Talk:Yamanoue no Okura/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit by Dwy 17:15 23 Feb 2014

User:Hijiri88: "but this theory is not supported by historians.[5][6]" was this part of the consensus? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Sturmgewehr88: No, it most certainly was not. Dwy has now gone back to adding poorly-sourced POV material -- two historians who criticized the toraijin theory decades ago are not a reliable source for the claim "this theory is not supported by historians". If this theory were not supported by historians in general then it wouldn't be the most common theory cited in respected, third-party encyclopedias. Dwy has again resorted to translating rekishi-ka as "historians" when a better translation would be "some historians" or "several historians". (Set aside the fact that rekishi tends to mean political history, as opposed to the more relevant literary history.) Further, inclusion of an additional footnote that encourages readers to consult Saeki (one of the two principal opponents of the toraijin theory) is obvious POV-pushing. I think given the lengthy discussion that has already taken place here DWY's BOLD edit should be REVERTED and t hen DISCUSSED here before being re-added. I sincerely hoped this dispute had ended, although Dwy's comments in the section above (if we have to present the Toraijin theory, we will also have to add the modern historians' opinions) had already given me reason to suspect otherwise. Note also that all of Dwy's "modern historians" have been inactive since the 1980s, while modern, reputable, still-alive historians like Keene 1999, Levy 2010, Vovin 2012, Guo 2011 and an ever-unrepentant Nakanishi have continued to prop the toraijin theory up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I erased the POV addition. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And I removed the footnote. The name of the prince might be worth mentioning, but two footnotes for the same sentence is too much, and the second half of the footnote was clearly designed to promote a POV as Dwy already admitted was his intention.[1] And again, I should note that when Dwy says "modern" he means "pre-1990". My above list is limited exclusively to genuinely modern sources, but I could name a dozen more who defended the theory when it was actually under dispute. Right now I'm reading a book that I found because I went into Junkudo and asked for a book on Yamanoue no Okura: Murayama Izuru's 1983 work is old' in a sense, but it's still in print, and it's apparently the most widely-available book with "Yamanoue no Okura" in the title. My copy is of the 23rd edition from October 2005.

I also reverted Juzumaru's changing "Korean kingdom of Baekje" to "Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea". It's pretty clear that Juzumaru is still under the impression that User:Shii[2] and I are trying to promote a malicious South Korean agenda. Juzumaru, listen up: "Korean" here refers exclusively to the geographical location of Kudara -- it does not mean "Okura was South Korean, not Japanese".ここの「Korean kingdom of Baekje」は百済の地理的な位置だけ意味しているのです。英語のニュアンスにも関わりますが、「憶良は日本人ではなくて韓国人」という意味になりません。私たちネイティブの英語を「直す」のはどうかこれからご遠慮ください。

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the current version mentioning Toraijin theory only is POV, and we have to include the objections from historians so as to make it NPOV. In the archived discussion, 182.249.240.*** tried the analysis of 15 reference books, but the conclusion there appear to be completely wrong to me. In my interpretation (I haven't checked those reference books myself. I rely entirely on the descriptions given by 182.249.240.***):

• 1 presents Toraijin theory in a straightforward manner. (ブリタニカ国際大百科事典)
• 1 presents Toraijin theory as a possibility. (コンサイス日本人名事典)
• 4 present Toraijin theory as a second alternative, after giving some other explanation first.

(伊藤 博 -- first explanation being "後裔(descendant) of Ame-tarashi-hiko-oshi-hito-no-mikoto.")

(中西 進 -- first explanation being "descended from Emperor Kosho.")

(遠藤 宏 -- first explanation being "Origin unknown." In this case, Toraijin theory is further qualified with "unproven")

(井村 哲夫 -- first explanation being "a branch of the Awata clan."

