Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/February 2014

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talk & archives for WP Japan
Project talk
Task force talk/archives

↔ = joint task force
Old notice board
Related talk/archives
Search the archives:
V·T·E

Requested move

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Yoshihide Ōtomo#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Michitaro (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ainu Flag

Has anyone seen this? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Nanshu is kind of an asshole, but it makes sense that the Ainu flag is not free.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh I saw your history with him, and honestly you both look like assholes... But on topic, I would think that a flag would be in the public domain, especially if someone (or group) used it besides the author? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You know now that I think about it, you two were headbutting over Ainu-related things a few months ago, so it's possibly why he looked for a reason to delete the flag? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Public domain means that there is no copyright, and it seems there was one on the Ainu flag so no. There are flags that are not in the public domain because a governmental agency did not create the design.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok well that makes sense, but Nanshu said it's reasonable to assume that there's a copyright, so he doesn't actually know if there is one. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The commons is often scared by copyright issues, even if they might not actually exist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Wow... Well now the Ainu task force templates need to be updated, as well as anywhere else that used the flag. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Technically, non-country flags can (and often are) protected by copyright. Simply being a flag does not explicitly waiver copyright. For the same reason, Wikimedia Commons does not host the Australian Aboriginal Flag, see this file description and the relevant Commons discussion for more details. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
True, but your example is a case of the author strongly upholding his ownership rights, but the creator of the Ainu flag is dead and (as far as I know) did not make a scene about copyright issues. Has anyone been able to find information on this? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It does not matter. Any art created by Mr. Sunazawa will not enter the public domain until 50 years after his death. And the Commons will always err on the side of caution and would rather delete things than investigate if there actually is no copyright on the item. Additionally, there'd be no purpose to upload it here because it would not comply with WP:NFCC, as its uses here were simply decorative because there is no article dedicated to the flag.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, wouldn't NFCC be plausible for the Ainu people article though? After all, it is a visual symbol which represents the ethnic group. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The article Ainu flag on the Ainu task force To Do List means that it may be in the process of being made. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Bad news from "an asshole." As Sunzawa Bikky died more than two decades ago, it is difficult today to know exactly what he thought. But both his late daughter Sunazawa Chinita and his son and successor of his art Sunazawa Jin were/are highly critical of the unauthorized, unethical use of Bikky's name and works ([1] for example). They were/are also vocal critics of corrupt Ainu activists. If you dig into this topic, you will find so many nasty things. You are about to gaze into the depths of the abyss. Good luck! --Nanshu (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"-kun" and "-sama"

See WP:RM for Feb 4/2014 where several articles are proposed to be renamed from X-sama/X-kun to Xsama/Xkun. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fringe/POV-pushing on the Yamanoue no Okura article

This page desperately needs more eyes. One user with a clear political agenda and no interest in discussing disputes with other editors has been threatening to drastically change the article even though all reliable sources and every other Wikipedian has disagreed. User:Cckerberos posted once, but otherwise I have been trying to protect the page alone, something not easy when I can't edit from my computer and therefore can't log in. 182.249.240.5 (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  • こんにちは！ I've reviewed the article in question and tried to take in the entire discussion. The disruptive editor seems to have had past trouble with vandalism and edit warring outside of the article in question, but he made some good contributions to the article. I noticed your last comment about how he had added information only up to 1981; it'd be best for you to just add on the needed information yourself. I would also advise that you add a section to the article that states both sides of this argument on the man's foreigness as supported or rebuffed by sources (since it is a stub). If the user continues to make reverts without discussion beforehand, then you should report him to an administrator. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
But what about WP:WEIGHT? Juzumaru has to date been unable to name a single scholar in the field of classical Japanese literature who has argued that Okura was not born in Baekje. I have already named two specialist sources that specifically state this to be a view held by scholars outside the relevant field (歴史学者 as oppoed to 文学研究者). And I already summarized the debate as discussed in a huge number of reference works, only to be completely ignored by Juzumaru. 182.249.240.8 (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, if the debate is significant enough, use it to expand the article. Also, are you looking for mediation with Juzumaru, or help adding to the article? I would be more useful with the former than the latter. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I described the additional description. (I do not comment on the description that an IP address input about Juzumaru. I only describes Yamanoue no Okura.）(トークページに私の説明を追加しました。)--Juzumaru (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't fully understand what you mean. Use (preferably) proper English or Japanese. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Juzumaruさん、ここ日本語良いよ。色々ヤツら日本語出来る、安心しろ。君の英語ちょっと理解し難い。 --benlisquareT•C•E 16:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this is all about Wikipedia:WEIGHT, as 182.249.240.8 points out.

  • Shinsen Shōjiroku, an official genealogical record compiled by the order of Emperor Saga some 80 years after Okura's death, registered Yamanoue clan as branched out of the Japanese Imperial family. This is a fact that all scholars agree.
  • Nakanishi and some other scholars argue that Okura is likely to have come from Baekje, based on various circumstantial evidence, but no contemporary records directly supporting the claim. This theory is popular, but a theory, after all, or a speculation, disputed by other scholars.

