Jump to content

Talk:Kujō Yoritsune

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

Removal of "needs citation" tags

[edit]

Kuuzo just recently complained about my removing a "needs citation" banner from some other location; but since Kuuzo did not specify where I'd done soething to arouse his ire, I returned here -- to a page cited in passing some months ago. Maybe this becomes an appropriate place to post an unwelcome exchange of views (soon to be archived)? However, if this is seen to serve no constructive purpose; I have no objection to deletion. Ooperhoofd 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Ooperhoofd

[edit]

Adding your favorite random french retranslation of a dutch retranslation of a 300 year old Japanese book does not equal a citation. A "citation" or "reference" refers to the book(s) that were used in writing the text. Since your favorite book was not one of the books used to write these articles (you are retroactively adding it as a source), you should not be removing the tags. Please stop. Thanks! Kuuzo 00:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuuzo, the tenor of your writing makes it impossible to assume good faith; ergo, my reply can only be simple, plain, straightforward: No. Ooperhoofd 21:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so you will intentionally continue to break the rules because you find my "tenor" unappealing? Guess I don't get it. To put it simply - do not remove the "needs citation" tags unless you are adding in the sources for the article. That's all. Claiming your favorite book is the source is false. --Kuuzo 08:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...If Nihon Ōdai Ichiran was not used in writing the article, it should not be listed as a reference or citation, and should not be used as a substitute for listing the sources which were actually used to write that article. In other words, please do not remove the "references needed" tag until the references actually used to write the article have been listed. Thank you. LordAmeth 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LordAmeth ...It's probably better for all of us that I decline to invest more time in what seems likely to become another unhelpful exercise; ergo: No. Ooperhoofd 21:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...All we are asking you to do is to stop adding this book to the References/Sources of such a large number and wide variety of largely unrelated articles. If Nihon Ōdai Ichiran was not used in writing the article, and does not provide extensive detail about that subject, only providing perhaps a brief reference to it, a brief mention, then it should not be listed in place of those references or sources which were actually used to write the article. That's all. It's really quite simple, in fact. ...it is only this excessive advertisement and use of a single source which is creating friction between us. LordAmeth 16:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[An]exchange from two months ago .... Ooperhoofd 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13 JUNE: Please, Ooperhoofd, if you have a specific fact or point to cite, go ahead and cite it, but do not suggest this text - which is in a foreign language, and is far too old to be a reliable source - as if it were the definitive textbook on a half dozen scattered topics. LordAmeth 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13 JUNE: Thank you. You make my point succinctly. Prof. Timon Screech of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) has assessed this work as “a necessary reference work for officials” in the Tokugawa bakufu. The book was re-issued in 1803, which allows us to infer the requisite degree of accuracy in its dry detail. As a place from which to begin to construct a pre-Meiji stub article for the 21st century online Wikipedia, this unique reference source should be construed as a plausible and appropriate development – not something to be to dismissed out-of-hand as you seem to do here.
  • Instead of combining to quash my enthusiasm, why not ponder the more interesting question about how or why I came to have been inspired by something which had not formerly risen to your attention?
  • I wonder: Shouldn’t you rather want to pause a little bit for further thought before determining that the unexplored possibilities for the growth of Wikipedia should be placed so casually at odds with the burgeoning, concurrent development of digitized, online books?
  • I’m not missing the gravamen of a number of issues here; but I hope you’re beginning to see that I’m not approaching two knee-jerk complaints in a superficial manner – rather, I’m trying to turn the “conversation” towards a constructive outcome. Ooperhoofd 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kuuzo -- You complained about Nihon Ōdai Ichiran being SPAM in June, but you didn't participate in the process of resolving that groundless complaint. I'm not willing to go through that exercise again -- especially when you and LordAmeth demonstrate that it achieves no results except to cost me hours of time, extra work and aggravation. The following becomes the context for how I construe what vexes you. Ooperhoofd 15:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13 JUNE: I've noticed over the past week or two that a user (Oooperhoofd) has been putting what appears to be a completely random old French source into every single Samurai article they can find - see here] for an example - he seems pretty jazzed about it, but it appears to be a general history source that probably doesn't even cover 1/4th of the articles it is being put into... It's almost like spam... what to do? --Kuuzo 08:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13 JUNE: Yeah... maybe we should just talk to him, might be a good first step. Personally, I find a source like this almost completely useless as (a) it's in French, and I don't read French, and this is the English Wikipedia, and (b) written in 1834, or is it 1652, it incorporates none of the knowledge and understanding that historians (i.e. academia) have acquired since then, and probably reflects at the very least some very outdated spellings and terminology, if not outright misunderstandings and factual errors. It is likely a fascinating historical artifact in its own right, and a wonderful research project in order to learn more about Titsingh's views etc. but it really should not be taken as an accurate historical record. Personally, I would take anything written by Westerners in the Far East prior to the late 19th century with a massive grain of salt. LordAmeth 11:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used cut-and-paste to bring the "needs references" banner from the sole specific page which has been cited by Kuuzo above. In future, if I need more information because of questions or concerns about references and citation policies which are consistent with some sort of Wikipedia standard, these links will provide convenient and easy access. Ooperhoofd 20:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive History

[edit]

A review of this page's revision history reveals that Kuuzo added a "needs references" tag to this page, but added nothing further since that time. If the following is not sufficiently self-explanatory, I can probably explain what I thought I was doing; and if this were somehow to be construed as disruptive, I would attend closely. Ooperhoofd 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 15 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,351 bytes (adding Kogen gannen -- 康元元年)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,337 bytes (adding link -- fr:Kujō Yoritsune)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,315 bytes (removing needs references banner -- no longer relevant)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,345 bytes (→Events of Yoritsune's bakufu)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,294 bytes (→Further reading)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,027 bytes (→Notes)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,026 bytes (→Events of Yoritsune's bakufu)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,016 bytes (Events of Yoritsune's bakufu-- "Nihon Odai Ichiran")
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +7,320 bytes (adding subheading -- "Events of Yoritsune's bakufu)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +7,283 bytes (adding from "Nihon Odai Ichiran" & from "Jinno Shotoki")
  • 14 August 2007 Tadakuni +4,692 bytes
  • 14 August 2007 Tadakuni +4,691 bytes
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +4,693 bytes (adding from "Nihon Odai Ichiran")
  • 14 August 2007 Tadakuni +4,030 bytes (Further reading)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) (3,677 bytes)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) (3,602 bytes)
  • 17 July 2007 Bendono +3,021 bytes (Remove unnecessary pipe (En'ō))
  • 13 June 2007 Ooperhoofd +3,031 bytes
  • 13 June 2007 Ooperhoofd +2,920 bytes (adding "Eras of Yoritsune's 'bakufu'" names)
  • 30 May 2007 Ooperhoofd +2,475 bytes (→Further reading)
  • 30 May 2007 Ooperhoofd +2,471 bytes (References -- Notes & Further reading)
  • 29 May 2007 Ooperhoofd +1,584 bytes (arguable improvement in succession box?)
  • 25 May 2007 Ooperhoofd +1,541 bytes (Kujō Yoritsune in Succession Box)
  • 14 May 2007 Kuuzo +1,560 bytes (lacks sources)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kujō_Yoritsune&oldid=1209859308"