• 6 fail to acknowledge Toraijin theory (or any other theory.) (日本と世界の人名大事典, 平田(?), 川口 常孝, 岩波日本史辞典, 市瀬 雅之, Encyclopedia Britannica)
• 3 actually dismiss Toraijin theory as unlikely. (和田 萃, 稲岡 耕二(國史大辭典), 日本史広辞典)

To me, it is clear that the most common view here is that nothing concrete can be said about Okura's origin. Toraijin theory is far from being the most common view, but it is more like a minority/fringe view. So we can just let it go without saying anything, or if we have to mention Toraijin theory, we certainly must mention the historians' objections as well (and that is what Nakanishi did in his book "Yamanoue no Okura.")

As for "historians in general vs. some historians," it is obvious that Hijiri 88 is arguing without reading the cited sources. Aoki states that he asked a few of his fellow historians whether they thought it a common sense that a foreign immigrant cannot be an "Omi," and all of them replied in the affirmative. Also, Saeki extensively describes the development of previous studies, from Tsuchiya Bunmei to Murayama Izuru and Takagi Ichinosuke, in which none of the historians supported Toraijin theory. I can therefore safely say (based on these sources) that historians does not support Toraijin theory. If anybody wants to argue otherwise, I request them to name at least one historian who advocated that Okura was born in Baekje. Keene, Levy, etc. are not historians (as opposed to literary scholars) for this purpose (and as I pointed out earlier they cannot be said to have really supported Toraijin theory.)

Of the books I have read so far, the newest one is Inaoka Koji (2010) Yamanoue no Okura.[3] In this book, Inaoka basically takes the same position as he did in 國史大辭典 mentioned above, and says that the chance of Okura being a Toraijin is slim.

As for the footnote, Hijiri 88's allegation that the footnote was "designed to promote a POV" is absurd. I just cited Saeki because he is the authority in the field. If Saeki bothers Hijiri 88, I am quite happy to cite Nakanishi as well.--Dwy (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but at present everyone here except the SPA Juzumaru disagrees with you. The current article looks the same as the majority of general reference works covering this subject. You're going to need to convince either User:Sturmgewehr88 or myself or User:Shii or someone to agree with you on this (without resorting to WP:CANVAS, of course), or else you can't edit the article. Additionally, I have been avoiding analogies since the start, but since you have no problem with them I guess I will be more liberal. We don't consult "historians of ancient Greece and Rome" when we talk about the historical Jesus or the historicity of Jesus; their specialist field is at best peripherally related to the subject. If the vast majority of them thought that Jesus didn't exist, this view would be noteworthy, but a couple of them writing more than 30 years ago is a different matter. When we talk about the historical Jesus and the historicity of Jesus we ask New Testament scholars, because the New Testament documents are the only sources of any use when studying the historical Jesus and "historians of ancient Greece and Rome" study a field that is at best peripherally related to this area. (There is in fact at least one degreed scholar in the classics who thinks Jesus didn't exist, but his view is not cited in any of our articles as a mainstream theory.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me continue the analysis of reference books:

Of the 15 encyclopedias investigated by 182.249.240.***, nine actually mention toraijin theory. of these nine reference books:

• 3 acutally dismiss the toraijin theory as unlikely (和田 萃, 稲岡 耕二, 日本史広辞典),
• 1 says the origin is unknown and the toraijin theory is "unproven." (遠藤 宏)
• 1 mentions "Awata clan" first and then, the toraijin theory, adding that the dispute remains undecided. (井村 哲夫)
• 2 more mention other theory first, thereby indicating that the toraijin theory is not the most common view. (伊藤 博, 中西 進)
• 1 mentions the toraijin theory as a possibility.(コンサイス日本人名事典)
• Only 1 presents the toraijin theory straightforward. (ブリタニカ国際大百科事典)

It is fairly clear that the toraijin theory is not the most common view as 182.249.240.*** and Hijiri 88 claim.