And here is an issue of how we give due weight to these pieces of information. I doubt that the current version of the article is satisfactory in this regard. --Dwy (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not a "fact" that accepted by all scholars that Okura was a descendant of the divinity Amatarashi...-no-mikoto just because a source produced decades after his death said the "山上 clan" (not mentioning "山於憶良") were. This is also just one theory, and it certainly appears to be a theory with significantly less acceptance among scholars in the relevant field (日本上代文学, 万葉学) Did you even read the talk page? Virtually no encyclopedias support the claim that you are making, while the majority give the Nakanishi toraijin theory. This is consistent with the fact that every single scholar specializing in the field who has been mentioned in the discussion supports the theory. 182.249.240.37 (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Okura being a descendant of the Divinity is NOT a fact. A contemporary official record having registered his clan as a branch of the Japanese Imperial family IS.
  • To your comment in the edit summary alleging that Okura "lived before any extant documents were written": Why do you think we have his article in the first place? Because what he wrote was extensively recorded in Manyoshu, still there for us to enjoy. The oldest extant chronicles in Japan, Kojiki and Nihon Shoki were completed during his lifetime while his own court career was recorded in the next one, Shoku Nihongi. --Dwy (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Virtually all scholars consider him to have been born around 660, 52 years before the Kojiki. His poems give no biographical information about his early life. We have in fact no hard evidence about his early life. All we have are modern scholars speculating. We have a couple of historians outside the field mentioning the Shinsen Shojiroku as evidence, but the majority of scholars inside the field rejecting this because we have no evidence whatsoever that the 山上 clan was the clan 山於憶良 was born into. Maybe he married into it? It doesn't matter if there's no precedent for that, because there's also no precedent for someone born in Asuka Japan with a name like 憶良. In fact, there also appears to be evidence that immigrants from the Korean peninsula did have names like this in the same ancient primary source that you are claiming we should base our article's POV on. Maybe you should go over our guidelines again. Perhaps actually edit some articles while you're at it: your almost non-existent edit history implies you, like Juzumaru, are primarily interested in modern day political disputes between Japan and South Korea. I actually agree with you on these political issues. Just as I already told Juzumaru I agree with him on the politics. This is a fact born out by my edit history.[2][3] But this is an article about an early Japanese poet. An early Japanese poet who most scholars of ancient Japanese poetry (almost all of whom are Japanese, I might add) consider to have likely been of Kudaran (not South Korean as Koryosaram claimed, and Juzumaru seems to think I am claiming -- he's accused me of being Koryosaram more than once) descent.
By the way, the article "Korean influence on Japanese culture" needs more attention. If I could log in I'd delete the section "Literature" section -- we shouldn't be saying Okura "was born in Korean Baekje" --it's a probability judgement, but even if he was born in Baekje this can't possibly be considered a Korean influence on Japanese literature. A better example would be some of the actual Korean citizens who write novels in Japanese.
182.249.240.37 (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
By the way, a work compiled 80 years after a person died and 150 years after his birth is not "contemporary" by any stretch of the imagination, even if it mentioned 山上憶良/山於憶良 by name. I'm not an expert on the Ss, though: could someone tell me when our oldest surviving copy of it dates to? Of course, we should not be writing the article based on speculations like this, whether they come from Juzumaru or Dwy or me. This is why we don't use primary sources except in special cases; we use reliable secondary sources where possible, and we work out how we should weigh the article's point of view according to well-balanced tertiary sources. 182.249.240.4 (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

日本語による解説

こんにちは。 benlisquareさん。ありがとう。私は日本語で説明します。
（私は冷静な議論を望んでいます。そのため、山上憶良に関係のない話（個人攻撃）はしません。また、山上憶良と関係のない質問には返信しない場合があります。ご了承ください。）

憶良帰化人説

1965年ごろ、日本の古典文学研究者の中西進は『奈良時代の詩人の山上憶良は移民（帰化人）』という仮説を発表しました。 (同じ時期、渡部和雄という学者が、同様の発表をしました。)

この仮説は、次の状況証拠によって構成されます。

1. 憶良（オクラ）は、日本の名前より外国人の名前に近い。
2. 憶良は中国文化にとても詳しかった。

また、中西は、日本書紀に記録されている百済人の医者『億仁』が憶良の父親だと主張しています。

Juzumaruの引用文献

  • 「相剋と迷妄--山上憶良をめぐって」中西 進　（1965年10月）[4]
  • 「憶良の前半生 (万葉集の謎(特集))」渡部 和雄 （1969年2月）[5]
  • 「憶良帰化人論」中西 進（1969年11月）[6]

憶良帰化人説の問題点

1972年、日本の古代史研究家の青木和夫は『山上憶良は移民（帰化人）』仮説の問題点を以下のように指摘しました。

1.山上憶良は「臣」の称号を与えられている。「臣」の称号を与えられた帰化人はいない。
2.山上憶良の一族は「朝臣」の称号を与えられている。「朝臣」の称号を与えられた帰化人の一族はいない。
3.億仁が山上一族であるという記録がない。（そもそも、億仁の家族についての記録がない。）

