Talk:Japanese era name/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

63 or 64 years

It says that the Showa era is, at 64 years, the longest to date. Though it is true that the era existed in 64 different years (25 December 1926 to January 7th 1989), 63 years and 2 weeks is way closer to 63 years than 64... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas M. Perrault (talk • contribs) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Japanese TD: should it be merged into this article? It seems rather lost on its own. -- Yamara 20:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

English translations of nengō

User:Reklamedame -- While I do very much like your most recent edit to Japanese era name, your seemingly slight improvement does raise questions about how to handle similar additions to each of the earlier historical nengō.

In a sense, it could be that my concerns devolve into a matter of formatting; but at first blush, I'm thinking that this could mean quite a lot of work across the full array. The information you propose to add is useful, important, interesting, of course; but I'm persuaded that its significance may be construed as less important than the small tidbits of relevant information which has been already incorporated into this long list.

This is a relatively trivial problem; but I wonder if there might be a small level of confusion or diminished transparency arising because of the order in which serial data is presented? For example, as you know, you proposed:

I would have thought it made more sense to but the kanji translation immediately following the nengo, to put the romanization translation in quotation marks, and perhaps to capitalize the English era title -- which implies the word "meaning" without actually needing to repeat the word over and over again:

Although this organizing pattern does work well enough for the modern nengō, there seem to be unanticipated consequences in earlier pre-Meiji period eras, e.g.:

  • 701 大宝 Taihō ("Great Treasure") or Daihō
  • 708 和銅 Wadō ("Japanese copper")
  • 749 天平勝宝 Tenpyō-shōhō ("Heavenly Peace and Victorious Buddhism") or Tenbyō-shōhō or Tenpei-shōhō
  • 1688 元禄 Genroku("Original Happiness")
  • 1704 宝永 Hōei ("Prosperous Eternity")
  • 1854 安政 Ansei ("Quiet Peaceful Government")

As you can see, there is no problem with the nengō of the Asuka period and Edo period above, but the several alternate romanizations for at least one of the Nara period nengō makes that specific line seem a little awkward; and I'm just wondering about how best to handle other appended notes (including other "improvements" which have not yet been suggested) ... as in, for example:

These are questions to which I have no ready answers. I'm just trying to help think this through more fully. I wonder if perhaps you've already anticipated concerns like these?

We can hope that others will want to join us in improving this important article. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed citation

This dispute cannot be resolved here -- perhaps not at all. The bare bones of contention can be presented simply:

A. User:Bueller 007's edit summary is blunt:

  • (cur) (last) 14:42, 19 February 2008 User:Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) (46,923 bytes) (霊亀 doesn't mean "exquisite tortoise". please consult a japanese dictionary れい‐き【霊亀】 霊妙な亀。祥瑞ある亀。 and it seems unlikely that 宝 means "Buddhism". it's far more likely "treasure"/"emperor"/"divinity") (undo)
At this point, User:Bueller 007 determined that a {fact}-tag needed to be added to the explanation of meaning for Tenpyō-shōhō.

B. A verifiable citation was immediately provided, as requested -- with a convenient link to the sourced reference

See here. [Bowman, John. (2000). Columbia Chronologies of Asian History and Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.]
  • (cur) (last) 21:45, 19 February 2008 [User:Tenmei]] (Talk | contribs) (47,140 bytes) (→Conversion table from Gregorian calendar years to nengō: citation verifies Tenpyo-shoho = "heaveny peace & victorious Buddhism") (undo)
The imprimatur of a prestigious University Press encourages me to have some confidence in this citation; and the well-known Harvard Professor Harold Bolitho's involvement in this work lends further credence -- see here and see here.
Nevertheless, User:Bueller 007 responded by adding a {dubious}-tag linking to the argument below. I have removed that unhelpful tag. I'm persuaded that User:Bueller 007 is bothered by something which goes beyond this trivial issue, but that is for someone other than me to discover and resolve.

A third opinion might be the way to go? ..............Wikipedia:Third Opinion#Active disagreements

Maybe a discussion at Wikiproject Japan will be a good step? ............... Go to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Disputed citation

In my view, this is not a dispute which can be resolved on this page. --Tenmei (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My edit summary is "blunt". You do realize there is a character limit to edit summaries, right? Why don't you run that summary through and see how close to the limit it is. And the "dubious" tag is hardly unhelpful. The reference you provided does not explain how the translation was arrived at. In any manner. Whatsoever. It is known, as a fact, that the character 宝 does not mean "Buddhism". Without his explaining how the translation was arrived at, yes, it is more than "dubious". Am I also to assume that the gold coins minted in 760 CE called "開基勝宝" mean "founding of victorious Buddhism"? And are we sticking with literal translations (such as 天平 = "heavenly peace") and then switching over to extremely liberal translations (such as 勝宝 = "victorious Buddhism") or is there going to be some kind of effort made to be consistent? Bueller 007 (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This dispute cannot be resolved here. My response to the paragraph above -- QED.
The central issues are better parsed with an unmuddied focus. --Tenmei (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

