Talk:Kamo Shrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Llinks with possible use in expanding this article[edit]

Noh play about genesis of Kamo shrines? --Ooperhoofd 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll take a look at it and see what I can add to the article. LordAmeth 21:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Should these shrines really be in the same article[edit]

I found this article some what confusing as it initially appeared that the shrines where on the one site, particularly given that there is only one GPS location. On further research I found they are some 2Km about. The GPS location is for Kamigamo Shrine. Whats up skip 05:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

Although the distinction between singular or plural does not come out in the Japanese words "jinja" or "sha", since the word Kamo-jinja (or Kamo-sha) is a reference to two shrines, I think the article title should be plural "Kamo Shrines".Tksb (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds valid to me. Let's see what others think before moving it... but if you want to create a formal Requested moves request, that could be a good idea. LordAmeth (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The "nine dots" puzzle.
One of many solutions to the puzzle.
Tksb -- "Disagree" is my response to your proposal. In my view, LordAmeth predictable and otherwise admirable interest in achieving consensus has nothing to do with a process of parsing factors which inform good judgment.
This is not an issue of English usage nor of consensus-building. Rather, it becomes a matter of taxonomic decision-making.
Location. Yes, there are two distinct shrine complexes which stand at a not-inconsiderable distance from each other. Yes, the text of our article more often uses the plural rather than the singular. Yes, the observed data is plain. Moreover, your suggested change is consistent with (a) Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities), (b) UNESCO's official list of multiple locations -- here, and (c) Kyoto municipal government's web listing here.
Stepping back a little bit: Doesn't this issue become one of "framing"? Is this article about the physical structures and location of the shrine properties, or does the topic require us to encompass a wider perspective? The importance of location diminishes in importance when we think of Kamo-jinjū as something other than an art preservation project or a tourist attraction.
In order to appreciate why this article's title needs to remain unchanged, we have to set aside the evidence of common sense in favor of an outside the box investigation. I don/t believe that a useful response to your proposal can be adduced from the links above. An alternate strategy is needed. For example,
  • Twenty-Two Shrines explains how this issue was resolved by Emperor Murakami in 965, by Emperor Ichijō in 991 and 994, and Emperor Go-Suzaku in 1039. The collective term Nijūni-sha encompasses shrines which are geographically more widely separated than the upper and lower sites at Kamo. What matters it that in each emperor's list, Kamo is considered as one and only one element in the array.
  • Similarly, Ise Shrine has many shrine locations which are scattered across a wide geographic distribution, but this Shinto complex doesn't evoke questions similar to those at Kamo. Perhaps this is precisely because there are so many more than two locations?
Proposal. It might help if some variation of the following two sentences were substituted for the current introduction?
  • Kamo Shrine is ia Shinto shrine complex consisting of two main shrines, Kamigamo Jinja (上賀茂神社 lit. Upper Kamo Shrine?) and Shimogamo Jinja (下鴨神社 lit. Lower Kamo Shrine?)
  • This pair of Shinto shrines were formerly located outside Kyoto, but in the 20th century they came to be incorporated within the expanded boundaries of the ancient capital city.<:ref>Ponsonby-Fane, Richard Arthur Brabazon. (1962). Studies in Shinto and Shrines, pp. 200-227.</ref>
It might be better if the second sentence were moved farther down the page -- perhaps in the sub-section captioned "Paired shrines"?
I've been actively vexed by this since February when I stumbled over my own words as I tried to add a couple of sentences to the article. I wanted to explain that Emperor Go-Daigo made an Imperial progress to Kamo-jinja in 1334; and after that, no other emperor went to Kamo until Emperor Komei's visit in 1863.
This analysis represents an argument congruent with WP:V.<:ref>Zirn, Cäcilia, Vivi Nastase and Michael Strube. "Distinguishing Between Instances and Classes in the Wikipedia Taxonomy" (paper); (video lecture). 5th Annual European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2008).</ref>