1981年、日本の古典文学研究者の比護隆界は、「百済人の医者『億仁』が憶良の父親」という仮説の問題点を以下のように指摘しました。

1.朝鮮系の帰化人は、父の名前を子供に使用しない。
2.朝鮮系の帰化人は、父の仕事を世襲するが、憶良は父の仕事（医者）を世襲していない。
3.億仁は高級の官位「勤大壱」の官位を与えられた。憶良が億仁の子供であるなら、当時の階級制度（蔭位）によって、憶良は自動的に官位が授与される。しかし、憶良は官位を授与されていない。

Juzumaruの引用文献

  • 「万葉集研究 第2集 - 憶良帰化人説批判」青木和夫 （1973年） [7]
  • 「山上臣憶良の出自・補続--憶良帰化人論をめぐって」比護 隆界（1981年10月）[8]

現在

現在、青木と比護の指摘に反論できる証拠は発表されていません。そのため、日本では『憶良は帰化人』の仮説は学者たちの支持を得ていません。
（182.249.240.xxxさんも日本人の論文は渡部和雄という学者が1969年に書いた論文しか提示していません。）

しかし、中西は『憶良は帰化人』の仮説を撤回していません。

そのため、私は Steven D. Carter Department of Asian Languages Stanford University の説明が最適だと考えています。

"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 )

　--Juzumaru (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

182.249.240.xxxさんへ①

新撰姓氏録の「"山上朝臣の条にはその氏が大春日朝臣と同祖...(The Yamanoue clan was a tributary of the Kasuga clan...)"」を削除する理由について、182.249.240.xxxさんは以下のように主張しました。

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)

非常に誤解が多いので、説明させていただきます。

まず、新撰姓氏録について説明します。 新撰姓氏録は815年に編纂された古代日本の氏族の系譜書です。この歴史書は日本歴史の学者の佐伯有清によって解説されています。（佐伯による新撰姓氏録の研究結果は1984年に日本で最も権威のある日本学士院賞 を受賞しています [9]）。 "山上朝臣の条にはその氏が大春日朝臣と同祖..."は佐伯の解説書に書かれている説明です。

次に、新撰姓氏録は3つの種類に分類されています。

1. 皇別：天皇・皇子から分かれて臣下になった氏族。
2. 神別：日本の神々の子孫と伝承されている氏族。
3. 諸蕃：渡来人の子孫の氏族。

182.249.240.xxxさんは『憶良 is not mentioned anywhere in the Shinsen』と書きました。新撰姓氏録は個人の名簿ではありません。氏族の名簿です。そのため、『憶良』の名前は書かれていません。憶良が所属する『山上』氏は皇別（天皇・皇子から分かれて臣下になった氏族）に記録されています。

また、182.249.240.xxxさんが書いた『names beginning with 憶 are only mentioned in association with immigrants from the Korean peninsula』は、諸蕃（渡来人の子孫）に書かれている「石野連」一族の解説（出自百済国人近速王孫憶頼福留也）と「後部薬使主」一族の解説（出自高麗国人大兄憶徳也）です。両方とも山上憶良には関係ありません。--Juzumaru (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

憶良が所属する『山上』氏は皇別（天皇・皇子か ら分かれて臣下になった氏族）に記録されていま す。憶良の姓は臣（八色の姓の第六位）。『新撰 姓氏録』に記されている「山上氏」の姓は朝臣（八 色の姓の第二位）。山上氏は「山上憶良」の「山 上」に似ているからといって、「山於憶良」の「山 於」には似ていません。Juzumaruさんと同じように 解読している学者もいるようですが、違う読み方を している学者の方が多いようです。両方とも山上憶良には関係ありません。だから一次資料を使うのはやめましょう？私の解き方は歴史学的にありえますが、ウィキペディアはウィキペディアの投稿者による一次資料の解読ではなくて、信頼性のある二次資料を基にしているのです。JuzumaruさんとDwyさんが「古い文献にかいてあるから記事に入れなければ」という考え方をやめてくれないと百科事典の作成には参加できなくなります。"山上朝臣の条にはその氏が大春日朝臣と同祖..."は佐伯の解説書に書かれている説明です。これは初耳です。Juzumaruさんは最初に信頼性のある二次資料を記事から消して新撰姓氏録という一次資料だけ述べた[10]ので、それから17ヶ月いきなり言われても…。その上、佐伯氏は憶良と何の関係もない理由で学院賞を受賞したんですよね？中西進は佐伯氏より13年前に同じ賞を「万葉集の比較文学的研究、万葉史の研究」で受賞しました。[11]文化勲章も受章しているし、それに、奈良県立万葉文化館の名誉館長です。[12]これは、日本最高の万葉学者のひとりだからです。学者は十人十色なの、資格を比較して意味がなく、二次資料だけで記事の適切な重点は決められないと考えられます。なので、ほかの百科事典がどのような中立性な観点になっているかを見てみようと思いました。origin theoryの何かを述べる９冊の百科事典の100%が憶良渡来人説を述べています。そのうち、新撰姓氏録による皇別説も述べているのが（多くとも）66.7%。（「新撰姓氏録」の名前が書いてあったのは20%に過ぎないけど。）渡来人説も皇別説も載せた６冊のうち、どちらも平等に述べているのが３冊で、皇別説の方が強いように述べているのが３冊です。後者の３冊のうち２冊は『新撰姓氏録』によらず、姓が「臣」だったから渡来人説が成立しがたいと。この６冊のほかに、渡来人説だけ述べている百科事典が３冊あり、「彼は百済に生まれた」と直接いうのが１冊で、もう２冊は「百済の渡来人とする説もあるが確かではない」とか「百済からの渡来人憶仁の子か」。これらは、一般人向けの百科事典です。ほかに、この分野を研究している人のための『日本古典文学大辞典』と『日本古典文学研究史大事典』があります。前者は記事の中で、「姓は臣。家系未詳。『新撰姓氏録』右京皇別に山上氏は粟田朝臣と同祖と伝え、帰化人とする説もある」とありますが、付記ではいろんな問題を解明する仮説として提唱されたが、史家からの反論もあり、なお問題を残している、ということが書いてあります。後者では歴史学者が1970,1980代に反論していたが、今論争が静まった、ということが書いてあります。これらは、現在の英語版ウィキペディアでもの記事と内容的にはあまり異なっていませんが、Juzumaruさんが望んでいる記事の形はどうかな…「山上氏は春日氏の一流だった。それだけ。」これは、中立性の観点なのでしょうか？Juzumaruさんは、結局、記事をどういうふうに変えたいんですか？今でもこのような記事にしたいんですか？ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.249.240.17 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

