Talk:Emperor Jimmu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Japan / Biography / History / Royalty & nobility (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:15, March 18, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Biography task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the History task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Royalty and nobility task force.
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Foundation Day discussion in lede[edit]

I reverted the good faith edit by User:Curly Turkey. I've been making logged out edits on my phone while outside for a while. Technical problems and all.

As for the content, discussion on National Foundation Day in this article was part of a massive dispute on the talk page, and out-of-context claims such as that the holiday is "controversial" should not be re-inserted into the lede without consensus. As an example of the problem with "controversial": what does it even mean? Are there calls from the Japanese left to abolish the holiday entirely? If so, how often is Emperor Jimmu, and the fact that he probably never existed, mentioned in these discussions? I haven't actually heard a lot of my Japanese leftist friends argue that the holiday should be abolished: most of them are just happy to get a day off work, and Emperor Jimmu is never mentioned.

Including reference to Jimmu in the National Foundation Day article's lede is of course open to discussion on that article's talk page, but I think it's pretty peripheral to this article.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 16:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to make logged-off efits with smart-assed edit comnents, you should be surprised if it doesn't get reverted. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Umm... isn't that exactly what the Satanic Sheik did? I've edited this article numerous times from the same IP range, and I made it clear in my "smart-assed" edit summary that I was the same person as the static IP (which has been established as "me" since its very first edit) that posted on that user's talk page. I don't see how using an edit summary to clarify my own identity when making a logged-out edit could be in any way controversial. You know that the information in question was the subject of debate on this talk page, and consensus was against Sheik's proposed wording.
The phrase "IP vandal", anyway, implies that I am some kind of random person who has never edited Wikipedia before, does not intend to edit Wikipedia constructively, and just wants to have a laugh by posting graffiti on a Wikipedia article because I just found out that I'm allowed to edit it. This was clearly not the case, and when one knows I am a respected editor with a 9-year edit history one really, really should avoid using that wording, even if one thinks my edit in this particular case was inappropriate. And restoring a consensus version by removing a passage that was the subject of extensive debate and was ultimately decided did not belong in the article cannot be considered inappropriate.
Also, User:Curly Turkey: check your e-mail. This is extremely fishy.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
When I googled for "National Foundation Day" Japan, this was first thing that came up. It's extremely brief essay on the holiday that mentions "Jimmu" no less than three times. Can we get past this idiotic time-wasting nonsense already? The Satanic Sheik (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
So, what you're saying is that our National Foundation Day article should mention Jimmu? Great. It already does. Rather than Googling terms and picking out random, probably WP:USERG pages that probably take their information from English Wikipedia, how about going and reading the discussion that already took place over this topic here. But, I get the feeling you already have read that discussion, because you appeared suddenly and thus far nearly your only contribution to Wikipedia has been to reinflame a recently concluded content dispute.
Would you mind telling me who you are, what other accounts you have edited under, how you came across this page, and why you chose to contact a user who had never actually edited this page about?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
What happened now, dog ate your phone? Be that as it may, I take it that your new line of attack is that Jimmu is so much bigger than the holiday that the holiday doesn't rate a mention here. I don't know if you're serious, but we can look at this issue scientifically. On the Japan Times site, Jimmu is mentioned in connection with "Foundation Day" four times (Jimmu "Foundation Day" He gets two more mentions in connection with "Founding Day", and another in which the holiday is mentioned indirectly ("anniversary of the accession"). In short, seven out of the 18 times he's mentioned (Jimmu it's in connection with the holiday. If I was a countin' man, I would call that a statistically significant correlation. I have an idea. Why don't you tell us some more stories about your Japanese friends, especially all things they never told you about? The Satanic Sheik (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC
