Talk:Kinmon incident

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Consensus appears to be against the move at this time Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Hamaguri rebellion → Hamaguri Gate Incident — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Seems to be more common in the sources. The term "rebellion" seems a bit out of step with normal English usage when the event is of one day's duration. Srnec (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• The capitalisation of "Incident" is inconsistent both (i) in reliable sources and (ii) throughout Wikipedia. When is an incident an Incident? Nobody seems to know, so I don't care whether the proposed destination has the capital (which is found in the sources I found through Google) or doesn't. Srnec (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. I see no justification for capitalising "Incident". Noetica^Tea? 03:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• See above. That seems a bizarre reason to oppose. Srnec (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title appears appropriate in the absence of reference sources suggesting otherwise. --DAJF (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think that in the age of Google, where a simple Google search would reveal some references suggesting otherwise, it is getting lame to comment like this at move requests, as Phoenix7777 demonstrates below. Srnec (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. As Srnec says, "rebellion" doesn't seem to be appropriate for this "incident".
  • "Hamaguri Rebellion" Google Book 3, Google Scholar none
  • "Hamaguri Gate Incident" Google Book 9, Google Scholar 5
  • "Hamaguri Gomon Incident" 9, Google Scholar none
  • "Forbidden Gate Incident" Google Book 4, Google Scholar 2
  • "Kinmon Incident" Google Book 6, Google Scholar 2

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. (All these are acceptable article titles to me; it's just a question of which is best.) Srnec (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I have moved this page to Kinmon Incident due to the noticeable lack of standardized terminology in English-language reliable sources, and the apparent lack of English-language reliable sources in general. (A Google Books search for"Hamaguri rebellion" brings up only 9 hits, and "Kinmon Incident" brings up 6.) The term Kinmon no Hen is, however, overwhelmingly more common in Japanese usage than Hamaguri Gomon no Hen(22,400>5,520). Use of Kinmon instead of "Hamaguri" also dodges the problematic issue raised in the move request above that "Hamaguri" is the name of the gate, so making the title "Hamaguri rebellion" inappropriate (the rebellion itself had nothing to do with clams!). elvenscout742 (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In response to the above concerns over capitalization: an incident is an "Incident" when it forms an integral part of the name of the event. Both Sakuradamon Incidents (1860 and 1932), as well as the Isshi Incident and the Incident at Honnō-ji follow this pattern on English Wikipedia. (Honnō-ji has the title reversed, but the opening sentence clearly has "Incident" capitalized mid-sentence.) Basically, anything where Japanese historians conventially write no Hen or Jiken can be classified this way. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Cause of fire incorrect?

It is to my understanding that the following line is incorrect: "It is unknown if the rebels set fire to Kyoto as soon as they began to lose, or if their doing so was part of their original strategy, and done as a diversionary tactic."

In actuality it was the bakufu and Aizu and Satsuma clans who started the fire when they attacked and set fire to Takatsukasa Sukehiro's residence because some of the Choshu clan had hidden themselves in the residence. This was a house neighboring a nearby Chosu residence, which they also set fire to. It was these two fires that spread throughout Kyoto.

The Japanese article on the first residence's owner is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonewestand (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)