182.249.240.xxxさんへ②

現在、182.249.240.xxxさんが提示された学者について検証をしています。

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

私は渡部和雄についての活動記録を見つけられませんでした。彼は、どのような実績を持つ学者なのでしょうか。教えてください。

（説明にあたっては、敬称を略させていただきました。ご了承ください。）--Juzumaru (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

渡部氏は初めて憶良が渡来人だったのではないかと述べた学者。中西氏はその後にこの説を強調するようになりました。(Keene, 1999, chapter 3 note 9)新撰姓氏録による憶良皇別説を載せる百科事典がほとんどないのに対して、渡来人説を強調する百科事典が多い。これは、なぜでしょうね… 182.249.240.40 (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
新撰姓氏録は山上氏の出自について直接的に記述した唯一の一次史料ですから、まともな学者ならこれを外して議論を進める事はあり得ません。新撰姓氏録が山上氏を大春日朝臣と同族で天足彦国忍人命の後裔だとしているのは、まともな学者なら誰でも認める事実であって、たとえ渡来人説を唱える場合であっても、何を措いてもまず最初に記すべき事柄と言えます。
ウィキペディアでも、まず最初に新撰姓氏録の記述に言及すべきであり、渡来人説や反論については、その後で記載すべきだと思います。--Dwy (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
新撰姓氏録は山上氏の出自について直接的に記述した唯一の一次史料憶良の出自は未詳。これは唯一の史実。憶良の名前が記された（万葉集以外の）唯一の一次史料は続日本紀で、そこでは彼の名前が最初に「山上氏」ではなく「山於億良」として表記されている。まともな学者なら誰でも認める事実この「事実」を認める万葉専門家はほとんどいないけど？？ウィキペディアでも「でも」という言い方は…………ほかにこういうふうに書いてある百科事典の記事はDwyさんは見たことあるんですか？私の今までの経験では、新撰姓氏録を述べることはほとんどなく、「出自は未詳。百済系渡来人の子か」のように書くことが一番多いかな…182.249.240.11 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

182.249.240.xxxさんの返答について（指摘事項）

　2014年2月4日の 182.249.240.xxxさんの説明ですが、以下の点が間違えています。

指摘①

>憶良の姓は臣（八色の姓の第六位）。

　はい。その通りです。憶良の姓は臣です。そして、「臣」の姓は帰化人の子孫に与えられません。

指摘②

>『新撰姓氏録』に記されている「山上氏」の姓は朝臣（八色の姓の第二位）

　はい。その通りです。『新撰姓氏録』に記録されている山上朝臣は山上憶良の姓ではありません。山上朝臣は山上憶良の息子の山上船主が賜った姓です。
　山上船主は憶良と同じ「臣」の姓でしたが、768年に「朝臣」の姓を与えられています。（続日本記19巻「右京人従五位上山上臣船主等十人賜姓朝臣」）
　「朝臣」の姓も帰化人の子孫は与えられません。
　 　（この説明は1月4日から説明しています。[13]）

指摘③

> 両方とも山上憶良には関係ありません。

　上記の説明で理解いただけると思いますが、関係がないのは 182.249.240.xxxさんが主張する 『 names beginning with 憶 are only mentioned in association with immigrants from the Korean peninsula 』 だけです。

指摘④

> Juzumaruさんと同じように 解読している学者もいるようですが

　私が書いた内容は 182.249.240.xxxさんが提示した中西進の論文「憶良帰化人説」に書かれている内容と一致しています。
　中西の「憶良帰化人論」は「新撰姓氏録に書かれている山上朝臣は憶良の一族」を認めた上で、新撰姓氏録に山上朝臣と同じ祖先と記録されている粟田朝臣の系図を分析しながら、憶良帰化人論を説明しています。）182.249.240.xxxさんは「一次資料を使うのはやめましょう？」と書かれていますが、資料に書かれている内容を読まないまま、記事に引用するのは止めませんか？