As for Keene, it is interesting to note that in the "note 9" of Seeds in the Heart page 160, which is now presented in the article as a source for toraijin theory, Keene actually cites Aoki's Okura Kikajinsetsu Hihan, saying that although Aoiki is probably the most adamant opponent, his book best summarise the toraijin theory. If we follow the logic of Hijiri 88,[4] Keene encourages reader to consult the other one of the "two principal opponents of the toraijin theory."--Dwy (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between not saying anything about the toraijin theory and simply stating that Nakanishi is the best source for information on him, and stating that Aoki is probably wrong in criticizing the toraijin theory but stating that he provides a useful summary of the debate. Again, if all we (or Keene) are saying is "literary scholar Susumu Nakanishi has theorized that Okura was born in Baekje" then any of these sources are sufficient. User:Shii, User:Sturmgewehr88: how would you propose dealing with this? Should I carry out my earlier threat to take Dwy, who is obviously WP:NOTHERE and politically motivated to not work with us on this, to ANI? Or would you be willing to help me create and RFC/U? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Dwy: the "most common view" is that Okura is a Classical Japanese poet. The rest of it is just a theory that doesn't really matter. "His origins are unknown, but it could be A or B". You don't need to point out that point A is more accepted than point B, you just have to mention both of them and be done with it, 分かりますか？

@User:Hijiri88: if Dwy crosses the line, immediately report him. You should both drop this, as the article is good now. Also, could you explain RFC/U for me? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sturmgewehr, this article is perfectly good and no more editing on the subject of origin needs to be done. Shii (tock) 03:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Hijiri88: Please do go to ANI and SAY WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT MY "INTENTION" THERE! Here, we want to discuss the edit by examining the merits of sources and those absurd accusations of yours do not belong to this talk page! --Dwy (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy, calm down. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Sturmgewehr88: I agree with you completely. The article is good and we should drop this now. If Dwy continues to violate consensus and accuse me of misrepresenting sources then it will be time to take other measures.

@User:Shii: I agree with you completely. I intend to make some more non-origin-related edits in the near future, but the current one-sentence summary of the origin theories is satisfactory. I stand by my original claim that this article could be FA-material in the future.

@User:Dwy: I agree with Sturmgewehr88 completely. You should calm down. The article currently cites both the toraijin theory and the imperial origin theory. User:Juzumaru has said he is happy with this. It is not entirely clear what you want: your most recent edits to the article indicate that you want the article to say "this theory is not accepted by historians" -- this would be a violation of NPOV, and you have not presented any sources that actually say this. If you want the article to say this, then I am going to have to ask that you bow to consensus here, or else we're going to WP:DRN. Additionally, asserting that Keene and Nakanishi, who both have doctorates in literary history and have both spent over half a century teaching and writing about history, are "not historians" is patently wrong. Please cease making claims like this.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Hijiri88: I've been calm all the time. You were agitated with the ANI thing so I asked you to go ahead, but not to try to involve me in the fuzz.

And are you trying to give an impression that Keene suggested that Aoki was "probably wrong"? I don't think he said anything like that.

@User:Sturmgewehr88: When you say "His origins are unknown, but it could be A or B," you have to be careful in choosing what should come as A and B. If one is Toraijin theory, the other one is definitely not "imperial origin theory." As Juzumaru described above, a hot debate took place between literary scholars(国文学者) and historians (歴史学者) from mid 1960s to early 1980s. It was not Toraijin theory vs. imperial origin theory. They debated whether or not Toraijin theory is valid academic theory. Basically, therefore, we should say "His origins are unknown, but literary scholars presented Toraijin theory while historians argued that the theory was invalid."