I look forward to discovering whether it's received as persuasive. --Tenmei (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Please try to control yourself, Tenmei. This has nothing to do with the nine-dots puzzle, and there is no call for meta-analytical references to framing or to semantics. It is a very simple and straightforward issue of whether there is one Kamo Shrine, with two parts, two locations, or whether there are two Kamo Shrines. That's it. You yourself point out that the official UNESCO list as well as the Kyoto municipal government's website support the idea of it being plural, of there being two Kamo Shrines. The discussion should end there.
This is not about agreeing just for the sake of consensus, nor is it about taxonomic decision-making on the part of Wikipedia editors. We don't decide the truth, we just report it. LordAmeth (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
LordAmeth -- The question which began this thread is not simple. You reject too much too quickly. A rhetorical question may help clarify: Why is it that scholars like Helen Craig McCullough and others have consistently described this Shrine in a way which Tksb and you assess as counter-intuitive? As context, please consider this:
"Kamo Shrine. General name for an important Shinto institution centered on two main shrines, an upper and a lower, northeast of the capital on the bank of the Kamo River (now inside Kyoto)."
-- Helen Craig McCullough<:ref>McCullough, Helen Craig. (1994). Genji and Heike: selections from The tale of Genji and The tale of the Heike, p. 474.</ref>
Surely we can agree that those credible scholars who have written about the Kamo Shrine were not mis-identifying or misconstruing. two shrines as if they were one McCullough and others were describing a view of this topic which needs to be reflected in our Wikipedia article -- not because I have strong opinions about it one way or the other, but because the sources which informed the creator of this article are compelling. also leading me to me to the same conclusion This article's name is valid and verifiable using reliable sources.
As Wikipedia editors, such factors become relevant for us -- specifically, what have scholars published which is relevant to this topic? Generalists who know little about Japan will have no difficulty recognizing the common sense reasoning behind Tksb's proposal; however, counting from one to twenty-two because of decisions made centuries ago is outside the box reasoning. By the eleventh century, the upper and lower shrines had been initially constructed; and the term "Twenty-two Shrines" was only beginning to obtain wider acceptance. This historical and cultural perspective informed my contribution.
Consider the unintended consequences in terms of other articles. For example, Hiyoshi Shrine, also known as the Hie Shrine and the Sanno Shrine, is a general term for a group of 21 shrines as the eastern foot of Mt. Hiei.<:ref>Perkins, Historical dictionary of Shinto, p. 279; Hiyoshi Taisha Shrine.</ref> As I construe it, the rationale for changing the name of this article arguably implies that other similar articles will need be re-named as well. Anticipating unintended consequences is an additional "outside the box" issue worth mentioning.
Please strike the first sentence in the posting above. In this context, it is undeserved and it offends. --Tenmei (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I apologize if you are offended. That was of course not my intent. ... In any case, the question remains to determine scholarly consensus. Thank you very much for providing such sources and quotes; it seems we are off to a good start towards determining what the scholarly consensus is.LordAmeth (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Kamigamo-jinja and Shimogamo-jinja are two independent but closely associated shrines. They are together known as the Kamo-sha or Kamo-jinja, which, when phrased in English naturally becomes the "Kamo Shrines" (much like the Nijūni-sha are the "Twenty-two Shrines"). Ise-jinju is one large shrine complex composed of various shrine buildings and compounds. Ise-jingu has affiliated shrines around the country, which are variously classified as betsugu (branch shrine[s]), sessha (substitute shrine[s]), and massha (subordinate shrine[s]). "Ise-jingu" or "Ise Shrine" inevitably is a reference to the one shrine complex located at Ise, representing the honsha (head shrine). By learning that Emperor Go-Daigo went to Kamo-jinja, I guess we must suppose that he went to the pair of shrines known by the name of the region where they are located, Kamo; that is, the two Kamo shrines, respectively distinguished as Kamigamo Shrine and Shimogamo Shrine.