指摘⑤

> 私の解き方は歴史学的にありえますが

　ありえません。 　--Juzumaru (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

182.249.240.xxxさんの返答について質問事項

質問①

> Juzumaruさんと同じように解読している学者もいるようですが、違う読み方をしている学者の方が多いようです。

　違う読み方をしている学者の名前を多く提示していただけますでしょうか。

質問②
　「私は渡部和雄についての活動記録を見つけられませんでした。彼は、どのような実績を持つ学者なのでしょうか。教えてください。」と質問しましたが、182.249.240.xxxさんは、「渡部氏は初めて憶良が渡来人だったのではないかと述べた学者。」と回答しました。その程度の情報は1月4日に私から提供済です。回答していただきたいのは、渡部和雄の経歴や受賞歴などの情報です。中西進の説明のように詳細にしていただければ助かります。渡部和雄についても、情報源の内容を確認しないまま引用をしていたということでしたら、その旨をご回答ください。--Juzumaru (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

182.249.240.xxxさんの返答について回答

> Juzumaruさんが望んでいる記事の形
私は『Steven D. Carter Department of Asian Languages Stanford University の説明が最適だと考えています。』と結論を提示しています。
182.249.240.xxxさんが同意すれば、この議論は終了に向かいます。　（新撰姓氏録の記述は追記するなどの細かい修正は入りますが）
Steven D. Carterの説明に問題があると主張されるようでしたら、ご指摘ください。--Juzumaru (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Juzumaru、あなたがこの分野について無知であることは最初から明らかでした。無知でなければ自分で資料を調べて論争ができましたが、最初から私が指示した資料に頼ってばかりいましたね。あなたが望んでいる記事の形（「憶良は新撰姓氏録に記されているとおりに天皇の子孫。渡来人ではない。」）という百科事典は２ヶ月経っても現れません。何故かというと存在しないから。そしてあなたは今WP:OWNやWP:IDHTに反してこのページの話題の半分以上をOWNしています。あなたが何を求めているかを明らかにして、それを満たしている百科事典的な先例を見つけないかぎり、この相談は進みません。この二つの条件を満たすまではもうあなたに答えません。記事への投稿はrevertさせてもらうけど。 182.249.240.2 (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
182.249.240.xxxさんが投了されたので、この会話は終了になります。182.249.240.xxxとJuzumaruの評価は、みなさんのご判断にお任せします。（182.249.240.xxxさんの私に対する妄想に気持ち悪さは感じていますが、それは別な場所で相談をすることにします。）--Juzumaru (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

提案

とりあえず、図書館で中西進著「山上憶良」を借りてきました。当該書の「家系」の章(p23〜45)の記述を要約すると以下のようになります。大体こんな線でまとめてはどうかと思うのですが、如何でしょう。

Little is known about the genealogical origins of Okura, the only extant record being Shinsen Shojiroku, which classified Yamanoue clan as “Kobetsu”(皇別), families having branched out from the Japanese imperial family, noting that the clan shares the same genealogical line with Okasuga (大春日) clan and descended from Amatarashihikokunioshihito no mikoto.
Some scholars of ancient Japanese literature, including Susumu Nakanishi, argued that Okura’s father may have been an immigrant from the Korean peninsula, who fled to Japan when Baekje was defeated by Tang China. It was speculated that Okura and his father settled in Koga gun, Omi province, where his family was subjected to and eventually incorporated into Awata clan, a sub-branch of Okasuga clan. This theory, however, was refuted by some historians, who maintained that Okura’s kabana, “omi” (臣) was customarily not given to foreign immigrant families.

