Jump to content

Talk:Iwashimizu Hachimangū

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Top three shrines

[edit]

What were considered the three most important Hachiman Shrines in the Heian period? in the Edo period? in the post-Meiji period? today?

Spokechieves's recent edit offers no citation support, but the Hachiman Shrine disambiguation page suggests that the following may be valid according to some reliable sources. Spokechieves added:

However, the text which was deleted by Spokechieves is indisputably correct as well. Spokechieves deleted:

This long-standing controversy can be clarified, if not resolved entirely. This talk page seems like a more appropriate place to work this out -- not in the introductory paragraph of the article. --Tenmei (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usa Shrine and Iwashimizu Hachiman-gū and Hakozaki-gū is Kanpei-taisha of the highest rank. However, Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū is not so. --Spokechieves (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without citation support per WP:V, it is difficult to evaluate whether your edit is good, better, best? I did find at least one citation which supports your edit -- here. However, this still leaves many questions unanswered about what this ranking means, when it was decided, whether it still applies today, etc. ...? Does this help you begin to see my point? --Tenmei (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read 八幡神.--Spokechieves (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do appreciate that your point has plausible validity; but I think you still misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Two comments come to mind in response to your terse instruction to review 八幡神:
  • 1. The Japanese Wikipedia doesn't conventionally present the kinds of specific source citations as are anticipated by the English Wikipedia at WP:V. Moreover, the Japanese Wikipedia article to which you refer does illustrate this significant difference between these two distinct wiki-projects.
  • 2. The Japanese Wikipedia text to which you refer doesn't really address the issue I'm trying to emphasize here, which is that from amongst these four shrines, only three of them are considered to be the top three, but
(a) Which three?
(b) Why are these three the "top" shrines?
In other words: Why not the three shrines which your edit displaced? I don't have a preference, but I do see four shrines and I don't yet know how to explain why one should be or should not be excluded from the following grouping
Looking at this problem from a different perspective:
Fact: I do know that Hakozaki-gū was favored by the Toyotomi clan, which consequently caused the shrine to fall into disfavor during the years in which the Tokugawa clan were ascendant. In short, the importance of the shrine was different in the Heian period, in the Sengoku period and in the Edo period ... and I can offer a published source citation which verifies the factual accuracy of those two sentences.<:ref>Ponsonby-Fane, Richard. (1963). Studies in Shinto and Shrines, pp. 288-309.</ref>
Factoid: Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū is reported to be the most visited shrine in today's Japan ... but I can't remember which website included this sentence. In other words, I cannot offer a published source citation which verifies the factual accuracy of this sentence, but I'm sure I read it in the past month or so.
I hope this fuzzy logic helps .... Maybe this is one of those circumstances in which there is no real "right or "wrong," no "correct" or "incorrect;" but the gravamen of my disagreement with your edit is something else entirely. --Tenmei (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-evaluation

[edit]

In the context established by Spokechieves' unique contribution history (e.g., here), I've been persuaded to re-evaluate my approach to the issues which have evolved at:

and

With regret, I see no alternative but to change tactics abruptly. See User talk:Spokechieves#Vandalism warning. --Tenmei (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attack. Please discuss the article.
In Wikipedia of an English version, the fact that it is "Usa Shrine > Iwashimizu Hachiman-gū > Hakozakigu > Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū" (Japanese version, Article in Japan that is origin) is not reflected at all. Why? Why??? Why do not you not try to admit it?. I worry that erroneous findings of fact spreads to the world.
Please understand the fact of "many major 1st rank shinto shrines (Kanpei-taisha) > many major 2nd rank shinto shrines (Kokuhei-taisha)> many major 3rd rank shinto shrines (Kanpei-chusha) > Tsurugaoka hachimangu (Kokuhei-chusha) etc .".
The act of advertising Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū will come into view to you if this fact is based. --Spokechieves (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is not a personal attack; however, you are quite correct to construe my changed tactics as meaningful, measured and not vague. You should understand this as an abrupt rejection of your approach to working with others. My judgment is specifically informed by the disruptive edits which comprise your edit history.
Let me remind you of something you already know -- there remain many possibilities for constructive participation in Wikipedia. Would you be interested in investing some time and effort in improving a stub article about Hakozaki Shrine?
Please re-read some of what I've posted above, especially that part about the distinction between a fact (as specifically clarified by WP:V and a mere factoid .... --Tenmei (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Tenmei acting in Wikipedia aiming to advertise Kamakura?
Just like Urashimataro. --Spokechieves (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The simple answer to your question is "no." A context for this mild negative response might be Advertising or perhaps the Wiktionary definition of "advertise" or "advertiser." With all due respect, I encourage you to examine this thread in hopes that a relatively modest investment of time might lead to more constructive avenues of inquiry and research.
Changing tactics a little bit -- I wonder if it might be helpful for me to suggest you ponder the first sentence on the page at WP:V:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth-— that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
I hope that this nuanced sentence will suggest a fresh perspective on the distinction between a fact (as specifically clarified by WP:V and a mere factoid ... which would seem a more useful topic of further investigation. --Tenmei (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at ja:近代社格制度 & ja:社格. This is fact.
Usa-gu = Iwashimizu-hachimangu = Hakozaki-gu >>>> Tsurugaoka --Spokechieves (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable sentence

[edit]

I removed the following sentence from the main article:

"During the Edo period, the sculptor Hidari Jingorō, who also worked on the Nikkō Tōshō-gū, contributed to the carvings of Iwashimizu."

A quick Google-search reveals nothing which suggests that this sculptor had anything to do with Iwashimizu. --Tenmei (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence could be restored immediately if it were supported by a citation from a reliable source. --Tenmei (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iwashimizu Hachimangū. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iwashimizu_Hachimangū&oldid=1207763625"