@User:Shii: I do not agree that "this article is perfectly good." The article is actually a miserable stub, and it need to be expanded. And problem with the current article is that the criteria for the inclusion of information is arbitrary and impossible to understand. For example (with reference to 182.249.240.***'s reference books again):

• "born in Baekje" is included while only 5 out of 15 reference books actually mention Baekje.
• Objections to Toraijin theory are not mentioned when 5 out of 15 reference books put some qualification to Toraijin theory, such as "unproven", "questionable", etc.
• "Emperor Kosho" is mentioned when only 1 out of 15 reference books mentions him.
• "Kakinomoto Hitomaro" is mentioned when only 1 out of 15 reference books mentions him.
• "Shinsen Shojiroku" is not mentioned when 2 out of 15 reference books mention it.
• "Awata clan" is not mentioned when 2 out of 15 reference books mention it.

I believe all of these should be included as long as we have reliable sources. Of course, we will have to discuss the neutral wordings (and agree on the appropriate choice from "historians", "some historians", "most historians", "historians including...", etc.), but that cannot be a reason for excluding the information altogether. --Dwy (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And there are a few things I think should be added to the article:

• In 701, OKura, who has no official title or rank, was chosen to join the envoy to Tang China. Some argues that this was because of his knowledge of Chinese culture and language that he had acquired as a son of a Baekje immigrant. (Of course you have no problem with this because this is not Japan-POV?)
• Others argue that he was chosen on the recommendation of the head of the mission, Awata no Mahito because of the close kinship between the Awata clan and Yamanoue clan. (I think you said you don't want to know about Awata clan?)
• Some literary scholars claim that profound sorrow is reflected in his works, which he suffered as a result of having lost his country in war and had to come to live a miserable life as a refugee in Japan. (Again, this will be OK, but if we keep avoiding Japan-POV, won't the article become somewhat K-POVish?

I really have no idea what other editors will say to the inclusion of these pieces of information and how I can proceed with them. --Dwy (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy, what I said is that the two opposing views are the torajin and imperial descent theories. Including the latter automatically creates the assumption that the former isn't universally accepted. Besides, if we state "torajin theory exists, but may be incorrect", then the reader would wonder "ok, if torajin theory is incorrect, then where did he come from?" Torajin theory isn't the "centerpiece" as you make it out to be. The current wording is fine as it is anyway. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Here again, arguments are apparently being presented without reference to the cited sources. None of the historians (or literary scholars for that matter) claimed that the Yamanoe clan was actually descended from Emperor Kosho. They just consulted Shinsen Shojiroku because it was a most relevant historical document, and Nakanishi and other Toraijin theory advocates did exactly the same.

In case you are not aware, Emperor Kosho is regarded as more of a legend than a reality. As for Wani clan, from which Kasuga, Awata, Yamanoue and Kakinomoto clans were all branched out, Japanese Wikipedia article mentions a theory that they might have come from Korea in the second century, showing, at the same time, a (legendary) family tree starting from Emperor Kosho.

And to the question "where did he come from?", you already have the answer that "his origins are unknown." --Dwy (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond in full right now, but I should correct Dwy's re-analysis of the encyclopedias I cited on a few points: (1) Emperor Kosho is only named in one of fifteen, but his son Amatarashi... is named in another one, and "common ancestry with the Awata clan" is mentioned in one more; (2) "the Awata clan" is named in two, but one of these is, as discussed above, a veiled reference to Emperor Kosho, while only one says "branch of the Awata clan"; (3) Hitomaro is a related article that has been linked to Okura in a reliable source -- this has nothing to do with "POV", and counting encyclopedias on the subject seems like nitpicking; (4) Keene accepts the toraijin theory, so when he says "Aoki was perhaps the theory's most articulate opponent but his summary is useful" he does not mean to say "and he was probably right". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy, I'm well aware of the Emperor's legendary status. That is why we're discussing theories and not facts. You were pushing the Shinsen Shojiroku as if it were the One True Faith, that is until it didn't support your POV. And if we just state "his origins are unknown" in the article, then maybe we shouldn't include any possible theories about his origins, shouldn't we? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sturmgewehr88: So who are the main advocates of "imperial origin theory"? Can you name any mainstream scholar arguing that Okura was actually descended from Emperor Kosho? I don't think so, and that's why I say there is no such thing as the "imperial origin theory." It is just a "tradition" of imperial origin.