出典のインライン表示等、細かいところは、後で加筆・修正するつもりです。上記の文章は全て中西進氏の記述に準拠したものなので、182.249.241.xxxさんから異論が出ることはないはずと思っています。こちらで(日本語で)Juzumaruさんと少し揉んで、大筋で合意できれば、記事の方を「大胆に」編集、もしあちらで異議が出れば、あちらでの議論に移行…という段取りにしようと思います。--Dwy (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Dwyさん、上記の提案の大部分に賛成ができると思います。問題点は２つだけ残っています：
①Refuteという言い方はふさわしくないです。日本一（世界一）と言われる万葉学者の中西進をはじめに、万葉集の英訳者のリービー英雄も、日本に来るまでは欧米一の日本文学研究者だったキーン・ドナルド等の偉大なる歴史家がまだ渡来人説を主張している間は「論破した」とは言えないとと思います。「rejected」にしたらいかがですか？
②『新撰姓氏録』も述べてもいいですが、Dwyさんの提案のように他の出自説の前に述べて一番詳しく書く他の百科事典がないようです。確認してきた２２冊の百科事典的記事のうち、origin theoryの何かを述べたのが１１冊で、うち『新撰姓氏録』の名前を載せたのが４冊であることに対し、全１１冊が憶良渡来人説を述べているのです。
次のようにしたらいかがですか？
Virtually nothing is known of Okura's early life or ancestry, and many theories have been proposed by scholars since the 1960s. Some scholars of ancient Japanese literature, including Susumu Nakanishi, have argued that Okura's father may have been an immigrant from the Korean peninsula, who fled to Japan when Baekje was defeated by Tang China. Nakanishi has speculated that Okura and his father settled in Koga gun, Omi province, where his family was subjected to and eventually incorporated into the Awata clan, a sub-branch of Okasuga clan.<REF=Nakanishi ????> This theory, however, was rejected by some historians, such as Kazuo Aoki,<REF=Keene 1999> who maintain that Okura's kabane, Omi (臣), was not customarily given to foreign immigrant families. Another theory is that he was a member of the Yamanoue clan who are mentioned in the 9th-century genealogical record Shinsen Shojiroku as being of Imperial descent.
182.249.240.30 (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Dwyさん。はじめまして。ご提案ありがとうございます。記載された内容を拝見させていただきましたが、中西の憶良渡来人論が正確に引用されており、素晴らしい英文だと思いました。（学生の私は、このようなElegantな英文が書けません…。）書かれている内容は概要とは別にサブセクションを用意して、紹介する形になるのでしょうか。--Juzumaru (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
「新撰姓氏録」は憶良の出自だけでなく、無位無官の憶良が遣唐使に選ばれた理由（山上氏と同族の粟田真人の引き立てによるもの）を説明するときにも引用される資料なので『まともな学者ならこれを外して議論を進める事はあり得ません。』という認識は私も同じです。
ただし、「新撰姓氏録」から山上氏を引用することについては『"憶良"の名前が書かれていない。』『憶良の姓は臣。「新撰姓氏録」に記されている「山上氏」の姓は朝臣。』などの理由から、「新撰姓氏録」を憶良と関係ない史料と解釈をしてしまう人がいることが分かりました。そのため、冒頭部分に『息子は768年に朝臣を賜姓された山上船主。（新撰姓氏録における山上朝臣）』という記載が必要かもしれないと感じています。また、中西進の『憶良渡来人論』は「新撰姓氏録」を基軸に持論を展開していますので、"speculated"の後に"by Shinsen Shojiroku"を付けるのはいかがでしょうか。
それから、リービ英雄は「日本語を駆使する外国人」という観点から「憶良渡来人論」に共感していますが、学術的な裏付けは持っていません。彼は講演会のスピーチで「憶良渡来人論」に言及していることは事実ですが、国際交流の重要さに軸足を置いた内容で話をしています。--Juzumaru (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but since neither of you have ever contributed anything to en.wiki articles on classical Japanese literature, and since at least Juzumaru is entirely unwilling to engage in discussion, I'm going to have to revert both of you if you try to insert anything into the article that implies that the imperial origin theory is the mainstream theory. The most prevalent theory among scholars in this field (a field, I must emphasize, neither of you have ever edited in) is the Baekje origin theory. This is a fact that I have already proven with reference to all the encyclopedias that can be found. Also, Juzumaru, I've been keeping a file on your behaviour since the original ANI thread got archived. If you don't cease this kind of IDHT/POV/OR/NOTHERE behaviour immediately you will be going right back to ANI, where you belong. 182.249.240.43 (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
You insisted that Susumu Nakanishi is the champion in the relevant field so I got his book from a library and drafted the above-proposed edit, strictly adhering to what Nakanishi wrote (except, perhaps, the “refute” thing, of which I am happy to revise the wording). I started the passage by referring to “Shinsen Shojiroku” because that was exactly what Nakanishi did when he began the chapter in his book on the genealogy of Okura’s family. I have no idea what you want here. --Dwy (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Nakanishi is a scholar with a POV (one, I should point out, with whichich I don't always agree). He is indisputably the leading scholar in the field, and so even if every other scholar rejected a theory of his it would still be noteworthy. But an NPOV encyclopedia article can't possibly be based on his book alone. I have already checked how other encyclopedias treat the subject. This is in line with WP:TERTIARY tells us to establish WP:WEIGHT. Your proposal is in complete violation of WP:WEIGHT. 182.249.240.29 (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You are just being irrational. Discussion here will lead us nowhere. I think we should move on to the article's note page and invite more people to participate in the discussion.--Dwy (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Wgat, pray tell, is irrational about my request that you actually examine the evidence that I didn't cherrypick as Juzumaru did?? I already did ask for more participation on the talk page. Juzumaru responded by posting an extremely long and irrelevant summary of a few cherry-picked sources that I had spoon-fed him. The result was that the only third party who got involved was a user with next to no history of editing articles on English Wikipedia and appears to be only interested in this as some kind of manufactured 21st-century political dispute between Japan and South Korea, even when virtually all the people involved in the dispute are Japanese and virtually all of those Japanese scholars are on what you and Juzumaru seem to think is the "Korean side". 182.249.240.20 (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Dwy, the fact that you said "note page" shows that you are more used to using Japanese Wikipedia than here. If you are pushing a political agenda, I advize you to stop. I agree with you that more editors (and possibly admins) need to get involved with this. You all need to find a consensus, although I'm strongly leaning towards 182.294.24xxx and his supporting evidence. This has been going on for too long for you and Juzumaru not to of provided any counter-evidence. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Check Dwy's contributions. Unlike Juzumaru, he has the English ability necessary to edit English Wikipedia, a fact that Juzumaru admitted in his above toady attempt to "butter Dwy's bread". However, also unlike Juzumaru, he has never much tried to edit English Wikipedia --maybe the 2chan-like atmosphere on Japanese Wikipedia where citing reliable secondary sources is for nerds suits him? The point the two of them have in common: their activities on English Wikipedia have been devoted almost entirely to removing what they see as "Korean propaganda". The problem is that in this case the Korean propaganda is in fact a theory originating in Japan with Japanese scholars, and is now the most accepted theory among specialists in this field. The reason neither of them recognize this is that neither of them are experts in the field. By the way, the first portion of the record I mentioned above can be seen here. 182.249.240.27 (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I am pushing political agenda, and I don't think I need any more evidence, either. Having examined various encyclopedia articles, 182.294.24xxx himself noted that "憶良の出自は未詳。これは唯一の史実" (Okura's origin is unknown. This is the only historical truth.) The majority view in the tertiary sources is "Okura's origin is unknown" (or, there do not exist sufficient materials to determine his origin), and "Okura came from Baekje" is the most significant minority view, at best. To me, it is fairly clear who is pushing agenda.
And there is apparently some misunderstanding about "Shinsen Shojiroku." No sensible scholars seriously argue that Okura was descended from some legendary prince who we do not believe even existed. It is mentioned only because it is the only extant primary source directly covering the subject. Is "a blood clot grasped in his fist" mentioned in Genghis Khan article because we believe in his destiny to rule the world? I don't think so.-Dwy (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make the article cite any of these theories as a "fact" as you are. Therefore, I can't be pushing a political agenda. You are ignoring the fact that the majority of scholars consider the Baekje origin theory as the most likely. And historians are only ever allowed speak of the most likely possibility. If you don't know that, it's because you're not a historian. Also, no serious historians refer to a work written a century after the subject's death and not mentioning the subject anywhere as "the only extant primary source directly covering the subject. On a mostly unrelated note, I'd like to present an interesting piece of data: this diff shows Juzumaru giving a machine-translated response (山上氏の家系図 -- "the family tree of Mr. Yamagami") that shows (1)his lack of English skills necessary to contribute to en.wiki; (2) his contempt for his fellow Wikipedians -- he wasn't responding to mywell-thought out comments on the talk page, but rather ignoring my comments in favour of his own half-assed commentary on my edits; and (3) the absolute absurdity of Wikipedians trying to use 9th-century primary sources to establish consensus without reference to modern scholars (yes, all of Juzumaru's and Dwy's arguments hinge on the assumption that, despite what Google Translate told them, the Shinsen Shojiroku is talking about the Yamanoues and not the Yamagamis). Peace out. 182.249.0.162 (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Aha! You've been thinking that I was trying to use Shinsen Shojiroku without reference to modern scholars. If that is your objection, I will go ahead to edit the article attributing every statement to modern scholar's work.--Dwy (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop twisting my words, please. This is a WEIGHT and NPOV issue, not a sourcing one. Your proposed edit (the one I just reverted, as you already knew I would) would make Wikipedia the only encyclopedia that gives precedent to the Imperial origin theory instead of the Baekje origin theory, not to mention one of the only ones that even bothers to name the Shinsen Shojiroku, let alone claiming it to be "the only contemporary primary source". 182.249.240.11 (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, how can this be interpreted as anything other than OR? It's fair to assume that you hadn't read Nakanishi until you said you had several days later -- which secondary source were you basing the "Shinsen Shojiroku is a contemporary record that describes Okura's origins, therefore we should use it as a starting point"? It sure is funny that you came away from reading Nakanishi with the same conclusion, even though Nakanishi himself doesn't buy that... 182.249.240.8 (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