All this is to say that, both in terms of English usage and taxonomic decision-making, or whatever else, I maintain that all reasoning recommends that the English rendition should be plural "shrines" when speaking of the two shrines known together in Japanese as the Kamo-jinja (or Kamo-sha).

Tksb (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tksb -- I'm not disputing your proposal because you're wrong; rather, I don't construe your proposed change as better or best. Your first sentence acknowledges that a "distinction between singular or plural does not come out in the Japanese." Arguably this is important; but I don't think that exploring translaton issues will serve us well.
My appreciation for your subtle language is not uninformed. In addition to the links above, your point-of-view is mirrored in the work of well-respected scholars. For example,
The now-abandoned Meiji period category of kwampei-taisha (first class government-supported shrines) encompasses both shrines individually;<:ref>Ponsonby-Fane, Richard. (1962). Studies in Shinto, pp. 124-129.</ref>
I also notice that each shrine has its own unique website: (a) Kamigamo Shrine and (b) Shimogamo Shrine. The notion that separate websites proves anything is uncertain; and I don't know what kind of weight to give it.
In my opinion, this is one of those instances in which arguably imprecise language (fuzzy logic) is neither accidental nor insignificant. As a context, please consider the implications which flow from one section of the article about Kamo River -- see Onomastics. The very specific names given to different parts of the river shows that specificity can be meaningful. Don't you agree that this begs a question?
Expressed differently, why does the term "Kamo Shrine" (singular) reoccur in scholarly works? Whoever created this Wikipedia article followed a long-established naming convention. This convention is mirrored in articles about Kamo which are written in other languages.
Proposal. Could this tentative re-wording of the first paragraph begin to satisfy your concerns?
  • Kamo Shrine is a general term for an important Shinto shrine complex consisting of two main sanctuaries in northeast Kyoto on the banks of the Kamo River. These are Kamigamo Jinja (上賀茂神社 lit. Upper Kamo Shrine?) and Shimogamo Jinja (下鴨神社 lit. Lower Kamo Shrine?). The locations of these Shinto shrines structures was at one time a wooded area outside Kyoto near the Kamo River.<:ref>Perkins, George W. (1998). The Clear Mirror, p. 283.</ref> In the 20th century, the Kamo Shrine came to be incorporated within the expanded boundaries of the ancient capital city.<:ref>Ponsonby-Fane, Richard. (1962). Studies in Shinto and Shrines, pp. 200-227.</ref>
In my opinion, the status quo represents a better choice for the article's title; but as you can see from the linked research above, I do understand your point. Your proposal is attractive, but I'm unconvinced. Despite my reservations, perhaps the decision by the editors at Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan will be construed as sufficient justification for making the editing change you want? --Tenmei (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
A review of this article's edit history reveals that LordAmeth was its creator in 2005; and he was the one who initially decided that this article should be called Kamo Shrine. --Tenmei (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Scholars write about Kamo Shrine (singular)[edit]

I found a reference explaining that one of the two Kamo sanctuaries was a "branch shrine" of the other, but I've misplaced the citation. In any event, it didn't explicitly clear up the question about why scholarly writers conventionally use the term "Kamo Shrine" (singular) at least as often or more often than the term "Kamo Shrines" (plural). While I continue to look into this, I plan to develop a list of pre-1930 works which discuss a single shrine at Kamo:

