Talk:Taika Reform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Japan / History / Law & government / Royalty & nobility (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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: 07:56, February 26, 2017 (JST, Heisei 29) (Refresh)
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the History task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Law and government task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Royalty and nobility task force.

This page had unfortunately been moved to name in plural.[edit]

Wikipedia naming conventions direct to use singular nouns, basically. It is desirable that the person who kept moving this to plural, first tries to learn how this encyclopedia works. Arrigo 06:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Arrigo, please make an attempt to understand the nature of the subject matter. It is perfectly permissible to use plurals in the title of an article if the subject being discussed is plural. The Taika Reforms were not a single reform, but a set of doctrines and changes. Just like the United States, there are some things that are naturally plural, and make no sense when singularized. See Provinces of Japan, Black Ships, Lists of incumbents. LordAmeth 12:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The google test shows around 4700 hits for singular "Taika Reform" and around 3500 hits for plural "Taika Reforms". When checking many of those with singular, i.e "Taika reform", several of them are legitimate, and clearly use the concept as singular. Therefore we must conclude that the general usage in English literature accepts singular. Moving accordingly. Arrigo 14:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you remember quotation marks in your search field? I got 782 for "Taika Reform" and 744 for "Taika Reforms," far from conclusive. Seeing how it's a system of reforms that cover a number of different topics, "Taika Reforms" seems like a more natural article title. CES 18:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I favor "Taika reforms" for the article title. Fg2 20:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Particularly to those who confirmed that in English texts (and googled with quotation marks), the concept is at least sometimes used in singular. It is sufficient. The applicable naming convention Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns directs not to use plural in such cases: "Prefer singular nouns: Convention: In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that noun is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors or trousers). Rationale and specifics: See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)". As far as I know, no government has confirmed these officially as "Taika Reforms", in plural, contrary to the official status of the wording United States. Accordingly, the article will stay here, in singular. Those who prefer plural, please work for changing the policy, not this individual page. Arrigo 07:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

While I see your point Arrigo, I believe that "Taika Reforms" would fit under the exception that reads: Articles on groups of specific things, rather than a class of things. I'd agree with you that an article on the general topic of reform(s) should be at "Reform," but this is an article on very specific reforms and a plural form seems appropriate. As further proof, upon further review, most of the "Taika Reform" hits were actually "Taika Reform Edicts" in the plural form. It seems that either "Reforms" or "Reform Edicts" seems to be common usage on the web at least. It would be helpful to know what English-language history texts call these reforms--they have a little more authority in my book than a google search in a specialized case like this. CES 12:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I had realized that some of the "Taika Reform" hits were actually "Taika Reform Edicts" in the plural form. However, as I wrote above, some of the hits were legitimate where the singular was used of the concept itself. And that is what suffices here, in my view. It means that the title is NOT always in plural, and therefore it can be in singular, and here should be in singular. The convention is what it is mostly because plural is always inherently more complicated, for searches and for links. All nuances (such as numerous edicts and plurality of reforms) are then explained in the article text. Please understand that the heading should not be expected to do so much as some want. It should be simple. And, there are a number of other things that are often in plural but here the article in singular. Europe had in 1500's a number of church reformations, but we however call it Reformation. No need to make Taika thing too complicated. Arrigo 13:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider possible usage as a trump to common usage (which indicates a plural form here). The period in Europe you refer to is the Reformation (singular) in common usage as well as Wiki-convention, so I'm not sure it's a good example. Either way a redirect will be needed between Taika Reform and Taika Reforms, and if common usage, general concensus, and Wiki-convention all favor/indicate/allow Taika Reforms, I see no reason why it should not be so. CES 20:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Adoption of Chinese writing system[edit]

The article says "Envoys and students were dispatched to China to learn seemingly everything from the writing system, ..." My question is: why only seemingly? Didn't they actually adopt the whole thing back then? chery 00:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we retitle to "Taika Reforms"?[edit]

I think that is the more common usage.--Sir Edgar 00:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would love to. But after conceding in a lengthy and quite heated argument with another user (User:Arrigo) some months ago... Take a look at the debate above. I'm with Sir Edgar, in support of a move. Who's with us? LordAmeth 03:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to start another naming discussion, but the majority of scholarly texts used in the field (Japanese history, which is my major), in English, Russian and German, use the singular form. Google Books, for example has 257 books with plural, and 453 books with singular. It is also historically regarded to be a single reform effort, albeit done in several steps. Tennotsukai 23:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would support a move to the plural form; it's the form I am most familiar with while reading about Japanese history. Also, the User:Arrigo, who debated above, does not appear to have been familiar with the subject material, is a suspected sock-puppet, and the account has been discontinued. As the account-user has been discredited, the motive for his opinions is thus suspect, and his views should not be given further consideration.Boneyard90 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


There is something in the Taika Reform article that I am curious about. The article lists the name of the friend of Naka no Oe as "Yun Hee no Kamatari." Yet the standard history books and the article on Naka no Oe in Wikipedia gives his name as "Nakatomi no Kamatari." Nakatomi no Kamatari was the founder of the Fujiwara clan. "Yun Hee" seems to be a Korean name, yet no history books, as far as I am aware, indicate that Nakatomi no Kamatari was of Korean descent. Can anyone explain this discrepancy? Rayswei (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't have a reference on hand, the idea that Kamatari had a Korean name is not completely implausible. The Imperial Court had been on friendly terms with Paekche, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, which was defeated in 660 AD. Even before, though especially after this date, Paekche nobles were entering Japan as teachers and advisors, and later as refugees. Although Korean descent seems plausible in the context fo the times, I hope a solid historical text can be referenced to settle the issue on such an important figure in Japanese history. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)