user:Greg723

Greg723 (talk · contribs) has been given warnings about editing Japanese articles and is sitting at level-4 user warning. At Talk:Japanese People's Anti-War League he admitted to renaming articles as well. You may wish to closely examine this user's contributions. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

1830m

Hi. Please, could someone confirm that this article says 1830m has sold 1,051,000 million copies. I think that's what it says, but I'm not sure.--Cattus talk 18:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It says they sold 1,051,000 copies. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.--Cattus talk 20:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Numbering of Prime Ministers

So I noticed that Junichiro Koizumi states that he was "the 87th Prime Minister of Japan from 2001 to 2006". On the other hand, Shinzō Abe (who succeeded him) is stated to be "the 57th and current Prime Minister of Japan". Apparently these are both correct, just in different senses; according to List of Prime Ministers of Japan, Koizumi was the 56th individual to hold the office, and held it through three "governments" (I'm guessing this means "terms"), which were the 87th, 88th and 89th governments since the creation of the office. I'm not seeing any particular standard applied between the articles: Yasuo Fukuda (who succeeded Abe's first term) is numbered as 91st, Ryutaro Hashimoto is called the "82nd and 83rd", while several others lack ordinals entirely. But it seems like most of the PM articles that use an ordinal use the government number (and where those individuals served multiple terms, usually the numbers for each term).