1.—Der Kamo Tempel. Der Gott, der im Tempel des grossen Gottes in Kamo verehrt wird, ist Kamo-Take-Tsunumi no Mikoto, der auf dem Gipfel des Takachiho in So in Himuka vom Himmel herabstieg. Er nahm seinen Sitz, vor dem Kaiser Kamu- Yamato-Ihare-biko' vorantretend, auf dem Gipfel des Berges Katsuragi in Oho-Yamato (Gross-Yamato). Von hier siedelte er alhnählich nach Kamo in Okata in der Provinz Yamato über. Er ging am Flusse Yamashiro-gaha hinunter und , kam ein mit roter Erde angestrichener Pfeil5 vom Oberlauf her herabgeflossen. Sie nahm ihn und ....
KAMO NO MIOSIN, dieu, des Japonais, nommé aussi Kami Kamo ô daï fin; son temple principal est au nord-est de la ville de Miyako, dans la province de Yamasiro, sur une petite montagne appelée de son nom Kamo-yama, c'est-à-dire montagne de Kamo. Ce temple, dans lequel on lui offre encore des sacrifices, fut élevé l'an 571 de notre ère, par Kin-meï-ten-o, trentième Daïri.

This is an arguably helpful beginning. --Tenmei (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Are Kamigamo-jinja and Shimogamo-jinja regarded as a single shrine complex? Tksb (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I suggest we broaden participation in this thread by posting at WP:WikiProject Shinto. Perhaps this is what we should have done earlier? --Tenmei (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Shinto task force#Kamo Shrine.

Copying this thread-segment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Shinto task force#Kamo Shrine.

How about one or the other of these proposals: 1) Have the article start from the modern common perspective that there are two independent but closely associated "Kamo Shrines," and therefore give the article title as "Kamo Shrines". This may help alleviate confusion among the general public looking to the wikipedia for information about these. The chances that most people using normal English will try looking up "Kamo Shrine" to find out about one or the other or the both of those shrines seems slim. 2) Give the article title as "Kamo-jinja" in romaji, in which case the issue of whether this refers to one shrine building, a single shrine complex, or a number of independent but closely associated shrines or shrine complexes can be explained in the article.Tksb (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This boulder is to be found at Shimogamo Shrine. The conglomerate stone illustrates the theme of pebbles which grow into boulders -- as in Kimi ga Yo.
Now I can support your original proposal -- changing the name of the article from Kamo Shrine to Kamo Shrines. My resistance was motivated by concerns about unintended consequences. I feared that this relatively trivial change would close doors which could be difficult to re-open. Now that the body of the article is more fully developed, these worries have become less prominent.
Wikipedia's value for 21st century readers is enhanced by your common sense point-of-view. At the same time, we need to accommodate the sometimes subtle resonant effects of the Taihō ritsuryō, because such matters become significant in appreciating the arc of this shrine's history.
Now I can also support Kamo-jinja as an elegant alternative proposal; but the fact that the editors of Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan have named their article Kamo Shrines seems compelling. Your initial suggestion is probably best ....
Thank you for providing the impetus for what turned out to be a productive investigation. In my view, there is a place for nuance in Wikipedia projects; and this thread has developed into an illustrative example. --Tenmei (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Cite check[edit]

When the article's title is changed -- if it's changed, the introduction will need to be edited accordingly; and the citations may need to be modified as well. In its current state, Tksb identified some problems.

  • diff 13:24, 23 July 2009 Tksb (13,710 bytes) (Deleted the given references, as they obviously, upon reading, do not back up the statements.)

The following explains how the citations were tweaked: Tksb's complaint was resolved by re-working. Two sentences were re-drafted, becoming three sentences:

A: 1st sentence: Kamo Shrine (賀茂神社 kamo-jinja?) is a general term for an important Shinto sanctuary complex near the banks of the Kamo River in northeast Kyoto.<:ref name="intro1">McCullough, Helen Craig. (1994). Genji and Heike: selections from The tale of Genji and The tale of the Heike, p. 474; Iwao, Seiichi et al. (2002). Dictionnaire historique du Japon, p. 1405; Kyoto Prefectural Government Tourism Division: Kamigamo; Miyazaki, Makoto. "Lens on Japan: Defending Heiankyo from Demons," Daily Yomiuri. December 20, 2005.</ref>

