobe clan wasn't annihilated, though good sources say so. This is just a 'point of view' challenged by good specialist sources which note that dispersed members of the Mononobe changed their names (Katsube 勝部, for example). Okay? Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support This battle doesn't appear to have a common name in English so the title of "Soga-Mononobe conflict" seems in terms of frequency of use to be no worse than anything else yet proposed, plus it has the advantage of putting the battle in its full military context and it might end our long-running debate about the spelling of "Mount Shigi" which is actually a trivial issue. We could just state uncontroversially that the decisive battle at which the Mononobe were destroyed took place in the area of Mount Shigi and add a small footnote stating that scholars have called this event the "Battle of Shigisan" or "Battle of Shigisen".CurtisNaito (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support I don't have immediate access to a copy of the Kujiki, but clearly an article about the conflict itself will be more helpful than a description of a single battle which does not appear to have many sources for it. I note that nearly every mention of 丁未のX on Google Books comes with an いわゆる before it -- and the fact that this battle has no common name is telling. Shii (tock) 14:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Shigisan v. Shigisen

For the record, I still think that we should follow my earlier suggestion to state that the battle took place at Mount Shigi and add a footnote stating that scholars have called this event the "Battle of Shigisan" or "Battle of Shigisen".

But having said that, I have a new theory about why the pronunciation of "Shigisan" is used in Japanese sources. I've been consulting a few Japanese sources on this matter and discovered that the encyclopedias 国史大辞典, 総合佛教大辞典, and 歴史考古学大辞典, as well as the book 仏教の勝利 by Takeshi Umehara all exclusively use the pronunciation of "Shigisan" for the site of the battle and don't mention any alternatives.

However, Takeshi Umehara's work is significant because he states his sources. His sources for information on the battle are, Shotoku Taishi Denryaku, Jogu Taishi Shuiki, and Jogu Shotoku Taishi Den Hoketsuki. Of these three sources, by far the earliest is Jogu Shotoku Taishi Den Hoketsuki which was composed sometime in the middle of the Heian Era around 900 AD. As noted, the Nihon Shoki, which is a secondary source just like all the others, does not state the location of the battle, but if we presume that the Hoketsuki is the earliest source that does mention the site of the battle, then the pronunciation of "Shigisan" might have been already well-established by the time it was actually committed to paper. Of course this does not explain why so many Western sources use the pronunciation of "Shigisen", but it might at least explain why Japanese sources invariably use "Shigisan". Hijiri88 has asked me "How can you explain good sources copying the mistakes of their predecessors?", but this is a question we can pose separately to both Japanese and Western historians. Why did reliable Western sources mostly use "Shigisen" in contrast to reliable Japanese sources which use "Shigisan"?CurtisNaito (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Takeshi Umehara is not a reliable source. He qualified in philosophy, but never did any specialist work in that field or the vast number of subjects he covered. Like most socio-cultural commentators who deserted the academy for a prolific writing career, who write two or three books a year for the general public, he just read secondary sources and rewrote them from his own point of view. One would no more use him on this than on Yamato Takeru, whom he hero-worshipped late in life and self-identified with to the point of writing a play about him. 聖徳太子伝暦; 上宮太子拾遺記, 上宮聖徳太子伝補闕記, are all very late sources, several centuries after the event, caught up in the long process of mythification of Shotoku Taishi. See Kenneth Doo Lee, The Prince and the Monk: Shotoku Worship in Shinran's Buddhism, SUNY 2007 p.76 'Such sources. . continued to expand on the legendary qualities of Shōtoku's achievements.' etc. It seems to be a temple name for 朝護孫子寺, codifying his legendary vision of Vaiśravaṇa (毘沙門天/Bishamonten). The problem remains that Mononobe no Moriya's stronghold at Kawachi (Shibukawa) was attacked, and the battle is called by a temple name confused with an actual mountain in Nara's Ikoma region. This confusion is typical of legendary material embroidered over the centuries to create 'facts' needed for religious charters. (Please don't use the words if we presume: we presume nothing on wikipedia).

The third source does elaborate on legends found in earlier sources, and may just conserve traditions otherwise suppressed, but it, like the others cannot be used directly, but only through secondary scholarly sources that filter out the exaggerations and rhetoric in order to evaluate if there is the historical substrate we are looking for. Notwithstanding this, your note was certainly useful for the leads it provides.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Soga–Mononobe conflict. Clear consensus for this title, but changing the hyphen to a dash in accordance with MOS:DASH. Jenks24 (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Shigisan → Soga-Mononobe conflict – Per consensus established at Talk:Battle of Shigisan last year. – 182.249.240.3 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved from speedy rename

• Object to speedy rename it is clear on the talk page, that there wasn't a consensus. This should be a regular move request, not a speedy rename. The discussion you're looking at is a MERGE request. The article as it stands has not been merged or expanded into the topic of the title you propose. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.

• Support All participants in the previous discussion agreed that the article should be renamed to Soga-Mononobe conflict and expanded. There is no other article to be merged. The article as it stands contains almost no content that would not need to be deleted anyway, as User:Nishidani and I already pointed out. 182.249.240.25 (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You said "I" and pointed to Hijiri88 (talk · contribs), are you travelling and unable to access your account? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Something like that, yes. My userpage identifies this IP range as one I am forced to use if I am editing from my phone and don't want my edits randomly deleted. Now that I've been subtly accused of sockpuppetry, may I ask who you are? My edits have a history of being randomly reverted by hostile IPs, and you don't seem to have any record of editing this article or others in this area. 182.249.240.9 (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I was wondering why you said "I". I am 65.94.171.126 (talk) , since usually one would edit from an IP address if they don't have an account. There's that whole big new notice warning people to remember to log on in recent days . If you don't want to use your account, that's your choice -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support renaming. The evidence and consensus that this title is totally inappropriate is above.Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

In the expanded conflict, the Google Book Search seems to indicate Mononobe and Nakatomi vs Otomo and Soga ? And that the expanded article should be about the introduction of Buddhism into Japan and related militarism and resistance to its spread? (ie ) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No. No it doesn't. Please don't disrupt uncontroversial technical moves supported by consensus, if you yourself played no part in said discussion and are now unwilling to even read the discussion carefully. @User:Nishidani This move doesn't even require an admin, just a user with account access and and the ability to move pages to titles that don't already exist. You could probably fix it right now. 182.249.240.35 (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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