And as for the "tradition", can you name any mainstream scholar who denies the existence of the tradition recorded in Shinsen Shojiroku? Or any mainstream scholar who denies the relevance of Shinsen Shojiroku to the issue of Okura's origin? I don't think so, and that's why I say mentioning Shinsen Shojiroku cannot be a POV.

Is mentioning the historians' objection to toraijin theory a POV? Nakanishi did mention the objection in his book Yamanoue no Okura. Keene mentioned the most adamant opponent, Aoki Kazuo in his Seeds in the heart. When toraijin theory is mentioned in encyclopedias, most of them mention an opposing view, and many of them say toraijin theory is unlikely, unproved, etc. I don't think I am pushing a POV in proposing to provide a neutral description of the debate between the literary scholars and historians. --Dwy (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy, your non-NPOV comes from your nitpicking of the Shinsen Shojiroku. It itself supports imperial descent theory, as you have pointed out numerous times in the past, but because we've added this to the article you've decided to deny it. Tradition or not, it is the opposite of torajin theory. From what you've been saying, I think you want the article to say, "Susumu Nakanishi thinks Okura is from South Korea, but he is wrong." You must not be WP:HERE. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never said we should say "Nakanishi is wrong." I am saying we should say "Saeki, Aoki, and other historians do not support Nakanishi," which is,IMHO, perfectly NPOV.

And I am not interested in a Wikipedian's interpretation of Shinsen Shojiroku. Please name one mainstream scholar who, based on Shinsen Shojiroku, argues that Okura was actually descended from Emperor Kosho.（I can name a mainstream scholar who, based on Shinsen Shojiroku, argued that Okura was NOT descended from Emperor Kosho -- Susumu Nakanishi.) --Dwy (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"This theory is rejected by historians" = "Nakanishi is wrong". There's no two ways about it. And you have not provided a single shred of evidence that "this theory is reject by historians". Nakanishi IS a historian -- the MOST HIGHLY-REGARDED HISTORIAN STUDYING THIS AREA. Your dismissive attitude toward literary historians is not sincere, of course: you are only trying, as Juzumaru before you, to pretend that Sturmgewehr, Shii and I are trying to promote some modern-day ROK political agenda, but avoiding saying so directly. The fact is that Keene, Levy, Nakanishi -- these are all trained and recognized historians, while the two historians you have cited are not trained in this area. You have only been able to name one literary historian (Inaoka) who takes a skeptical attitude toward the toraijin theory, but it's beginning look like he's the only one. User:Hijiri88

User:Dwy, you saying that Susumu Nakinishi is a mainstream scholar who doesn't support the imperial descent theory doesn't mean a thing, because he's the posterboy for torajin theory, which you also don't agree with! If you're not WP:HERE, then go away. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, Dwy is now being completely ingenuous by citing Nakanishi's Epoca article as both "the ONLY encyclopedia article to mention Emperor Kosho" and "an encyclopedia article that presents the toraijin theory AFTER citing a competing theory" (failing to note that this "other theory" is"descended from Emperor Kosho"). Additionally, citing Nakanishi as a reason to change the article's current reading is ridiculous: I have read one encyclopedia article written by Nakanishi (Epoca) that says exactly what our one currently does, and another one edited by him (in his Man'youshuu Jiten) that essentially just says (if memory serves) "He was probably a toraijin". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit by Hijiri88 16:51 5 March 2014