These are the explicit words in the source which are referenced:
  • "Kamo Shrine. General name for an important Shinto institution centered on two main shrines, an upper and a lower, northeast of the capital on the bank of the Kamo River (now inside Kyoto)."
These are the explicit words in the source whcih are referenced:
  • "'Appellation générale des sanctuaires shintō Kamo Wake-ikazuchi, situé a Kyoto, arrondissement de Sakyō, quartier de Kamigamo, et Kamo Mioya, situé dans la même ville, arrondissement de Sakyō, quartier de Shimogamo Izumigawa-chō."
  • Citation part A3: Kyoto Prefectural Government Tourism Division: Kamigamo;
These are the explicit words in the source which are referenced:
  • "This shrine, together with Kamomioya Shrine (Shimogamo Shrine), is also known simply as Kamo Shrine."
These are the explicit words in the source which are referenced:
  • "Two of the Shinto shrines--Kamigamo and Shimogamo--though far apart, are regarded by locals as a pair. Locals refer to both as Kamo Shrine, as if they are one."

B. 2nd sentence: Kamo-jinja and the surrounding forest is the oldest Shinto sanctuary of the ancient capital.<:ref>Miyazaki, Makoto. "Lens on Japan: Defending Heiankyo from Demons," Daily Yomiuri. December 20, 2005; Kamigamo-jinja: "Introduction".</ref>

These are the explicit words in the source whch are referenced:
  • "Two of the Shinto shrines--Kamigamo and Shimogamo--though far apart, are regarded by locals as a pair. Locals refer to both as Kamo Shrine, as if they are one."
  • "They are among the oldest shrines in the Kyoto area."
These are the explicit words in the source whch are referenced:
"Kamo-wake-ikazuchi-Jinja in the Kita Ward of Kyoto is the oldest Shinto shrine in the ancient city."

C. 3rd sentence. Kamo-jinja is featured prominently amongst "Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto" which have been designated by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site.<:ref>Kamigamo-jinja: "Links"; Shimogamo-jinja: "Tadasu-no-mori (Forest of justice)".</ref>

  • Citation part C1: Kamigamo-jinja: "Links".
These are the explicit words in the source whch are referenced:
"Kamigamo-jinja Shrine is recognized as a World Heritage site by UNESCO."
These are the explicit words in the source whch are referenced:
This is about 12.4 hectare size Forrest .... This is also designated to the World Cultural Heritage along with the other shrines and halls in Shimogamo shrine."

I hope this resolves any outstanding questions? --Tenmei 16:55, 23 July 2009 This amplifies and explains what I did to correct the error Tksb identified. --Tenmei (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

footnoting practices[edit]

To make this a followable, scholastically reliable wikipedia article, standard footnoting numbering (chronological numbering) giving standard scholarly forms of citations, please.Tksb (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The format of my comments above has been modified as requested. In addition, I did notice that there was another complaint:
  • diff 14:32, 23 July 2009 Tksb (13,706 bytes) (neither shrines are precisely "on" the banks. In ancient times, before the river was re-routed, perhaps they were; but any visit to either, or a look on the map, shows that they are not so now.)
I see that the word "on" is now replaced with "near" -- and this represents no problem; but I would have thought that "on" would have served just as well in this context. For example, McCullough's word choice here as already cited above?
These are the explicit words in the source which are referenced:
  • "Kamo Shrine. General name for an important Shinto institution centered on two main shrines, an upper and a lower, northeast of the capital on the bank of the Kamo River (now inside Kyoto)."
I construed this minor edit as helpful. Solely because of Tksb's comment about an isolated prepositional phrase, I re-visited this aspect of our article. On reflection, I decided to add the following text:
"Although Kamigamo and Shimogamo shrines are considered to be paired or twinned, they are not located next to each other. Approximately 2km. distance separates these two Shinto shrine complexes,<:ref name="aus1">Shimgamo Shrine</ref> which can be explained in part because shrines on the outskirts of Heian-kyō were developed to prevent the infiltration of demons. The Kamogawa river descends from an ill-omened direction; and the shrines along the flow were positioned in order to prevent demons from using the river to enter the city.<:ref name="miyazaki1"/> Although Kamo-jinja is not directly on the banks of the Kamo River, the site locations were positioned as part of a plan for mitigating the consequences of periodic flooding.<:ref>Katsuya Atsuo. "Historical Study on Kamo-Wakeikazuchi Shrine and Myojin River in the Kamigamo Area." Bulletin of the Institute for National Land Utilization Development (Kyoto Sangyo University), No. 21, pp. 13-31 (2000).</ref>
This illustrates how a trivial comment can serve a useful purpose. In this instance, a small edit inspired a constructive improvement in this article. This minor incident also demonstrates one of the positive outcomes which can develop as a result of collaborative editing. --Tenmei (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting reference sources[edit]

