Talk:Emperor Jimmu

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

National Foundation Day discussion in lede

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 (聖やや) 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 (聖やや) 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 (聖やや) 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" site:www.japantimes.co.jp). 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 site:www.japantimes.co.jp) 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 (聖やや) 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)