| Revision as of 21:16, 2 February 2015 editJohnsoniensis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users720,824 edits rating← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:46, 6 May 2015 edit undoHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,391 edits →Okura Toraijin-ron revisit?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| ::::::]: Of course, I (or anybody else) can remove the vague, misleading statement not supported by a reliable source. And if reliable sources say "historians raised objections to the Toraijin theory" and not reliable sources contradict it, there is no reason prohibiting the inclusion of that information in the article.--] (]) 04:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC) | ::::::]: Of course, I (or anybody else) can remove the vague, misleading statement not supported by a reliable source. And if reliable sources say "historians raised objections to the Toraijin theory" and not reliable sources contradict it, there is no reason prohibiting the inclusion of that information in the article.--] (]) 04:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Just noticed I never responded to this. Don't pretend the wording of my sources is any more "vague" or "simplified" than that of yours. "歴史学者" might possibly mean "all professionally-trained historians" (as you are choosing to interpret it) or it might mean "some historians outside this specific field, but virtually no one inside the field". ] (]) 11:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | :::::::Just noticed I never responded to this. Don't pretend the wording of my sources is any more "vague" or "simplified" than that of yours. "歴史学者" might possibly mean "all professionally-trained historians" (as you are choosing to interpret it) or it might mean "some historians outside this specific field, but virtually no one inside the field". ] (]) 11:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Okura Toraijin-ron revisit? == | |||
| A whole shitstorm has been going down at the ] talk page ], with one Korean/anti-Japanese POV-pushing SPA who doesn't understand and one good-faith but incompetent user who doesn't understand the theory trying to insert an expanded, misinterpreted version of the theory into that article. I think this article should include a full discussion of all the theories and cite a summary in that article, per ]. | |||
| Any thoughts? | |||
| ] (<small>]]</small>) 01:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:46, 6 May 2015
 | Biography: Arts and Entertainment Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Japan: Biography / Culture / History Stub‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Poetry Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Why can't the article say "Toraijin theory is not supported by historians?
Why can't the article say "Toraijin theory is not supported by historians? We all know that there was a debate between the literary scholars and historians. Hijiri 88 is well aware of the debate. He quoted
- Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten as saying「憶良帰化人説は...史家からの反論もあり、なお問題を残している。」("The theory that Okura was an immigrant ... met with objections from historians, and problems still remains.") and
- Nihon Koten Bungaku Kenkyushi Daijiten as saying 「歴史学者が1970,1980代に反論していたが、今論争が静まった」(Historians raised objections during 1970-80s, but the debates have now subsided.)
In addition, Hijiri 88 himself was demanding Juzumaru to see the debate in the perspective of "歴史学者 as oppoed to 文学研究者"(historians as opposed to literary scholars).. But now he is complaining about the use of the term historian (歴史学者). I don't think this is constructive.--Dwy (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nakanishi, who does support it, is a historian. Your wording is dismissive and too general. The whole point of adding Imperial Descent Theory was to show another possible origin for Okura and to show that Torajin Theory is not universally accepted. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the wording is dismissive, and it is not my wording anyway. All the sources I have cited said "歴史学者", "史家", etc., all of which are normally translated "historians". None of them said "some historians" or even "most historians". Having said that, however, I have already stated that I will be happy to discuss the wording. Why don't you propose what you think is an appropriate wording, rather than just revert my edits? (But, anyway, it has to be based on the sources, of course)
- As for the "Imperial Descent Theory", I have asked you who are the main advocates of the theory, to which you have not replied. I don't know if you are aware, but the main argument of Saeki and Aoki is:
- The Yamanoue clan was a branch of the Awata clan.
- The Yamanoue clan was not seen as a separate clan, but as part of the Awata clan as late as in 684, when the Awata clan was awarded the Kabane of "Ason".