User:Hijiri88, I think that it was good to include the imperial calendar year in the article alongside the Western calendar year. Let it say "733 (Tenpyō 5)"? ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I can agree to that. But I don't like the citing of 14 pages as a source. User:Dwy, what page is this information actually on? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I should stress I'm only willing to compromise with you because you're a good faith user. I still don't recognize Dwy's argument that Wikipedia users who want to check pre-modern manuscripts that don't include the western calendar won't be served by the 733 date. No one checking those manusripts needs an annotation here anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I sincerely appreciate it. And I agree, only the specific page should be quoted. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A certain proportion of people, including the "most educators and professionals" mentioned in the "IMPOERTANT NOTE" here, want to check the cited sources themselves before using any information in a tertiary source. To me, you seem to have somewhat missed the point, asking "How many readers have access to these manuscripts?". When I checked Man'yoshu myself (using the annotated copy, of course), I found it useful to know beforehand that the fifth year of Tenpyo is 733 AD (it is not always that easy to find the relevant note, and it is not really guaranteed that there is actually a note to "the fifth year of Tenpyo.")

And what do you think you are, Hijiri 88, to tell me I can't edit this article unitl I tell you what page 660 is on? You are being extremely rude and possessive of the article. When you say "Most scholars believe...", it means there are some minority views. Nakanishi used a whole chapter of his book to analyse the competing theories and explain how the majority view held that he was born in 660. If you just want to see "660", it is in the first few lines of the chapter, but I do not believe that it is really only thing the readers have to check.--Dwy (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I already agreed to include the traditional date. That's why I re-added it myself. It's no longer under discussion, and your continued changing of the subject is becoming very disruptive. And we don't cite an entire chapter for a short statement like this. If both statements ("his Chinese prose in Book V was written in 733, and says he was 74" and "most scholars think he was born in 660") are on page 9, then we only need to cite page 9. If the latter statement appears on page 9 but the former is only on page 22, then we cite "pp. 9, 22" or "pages 9 and 22". We don't need to (I should say shouldn't) reference a discussion of the minority views unless these minority views are included in the article. I don't have access to the book (it's in the research room of my local university library, but non-students aren't allowed in there), so would you mind checking which pages actually need to be cited for this statement? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with you, and I have no reason or obligation to help you to make an edit which I don't think is necessary. --Dwy (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't part of the debate Dwy, this is about making a correct citation. If you don't want to cooperate, then don't object to it being changed or removed. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Who said that Okura was a descendant of Emperor Kosho?

Who (or which document) said that Okura was a descendant of Emperor Kosho? Shinsen Shojiroku only recoreded the Yamanoue clan, but did not mention Okura.--Dwy (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If he is called "Okura of the Yamanoue clan", and the Yamanoue clan is descendant of Emperor Kōshō's son, then it should be obvious that he could be a descendant of the Emperor. Any sensible person would see this. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That is your original research of Shinsen Shojiroku, and I am not the only one to say this. Hijiri 88 has been saying the exactly same thing to Juzumaru.[5] --Dwy (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be able to name any scholar claiming that Okura was actually descended from Emperor Kosho. I think it is pretty clear that there is no such thing as "Imperial Descent Theory" as an academic theory. --Dwy (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Why can't the article say "Toraijin theory is not supported by historians?

Why can't the article say "Toraijin theory is not supported by historians? We all know that there was a debate between the literary scholars and historians. Hijiri 88 is well aware of the debate. He quoted[6]

• Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten as saying「憶良帰化人説は...史家からの反論もあり、なお問題を残している。」("The theory that Okura was an immigrant ... met with objections from historians, and problems still remains.") and
• Nihon Koten Bungaku Kenkyushi Daijiten as saying 「歴史学者が1970,1980代に反論していたが、今論争が静まった」(Historians raised objections during 1970-80s, but the debates have now subsided.)

