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: 07:34, August 21, 2017 (JST, Heisei 29) (Refresh)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This long-standing controversy can be clarified, if not resolved entirely. This talk page seems like a more appropriate place to work this out -- not in the introductory paragraph of the article. --Tenmei (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Usa Shrine and Iwashimizu Hachiman-gū and Hakozaki-gū is Kanpei-taisha of the highest rank. However, Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū is not so. --Spokechieves (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Without citation support per WP:V, it is difficult to evaluate whether your edit is good, better, best? I did find at least one citation which supports your edit -- here. However, this still leaves many questions unanswered about what this ranking means, when it was decided, whether it still applies today, etc. ...? Does this help you begin to see my point? --Tenmei (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do appreciate that your point has plausible validity; but I think you still misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Two comments come to mind in response to your terse instruction to review 八幡神:
1. The Japanese Wikipedia doesn't conventionally present the kinds of specific source citations as are anticipated by the English Wikipedia at WP:V. Moreover, the Japanese Wikipedia article to which you refer does illustrate this significant difference between these two distinct wiki-projects.
2. The Japanese Wikipedia text to which you refer doesn't really address the issue I'm trying to emphasize here, which is that from amongst these four shrines, only three of them are considered to be the top three, but
(a) Which three?
(b) Why are these three the "top" shrines?
In other words: Why not the three shrines which your edit displaced? I don't have a preference, but I do see four shrines and I don't yet know how to explain why one should be or should not be excluded from the following grouping
Looking at this problem from a different perspective:
Fact: I do know that Hakozaki-gū was favored by the Toyotomi clan, which consequently caused the shrine to fall into disfavor during the years in which the Tokugawa clan were ascendant. In short, the importance of the shrine was different in the Heian period, in the Sengoku period and in the Edo period ... and I can offer a published source citation which verifies the factual accuracy of those two sentences.<:ref>Ponsonby-Fane, Richard. (1963). Studies in Shinto and Shrines, pp. 288-309.</ref>
Factoid: Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū is reported to be the most visited shrine in today's Japan ... but I can't remember which website included this sentence. In other words, I cannot offer a published source citation which verifies the factual accuracy of this sentence, but I'm sure I read it in the past month or so.
I hope this fuzzy logic helps .... Maybe this is one of those circumstances in which there is no real "right or "wrong," no "correct" or "incorrect;" but the gravamen of my disagreement with your edit is something else entirely. --Tenmei (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Please stop the personal attack. Please discuss the article.
In Wikipedia of an English version, the fact that it is "Usa Shrine > Iwashimizu Hachiman-gū > Hakozakigu > Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū" (Japanese version, Article in Japan that is origin) is not reflected at all. Why? Why??? Why do not you not try to admit it?. I worry that erroneous findings of fact spreads to the world.
Please understand the fact of "many major 1st rank shinto shrines (Kanpei-taisha) > many major 2nd rank shinto shrines (Kokuhei-taisha)> many major 3rd rank shinto shrines (Kanpei-chusha) > Tsurugaoka hachimangu (Kokuhei-chusha) etc .".
The act of advertising Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū will come into view to you if this fact is based. --Spokechieves (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not a personal attack; however, you are quite correct to construe my changed tactics as meaningful, measured and not vague. You should understand this as an abrupt rejection of your approach to working with others. My judgment is specifically informed by the disruptive edits which comprise your edit history.
Let me remind you of something you already know -- there remain many possibilities for constructive participation in Wikipedia. Would you be interested in investing some time and effort in improving a stub article about Hakozaki Shrine?
Please re-read some of what I've posted above, especially that part about the distinction between a fact (as specifically clarified by WP:V and a mere factoid .... --Tenmei (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Is Tenmei acting in Wikipedia aiming to advertise Kamakura?
The simple answer to your question is "no." A context for this mild negative response might be Advertising or perhaps the Wiktionary definition of "advertise" or "advertiser." With all due respect, I encourage you to examine this thread in hopes that a relatively modest investment of time might lead to more constructive avenues of inquiry and research.
Changing tactics a little bit -- I wonder if it might be helpful for me to suggest you ponder the first sentence on the page at WP:V:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth-— that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
I hope that this nuanced sentence will suggest a fresh perspective on the distinction between a fact (as specifically clarified by WP:V and a mere factoid ... which would seem a more useful topic of further investigation. --Tenmei (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)