- That is why Shinsen Shojiroku said in respect of the Yamanoue clan "日本紀合" (per Nihon Shoki) despite the fact that Yamanoue clan is not mentioned at all in Nihon Shoki. In other words, "日本紀合" in Shinsen Shojiroku referred to the record in Nihon Shoki that the Kabane of Ason was given to the Awata clan (and thereby to its sub-clan of Yamanoue).
- They never argued the "Imperial Descent Theory".--Dwy (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think it is clear now that there is no reason preventing the article from mentioning the "historians objections," or other information with reliable sources. I think we should significantly expand the article with much more information. --Dwy (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The majority of historians accept the toraijin theory, so your wording is unacceptable. Nakanishi Susumu, THE FOREMOST HISTORIAN IN THIS FIELD, wrote "he was considered a descendant from Emperor Kosho, but it has also been speculated that he may have been an immigrant". Read the goddamn source I cited, and stop misrepresenting sources. You yourself said NUMEROUS TIMES that "imperial descent" is the primary view of scholars based on "the only primary source specifically mentioning Okura's origins". 182.249.241.5 (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- User:Dwy, if you want to improve the article, then improve it and cut the crap. You can't remove either theory, and you can't say "historians don't accept it" about either theory. Add something useful, make minor corrections, or reword badly written sentences. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- User:182.249.241.5: I am fully aware of what Nakanishi wrote in Encyclopedia Epoca, but why do we have to rely solely on the vague, simplified statement in the non-specialist tertiary source? (Don't get me wrong here. I am not saying Nakanishi is non-specialist. I am saying Encyclopedia Epoca is non specialist, general reference book.) There are numerous reliable secondary sources on the topic, and Tertiary sources ... should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. As far as I know, reliable sources say that Shinsen Shojiroku stated that the Yamanoue clan were of the Imperial descent, but none of the reliable sources say that the Yamanoue clan were really descended from Emperor Kosho. If you insist that "imperial descent" is the primary view of scholars based on "the only primary source specifically mentioning Okura's origins", you have to cite at least one reliable secondary source supporting it.
- User:Sturmgewehr88: Of course, I (or anybody else) can remove the vague, misleading statement not supported by a reliable source. And if reliable sources say "historians raised objections to the Toraijin theory" and not reliable sources contradict it, there is no reason prohibiting the inclusion of that information in the article.--Dwy (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just noticed I never responded to this. Don't pretend the wording of my sources is any more "vague" or "simplified" than that of yours. "歴史学者" might possibly mean "all professionally-trained historians" (as you are choosing to interpret it) or it might mean "some historians outside this specific field, but virtually no one inside the field". 126.0.96.220 (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- User:Dwy, if you want to improve the article, then improve it and cut the crap. You can't remove either theory, and you can't say "historians don't accept it" about either theory. Add something useful, make minor corrections, or reword badly written sentences. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- The majority of historians accept the toraijin theory, so your wording is unacceptable. Nakanishi Susumu, THE FOREMOST HISTORIAN IN THIS FIELD, wrote "he was considered a descendant from Emperor Kosho, but it has also been speculated that he may have been an immigrant". Read the goddamn source I cited, and stop misrepresenting sources. You yourself said NUMEROUS TIMES that "imperial descent" is the primary view of scholars based on "the only primary source specifically mentioning Okura's origins". 182.249.241.5 (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think it is clear now that there is no reason preventing the article from mentioning the "historians objections," or other information with reliable sources. I think we should significantly expand the article with much more information. --Dwy (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Okura Toraijin-ron revisit?
A whole shitstorm has been going down at the fork article talk page here, with one Korean/anti-Japanese POV-pushing SPA who doesn't understand and one good-faith but incompetent user who doesn't understand the theory trying to insert an expanded, misinterpreted version of the theory into that article. I think this article should include a full discussion of all the theories and cite a summary in that article, per WP:POVFORK.
Any thoughts?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Categories:- Stub-Class biography articles
- Stub-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Stub-Class Japan-related articles
- Mid-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- Stub-Class Poetry articles
- Unknown-importance Poetry articles
- WikiProject Poetry articles