Talk:Emperor Jimmu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

Contents

[edit] Sentence removed

The following sentence was moved from the article:

In 2000, the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform (Atarashii Rekishi Kyokasho o Tsukurukai) treated Jimmu's foundation of the kingdom as historical fact in its proposed "New History Textbook" (Tsukuru-kai) for junior high schools [1].

It is a typical trait of critics of Atarashii Rekishi Kyokasho that they don't examine the textbook by themselves. Here I quote from the textbook (p.36):

神武天皇の東征伝承
一つの政治的まとまりが，大きな力を備えた統一政権になるには，通常，長い時間を必要とする。大和朝廷がいつ，どこで始まったかを記す同時代の記録は，中国にも日本にもない。しかし『古事記』や『日本書紀』には，次のような伝承が残っている

This is followed by a summary of the legend.

I compared history textbooks.

  • The New History Textbook introduces the foundation myth as a legend.
  • The other Japanese textbooks completely ignore the foundation myth.
  • The South Korean national history textbook explains a medieval myth as a historical fact.

BTW you may wonder why the other Japanese textbooks ignore the foundation myth. It is because they are complied by communists or communist sympathizers. That's why Japanese conservatives feel a sense of crisis about education. --Nanshu 00:16, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

BTW, you may wonder why the other Japanese text books ignore the foundation myth. It is because it is a "history" textbook. It is as ridiculous as teaching the account of Genesis in bible as history. That is why Japanese "conservative" (read right wing nationalist) are considered as nutter.
Well, it is a nationalist myth. But I don't suppose they teach Greek mythology in their schools either. Ashibaka (tock) 16:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
They teach Greek mythology in Greek schools, and most Western schools for that matter, and it is taught as mythology, not as actual events. Emperor Jimmu's myth/legend may have a factual basis, but still needs to be regarded as legendary. Rlquall 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
As of Korean sailor theory, given that Jimu Emperor himself is a part of foundation myth, how one can claim that he was actually a Korean sailor is totally beyone me. I will delete it until someone can attribute it to archival source. Given that Kojiki and Nihonshoki are the only one at the moment, I doubt anyone can. --(FWBOarticle 5 Aug 2004)

[edit] Picture error?

Just a quick question, is the picture correct? The Empress Jito page has the same photo, or were multiple people buried in same tomb? Hellfire83 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing a legend

Of course, many will argue that Emperor Jimmu and all of the early emperors are at most legendary. Does the tagging editor (with regard to his purported birth dates) want something that cites these legendary dates and describes them as legendary? The article states that these dates are legendary, so it would seem to suffice that stating such means that nothing can be cited which will make them live up to the standards of WP:V. Stating the fact that a legend exists is not the same things as asserting that a legend is a fact. Rlquall 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All romaji text

Please excuse the profane, but wouldn't it be better to drop the -hime and give it the real meaning, which is I think, princess? That would give for instance princess Konohana-Sakuya. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.229.60.246 (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] In-line citations?

User:JaGa -- You were quite right to notice mistakes in the in-line citations in Emperor Jimmu; and your corrections did make each one better. However, I disagreed with some elements of your "clean-up" edits.

The most important disagreement has to do with the citation in that initial paragraph:

The intent of this deliberately-crafted citation is to suggest that Gukanshō, Jinnō Shōtōki, and Nipon o daï itsi ran are redundant confirmations of each other. Listing these books serially in one citation is intended to convey this implied cross-checking. In my view, breaking the references into three separate citations would be less strong, less clear. Perhaps you can help me re-think this?

The second citation references the Brown-Ishida translation of Gukanshō:

  • [2]<:ref>Brown, p. 249 n10.</ref>

This text is a bit dense, and the citation refers to footnote 10 on page 249. Can you suggest an alternative format which might have been better?

The third and fourth citations introduce a style question which is especially relevant in Wikipedia -- in-line citations which incorporate an external link to the exact page specifically being cited. This is perhaps, in my view, the one thing which most distinguishes Wikipedia as a valuable, innovative, 21st century research tool. In this instance, the reader can assess the Wikipedia text by clicking on a digitized page from a book which supports and amplifies what has been posted in this article about a legendary Japanese emperor.

Do you have any suggestions for improving these linked citations?

In the academic and non-academic worlds, there are a variety of acceptable, "standard" citation formats. Wikipedia is flexible enough to incorporate them all -- but it important that the citations serve their intended purpose, which is to give the reader some sense of the extent to which the information in any article can be taken as verifiable from a published source. There is a similar pattern of citation in the following; and if there are correctable problems, why not begin to address some or all of them now?

If the referenced sources in the current iteration of this Jimmu article are not sufficiently accessible, then maybe we can work together to find a better way ...? -- Tenmei (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we should get a third person to look at it. Otherwise, each of us is likely to favor our own edits, and get nowhere. Do you know any citation gurus? I pretty much follow the system for El Greco for citation formatting decisions. --JaGa (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
An elegant choice for a citations model. The final result is crisp, clear, clean. There are no gurus for this subject, but your choices and your implied rationale are unimpeachable. At first blush, I'm finding myself hard-pressed to defend an alternative citation format which, in comparison, seems cluttered, clumsy. I'm so glad I took the time to pose this question because your response is thought-provoking, helpful, constructive. For now, I'll just have to let it rest ... but I'll get back to this perhaps tomorrow or the day after. Thanks for the prompt feedback. --Tenmei (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)