The proposed edit which eliminates these references in the introduction is questioned:

None of these reference sources are identifiable as any kind of "gold standard" for encyclopedic credibility and quality. Clearly, no one of them is indispensable. I only wonder if the otherwise reasonable attention given to refining this article's focus is perhaps too narrowing? --Tenmei (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Note diffusion of Daily Yomiuri" citation in corollary articles. --Tenmei (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the opening statement of any wikipedia article should reflect the standard definition of the subject; if the definition is controversial, this fact should be stated up-front, and the different views should then be presented in a lower section. Providing various sources to back up a standard definition should not be necessary. If there is controversy about the opening statement, then I believe the one most viable source which constitutes the "authority" for the statement should be presented. Also, I firmly believe that any such references given should truly back up the statement. It is not very helpful to the general reader to be presented with a plethora of sources which, if they take the time and effort to go and read them, do not even begin to support the statement anyway, such as happens in the reference sources that I took the liberty of removing.Tksb (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Tksb -- Your argument is clear, reasonable and persuasive. Of course I follow and accept your line of thinking. Your comments help to clarify the problem which, in a sense, brings us back to where we began. It appears that your understanding of this article focuses on the property and structures. which are itemized, described and appraised in terms of artistic, cultural and historical values. Your approach is indisputably consistent with Wikipedia's core values, paricularly WP:V as confirmed by UNESCO, Kyoto municipal websites and Kyoto prefectural websites.
At the same time -- in my view, the scope of Kamo Shrine and its corollaries must also encompass the not-insignificant religious aspect of this subject. Your most recent edit does address what I considered to have been an essential but otherwise missing component.
I don't object to removing the citations from the introductory paragraph, but I would have thought they were necessary. It seems to me that you and others would have otherwise tended to overlook or devalue this crucial aspect of the article.
I wonder if our extended dispute can be characterized as something to do with a misunderstanding about the encyclopedic breadth which this specific article needs? I only wish I could have been more explicit earlier; but there you have it. This was not "much ado about nothing," but the phrase does seem apt. --Tenmei (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong caption?[edit]

The caption of File:Kamo-wakeikazuchi-jinja12n4272.jpg: "Romon at Kamigamo-jinja." is wrong, if "Romon" refers to Rōmon. bamse (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this caption is a mystery. The edit history shows that I was the one who posted it, but I can't begin to imagine a plausible explanation?
Please review this new caption — "Tatesuna are a pair of standing cones of sand in front of Sai-Den at Kamigamo-jinja. They are traditionally construed as allusions to a pair of sacred mountains."<:ref>JapanVisitor: Kamigamo</ref>
Thanks for helping to rectify my odd mistake. --Tenmei (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing (and for teaching me a new Japanese word!). bamse (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Will you also review another caption for the image just above the tatesuna — "Sazare-Ishi (conglomerate rock) alludes to pebbles which are said to grow into boulders as described in the lyrics of Kimi ga Yo."<:ref>Guichard-Anguis, Sylvie et al. (2009). Japanese tourism and travel culture, p. 32., p. 32, at Google Books</ref> ?
Thanks for helping to improve these captions which I handled poorly. --Tenmei (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)