Please read WP:WEIGHT. We don't generally base our articles on ancient history/mythology/literature on newspapers, because newspapers tend to (1) give negligible coverage to the subject and (2) only give said negligible coverage while discussing peripherally related topics. We also don't base our articles on anecdotes about our real-world friends. Find me a print encyclopedia that has an article on Emperor Jinmu (there are a lot, and I've read most of the recent ones) and also prominently discusses the "controversial" holiday National Foundation Day. Also, please tell me how you came across this page and why you decided to contact CurtisNaito about it. Hijiri88 (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, if you were to spell Jinmu's name with an n your result would not have been 7/18 but 1/11! Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Columbia, Encarta, and Encyclopedia of Modern Asia don't even have entries on Jimmu. Britannica's entry is too short to help us on this issue. The entry in Japan Encyclopedia is only slightly longer. The entry might had space to mention the holiday if it wasn't filled with the author's pet theories. So as far as encyclopedias go, the relevant database is extremely thin. I don't see anything in WP:WEIGHT to support your case. There is a caution against overreliance on news sources because they tend to emphasize recent events. But that's not really an issue here. Balence can be determined by referring to "secondary or teritary sources." The Satanic Sheik (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
So, what you're trying to say is that you don't read Japanese, and are therefore unable to check 99% of the reliable sources discussing Emperor Jinmu? I think we're just about done here. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
My oh my. Someone certainly has a high opinion of himself. So, what you trying to say is that you are a troll with nothing but ad hominems to contribute? Thanks for clarifying. You talk about your Japanese friends, how insulted you feel, and how other people's contributions aren't up to your standard. I don't see anything resembling a positive contribution from you, either to the discussion or to the actual article. Stop filibustering, get out of the way, and let the people who can write, write. If your Japanese is so great, go write on Japanese Wiki. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You said "I checked a bunch of English language sources that, because they are not Japanese, have no information on this topic." I said "Virtually all the reliable sources on this topic are in Japanese. Do you not speak Japanese? Then I think you will be unable to analyze the dozens of encyclopedias with detailed articles on this topic, because they are in Japanese." I did not mention my own Japanese proficiency, or anything else about myself, so where you are getting that I have a "high opinion of myself" is confusing. Could it be that you are the one relying on ad hominem remarks? I'm not interested in editing Japanese Wikipedia. Their sourcing standards are ridiculous, and the place is even more overrun with trolls than English Wikipedia (in Japan, Wikipedia is apparently viewed as a 2-chan-like social networking site rather than an encyclopedia). Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You are kvetching because I accused you of knowing Japanese? This is nothing but filibustering. The article does have five Japanese references, but they all used to make very simple points. No one has been straining their Japanese to write the article, least of all you. There are plenty of English-language sources on Jimmu. You specified "print encyclopedias," although this is an arbitrary category with no special status under our guidelines. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Your first point doesn't make any sense, since you didn't accuse me of knowing Japanese. Your gibberish comment on SPI clearly indicates you don't know Japanese, but perhaps have a friend who knows a little. It doesn't matter how many Japanese-language references the article surrently has. I asked you to check any of the numerous encyclopedias that have full, detailed articles on this subject, and tell me which ones contained the "information" you want to add. You admitted that you are unable to read these articles. I specified "print encyclopedias" because you and other anonymous POV-pushers with no knowledge of the subject can write whatever you want on Wikipedia, or Conservapedia or wherever. Our guidelines specifically reject the use of such sources. Until you find a non-USERG encyclopedia with an article on Emperor Jinmu that specifically says what you want it to, we're done here. (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2014
This is total nonsense. Our guidelines do not recommend the use of print encyclopedias as sources. I have already quoted them above. You are just making up rules as go along. Now you trying to out me? You have the ethics of a pig. It's good you don't actually know anything. Otherwise you might hurt yourself. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Our guidelines distinctly recommend the use of reliable tertiary sources to determine WEIGHT. Online wikis are not reliable sources. The other non-print encyclopedias you mentioned are not reliable sources for this topic since they don't mention this topic. I know a whole lot more about this subject than you do, so it's not clear what you're talking about. (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The guideline says, "Neutrality assigns weight...drawing on secondary or tertiary sources." So when tertiary sources are sparse, we can certain base it on secondary sources. I don't see reason that Japanese-language print encyclopedias should have a special status in this discussion. I do see that the good folks on Japanese Wiki have already | figured out that you are not here to the improve the encyclopedia. As long as that's true, it doesn't what you know or many languages you can speak. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Tertiary sources are not sparse. You just couldn't be bothered checking any of the dozens of well-regarded encyclopedias that have articles on this topic, and are cherry-picking sources on different topics. Your personal opinions of why my account was briefly blocked on Japanese Wikipedia are irrelevant. Please refrain from making personal remarks on this article talk page. (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)