Jump to content

Talk:History of the Catholic Church in Japan

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 03:37, 15 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Japan}}, {{WikiProject History}}, {{WikiProject Catholicism}}. Remove 12 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6, b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • Several other edits made the same day, 12/25/2009, also imported text from this page.

Nagasaki and the Atomic Bomb

From memory the largest grouping of Christians in SEA was incinerated with the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki, if I also remember correctly the mission founded by St. Kolbe was spared as he counter-intuitively located the building on the hillside facing away from what would be the blast direction . Taam (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied-to Notification

Hi, I came here by way of notices on Kirishitan and Twenty-six Martyrs of Japan, and I am writing to ask some clarifying question about these notices. From what I understand, it seems text has been used in more than one article, and these were put up to resolve potential copyright issues. That's great (and much needed), but I'm a little confused about the implications...

  1. Does this mean that we can no longer delete text from the source article? Even if it's badly sourced/whatever? I would like for editors to be able to continue to maintain/improve the source article... a prohibition against doing so seems a little severe if I'm reading it correctly.
    1. Corollary: If text is deleted from the source, does that have to be reflected in the copied-to article as well?
  2. How do we tell which text is protected by this notification? Is there a way to tag such text so that modifications are not made? (I wish there was a comparison tool... is there?)
  3. Is this a precursor to a merger?

I tried to read the template docs but that just left me more confused. Would appreciate clarification; thanks!

Joren (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re #1, the articles Kirishitan and Twenty-six Martyrs of Japan should not be deleted because doing so would delete their edit histories and thus make it impossible to establish the attribution of specific text to specific Wikipedia editors (or anon IP contributors). This does not restrict modifying or deleting the text from the article. The only restriction is deletion of the entire article.
Re the corollary... "No, the three articles can proceed independently and the text in question can be deleted from any or all of the articles in question.
Re #2, you have to look at the edit linked to by the hyperlink "by this edit".
Re #3, the notice is not at all related to a merger. It neither proposes nor precludes a merger. It is solely about retaining the ability to preserve attribution of the text (i.e. identifying who wrote it originally).
--Richard S (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ah, ok! Thanks very much for clearing that up; now that you explained it, that definitely seems to be the common sense way to read it. I suppose my mental grammar parser got hung up on the link... somehow I thought it was referring to contents within the link, and not to the link itself (the article)... I wonder if it would be a good idea to modify the notice to read "The article Foo now serves to provide attribution..."?
  2. Since there were "several other edits" mentioned in the notice here, it seemed a bit hard to track down all of them. Maybe I could have just use a text comparison tool on it...anyway not needed now. Thanks! Joren (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism

The Nestorian denomination was founded in about 428 A.D., and cannot have appeared in Japan or anywhere else in 199 A.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.157.24 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Statement is somewhat dubious, and the supplied reference was the organizational homepage of the "Keikyo Institute". However, the ref had a caption that, when plugged into Google, led to the following article: Nestorian Christianity in the Tang Dynasty that is in fact by the Keikyo Institute. However, upon reading the source I cannot find a single one of the supposed claims that are allegedly backed up by this reference. This article appears to actually be about Nestorians in China. There is no mention made of 4th century churches in Nara, or of 199 AD, or of a 4th century church in Japan, or of who the "some historians" are, or even any mention of Nestorianism spreading to Japan, so this cannot be used as a source for this claim. However, for those interested in the idea of Nestorians reaching Japan, the Keikyo Institute appears to be dedicated to spreading this theory, so if you want to pursue this, have fun :). However, this particular statement is dubious and doesn't match the source at all, so I will be deleting it forthwith.
I do hope that someone with time and/or knowledge would be able/willing to pursue the Nestorians-in-Japan claim; it's something I've heard from time to time that has a bit of the "interesting fringe theory" aesthetic to it (with perhaps a dash of "marketable secrets revealed"), but I've never had the time or resources to research it myself. I would be delighted if someone could locate a credible assessment of this. -- Joren (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Japan Assessment Commentary

This is a good article and not far from GA status. There are a couple of concerns recommendations for improvement:

  1. In-line citations are lacking in many places.
  2. The "history" ends rather abruptly with the Meiji Restoration. Except for the mention regarding the traditions of the "Hidden Christians" and the "Separate Christians", the reader is left with the impression that once religious freedom was made official, all the Christians stepped out in the light of tolerance. There should be some description of the suspicion that accompanied the rise in nationalism in the 1930s, and the outright persecution of Christians once WWII broke out. Even today, I've been told that Japanese Christians prefer to keep a low profile as they are concerned about some marginalization by peers and neighbors. If any information can be found regarding 20th century history of Catholics in Japan, I think it would round out the coverage quite nicely. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Kirishitan here?

That article contains a fair amount of POV, but some non duplicate content. Is it worth merging to here? And leaving there a dab - a redirect to Wiktionary for the katakana and a dab to Kakure kirishitan which has some case to be maybe used in English source. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these should be merged. As Kirishitan has various differences when it comes to spreading the faith in Japan. It's not only "Roman Catholicism" that made a difference in Japan, there were hundreds of other factors that contributed to the growth of Christianity (and Catholicism) in Japan. Hence I believe they should be kept separate, since there is much more information that can be added to each of these pages, and it would become too confusing if someone came looking for information about one of these topics, and didn't have as large an understanding about christianity in Japan as I currently do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.224.127 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[This is the single edit from this IP address]. Thanks, but in what way are they different? In ictu oculi (talk)
Disagree. The two concepts of the articles are different, despite the quality of either article. Prburley (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Remove Aging Merge Tags. The unsightly merger tag on both articles is now six months old, and no discussion since then other than what I've added above. I propose we remove the merger tag and continue the discussion here. Anyone? Thanks! Prburley (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tags have been removed 07:39, 3 December 2012‎ Nihonjoe (Rm really old merge tag) (undo) but, same question, in what way are they different? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any discussion I'm going to go ahead be bold and merge these .... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful, I see the other article as a sub-article of this one, given its depth of content. It's subject does fall under the subject of this article, but is about a specific time period, of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, fair point. Based on this consideration, but still bearing in mind the other overlap problems I have WP:BOLDly WP:MOVEd to the English of Kakure Kirishtan, Hidden Christians of Japan In ictu oculi (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Catholic Church in Japan. 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) 06:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Japan&oldid=1207556184"