Perhaps the numbering by governments is the standard in Japan, but it seems frankly unusual in English to call someone the 90th PM when there have been only 62 people to hold the office. Perhaps PM articles should state both numbers? For instance, the Abe article could say "57th person to hold the office of Prime Minister, and held it during the 90th and 96th terms since the office was created." This seems more consistent with the Japanese usage: jawiki describes Abe as "内閣総理大臣（第90代、第96代）", and 代 as a count word seems to refer more to the era, or generation, of PM than the person himself. It could also merit, though I think it should not be preferred, a standard explanatory footnote about numbering and what the sources say.

I'd also be interested in seeing further discussion at List of Prime Ministers of Japan and Prime Minister of Japan as to the numbering system... because as far as I can tell, no Anglophone country seems to use that manner of numbering, and it just comes across as linguistically awkward. Regardless, there should be some standardization. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

How about standardizing it across articles as the "xxx-th PM of Japan serving through its yyy-th to zzz-th governments" ? -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the IP. Just include both numbers and leave a footnote at the bottom explaining it. The numbering of "governments" is more like counting election years. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Shogi

FYI a wikiproject for shogi has been proposed. See the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Shogi -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Grikon. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Japanese chip at DYK

I've 5x-expanded and nominated Template:Did you know nominations/NEC V60. If you can review or improve the article further, perhaps with Japanese sources that would be nice. Detailed technical documents are available in English, but sources on where these chips [may] have been used are not so easy to come by in English. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting of author name when citing Japanese-language sources

I was gonna post this on WT:CITE but I figured I might get a more productive response here. I notice all the "cite" templates format the author's name as "Lastname, Firstname". I don't consider this a significant problem, but personally I prefer to leave out the comma when citing a source that, in its original format, just said "Lastname Firstname" (I got this habit from McMillan 2008 One Hundred Poets, One Poem Each). I understand Wikipedia doesn't have a house style, and so basically anything goes, but how do other editors feel about this? It's relevant because in the last edit I made to Yamanoue no Okura here I left out the comma, but I'm now starting the article on the author in question and using templates, so... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say that including the comma makes it clear to everyone that the name is being presented in the form "Family name, Given name". Leaving out the comma just creates needless confusion, because readers unfamiliar with Japanese names have no way of knowing what order the name is written. Why make things more difficult for people just for the sake of one less key stroke? If you weren't already aware, if the author for the reference has a Wikipedia article, you can add the "authorlink" field to the "Citation" template used for the citation. --DAJF (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
You are right, of course, but I wasn't worried about key strokes: my reasoning was that the comma is for when the author's name is presented in a different order than it was in the original source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the comma to your citation. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know that it's worth playing around with the templates for, but I personally don't use the comma in my Japanese citations and I don't think I've ever seen it used in an actual publication (it's possible that it's standard in fields that I don't deal with, however). --Cckerberos (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

TAFI needs global view

Today's article for improvement is Reconnaissance satellite, which is currently tagged with {{globalize}}. According to {{Rest of the World Reconnaissance Satellites}}, Japan has 7 recon satellites, but as yet the page has no material regarding Japan's program. Perhaps the editors on this page would be interested in helping to globalize the article? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Emperor Jimmu

Don't know why I didn't post this here earlier. There's an RM to move Emperor Jimmu to Emperor Jinmu. 182.249.240.11 (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Help with Japanese sources

Could someone who reads Japanese please take a look at this edit to see if the sources are reliable or say what is claimed in the article? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 20:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit that was overwritten had a Chinese source, but I readded it, unless there's proof given to delete it again. The new edit was also good enough to keep. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Chinese. Japanese. It's all Greek to me.  :-) Thank you! Dismas|(talk) 00:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ukiyo-e Peer Review

I've put the ukiyo-e article up for Peer Review with the intention of nominating it as a Featured Article Candidate sometime this year. I'd appreciate any and all feedback—but especially on the choice and placement of images, and on my admittedly poor description of ukiyo-e's relation to traditional Japanese aesthetics. The review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ukiyo-e/archive1‎. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yoshiharu Habu

Hi,

I was wondering if somebody from WikiProject Japan could take a look at Yoshiharu Habu. I've made some suggestions for improving the article on its talk page, but have yet to get any feedback. Personally, I think the page layout is sort of haphazard and should be reorganized. Since it is subject to WP:BLP and is listed as an "article of interest" to this project, I thought I'd ask for feedback here as well. Thanks in advance - Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Translation of Guilty Gear (video game)

Hi, WikiProject Japan members. Sorry for bothering you but I was wondering if someone could help me with a translation of a Daisuke Ishiwatari interview. I have scans of a 6-pages interview in which he talks about Guilty Gear (video game), which I think could be a very helpful material to expand the game's article. Unfortunately, I have no ability to confirm it... If someone is interested in the series or is just a kind-hearted who wants to help other people, I would be thanked to send the images by e-mail. Feel free to contact me here, in my talkpage or directly by my e-mail. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Japan/Archive/February_2014&oldid=1151091752"