In addition, Hijiri 88 himself was demanding Juzumaru to see the debate in the perspective of "歴史学者 as oppoed to 文学研究者"(historians as opposed to literary scholars).[7]. But now he is complaining about the use of the term historian (歴史学者). I don't think this is constructive.--Dwy (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nakanishi, who does support it, is a historian. Your wording is dismissive and too general. The whole point of adding Imperial Descent Theory was to show another possible origin for Okura and to show that Torajin Theory is not universally accepted. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the wording is dismissive, and it is not my wording anyway. All the sources I have cited said "歴史学者", "史家", etc., all of which are normally translated "historians". None of them said "some historians" or even "most historians". Having said that, however, I have already stated that I will be happy to discuss the wording.[8] Why don't you propose what you think is an appropriate wording, rather than just revert my edits? (But, anyway, it has to be based on the sources, of course)

As for the "Imperial Descent Theory", I have asked you who are the main advocates of the theory,[9] to which you have not replied. I don't know if you are aware, but the main argument of Saeki and Aoki is:

• The Yamanoue clan was a branch of the Awata clan.
• The Yamanoue clan was not seen as a separate clan, but as part of the Awata clan as late as in 684, when the Awata clan was awarded the Kabane of "Ason".
• That is why Shinsen Shojiroku said in respect of the Yamanoue clan "日本紀合" (per Nihon Shoki) despite the fact that Yamanoue clan is not mentioned at all in Nihon Shoki. In other words, "日本紀合" in Shinsen Shojiroku referred to the record in Nihon Shoki that the Kabane of Ason was given to the Awata clan (and thereby to its sub-clan of Yamanoue).

They never argued the "Imperial Descent Theory".--Dwy (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is clear now that there is no reason preventing the article from mentioning the "historians objections," or other information with reliable sources. I think we should significantly expand the article with much more information. --Dwy (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The majority of historians accept the toraijin theory, so your wording is unacceptable. Nakanishi Susumu, THE FOREMOST HISTORIAN IN THIS FIELD, wrote "he was considered a descendant from Emperor Kosho, but it has also been speculated that he may have been an immigrant". Read the goddamn source I cited, and stop misrepresenting sources. You yourself said NUMEROUS TIMES that "imperial descent" is the primary view of scholars based on "the only primary source specifically mentioning Okura's origins". 182.249.241.5 (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy, if you want to improve the article, then improve it and cut the crap. You can't remove either theory, and you can't say "historians don't accept it" about either theory. Add something useful, make minor corrections, or reword badly written sentences. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

User:182.249.241.5: I am fully aware of what Nakanishi wrote in Encyclopedia Epoca, but why do we have to rely solely on the vague, simplified statement in the non-specialist tertiary source? (Don't get me wrong here. I am not saying Nakanishi is non-specialist. I am saying Encyclopedia Epoca is non specialist, general reference book.) There are numerous reliable secondary sources on the topic, and Tertiary sources ... should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. As far as I know, reliable sources say that Shinsen Shojiroku stated that the Yamanoue clan were of the Imperial descent, but none of the reliable sources say that the Yamanoue clan were really descended from Emperor Kosho. If you insist that "imperial descent" is the primary view of scholars based on "the only primary source specifically mentioning Okura's origins", you have to cite at least one reliable secondary source supporting it.

User:Sturmgewehr88: Of course, I (or anybody else) can remove the vague, misleading statement not supported by a reliable source. And if reliable sources say "historians raised objections to the Toraijin theory" and not reliable sources contradict it, there is no reason prohibiting the inclusion of that information in the article.--Dwy (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed I never responded to this. Don't pretend the wording of my sources is any more "vague" or "simplified" than that of yours. "歴史学者" might possibly mean "all professionally-trained historians" (as you are choosing to interpret it) or it might mean "some historians outside this specific field, but virtually no one inside the field". 126.0.96.220 (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Okura Toraijin-ron revisit?

A whole shitstorm has been going down at the fork article talk page here, with one Korean/anti-Japanese POV-pushing SPA who doesn't understand and one good-faith but incompetent user who doesn't understand the theory trying to insert an expanded, misinterpreted version of the theory into that article. I think this article should include a full discussion of all the theories and cite a summary in that article, per WP:POVFORK.

Any thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)