Reference provided for "heavenly peace and victorious Buddhism" does not explain how the translation was arrived at. Japanese dictionaries do not list "Buddhism" as a meaning for the kanji 宝. For example, Kojien 6 has:

ほう【宝】
天子や神仏に関する美称。

My kanwa-jiten (漢字源) has:

1)｛名｝たから。たいせつに保存する珍しい物。「爾以玉為宝＝爾は玉を以て宝と為す」〔→蒙求〕
2) ホウとす｛動・形｝たいせつにする。宝物のように珍重する。たいせつな。〈類義語〉→保。「宝珠玉者殃必及身＝珠玉を宝とする者は殃必ず身に及ぶ」〔→孟子〕
3)｛名｝唐代以降、天子の印のこと。▽秦・漢代には印・璽という。「天子之宝」。
4)｛名｝通貨のこと。「元宝（大きい銀貨）」「通宝」。
5)｛形｝天子、また他人に関するものを尊んでいうことば。
6)［俗］「宝貝」とは、たいせつな子どもをいう。

Even the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism simply lists it as:

[Basic Meaning:] jewel

Senses:

  1. Treasure, wealth (Skt. ratna). Precious, a treasure, gem, pearl, anything valuable; for saptaratna, see 七寶. Also maṇi, a pearl, gem. [cmuller ; source(s): Soothill]
  2. In Korean Buddhism, the term is used to designate a small group of Buddhist disciples.

In addition, it is almost certain that 天平 does not have the meaning suggested. It is derived from "天王貴平知百年", which I think means something along the lines of "100 years of peaceful rule by the respected emperor".

In short, this whole idea of listing the supposed "meaning" of the era names is doomed to failure. The vast majority of them cannot be summed up in a single line by simply summarizing the definition of the kanji. For example, 昭和 comes from "百姓昭明にして、万邦を協和す", 貞応 comes from "中孚以利貞、乃応乎天稷也", 承応 comes from "夏商承運、周氏応期", etc. Simply giving the meaning of the kanji is misleading. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that this ultimately depends on what the intention behind choosing the era names was. Does 元禄 truly mean "source/origin of happiness", or is it merely a reference to a longer phrase, with no contemporary (当時) intention to give it the 『禄の元』meaning? In any case, Tenmei makes a good point that the era names are not just meaningless characters and have meanings, while Bueller's point is equally valid - that the classical references cannot be expressed in a brief literal translation. Hm... PS Tenmei, please recognize that edit summaries are limited to a certain number of characters - Bueller wasn't trying to be blunt, I'm sure, or at least not as obnoxious as you took it to be. We are all limited in what we can say in that box, and so we have to keep it short. LordAmeth (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. First, a few things: I speak Japanese, so I'm not in the dark on this one, and I've seen this page listed on 3O a number of times. Admittedly, I didn't know that the names of the eras is derived from larger sentences, but in retrospect, it makes sense. I have come up with two potential solutions, and I'd like to hear discussion on both.

  1. List both the literal reading, and the phrase that the name may have come from. This gives equal voicing to both viewpoints.
  2. Remove both readings, and instead move them both to the article for that era. Also gives equal voicing to both viewpoints on the appropriate page.

I actually prefer the second option here, as it moves to the era page text that is specific to the era. So for Reiki, for example, one of the first sections on the specific page would be Etymology, with a line saying "The name 'reiki' literally means ethereal tortoise. The name was derived from "(sentence)", which means (translation)." In this way, you can give all the other information you want about the full sentence and whatever, so long as it's properly sourced.

That's what I think. What do you guys think now? Is this an acceptable solution? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Move all of the supposed meanings off this page. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
User:HelloAnnyong's proposal has obvious merits. Regardless of what unfolds in terms of Japanese era name and with this specific controversy about Tenpyō-shōhō, I will act on HelloAnnyong's suggestion by taking it on myself to introduce an etymology section into each of the nengō articles. However, I construe the central issue differently -- much less generously. I would have thought User:Bueller 007's gambit is perhaps better deflected by the following:
If not, why not? If not now, when? --Tenmei (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I acknowledge the OR and V arguments, which is why I'd like to see verifiable resources for all of the sentences. I don't really see how adding more information is NPOV - it's not like Bueller is trying to make an argument for why one period was bloodier than another, or something like that. The civility issue is mutual here, I think, and everyone needs to just WP:COOL down a bit. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. There is precisely ZERO original research going on here. The origin of most era names are freely available in Japanese dictionaries, encyclopedias and on the net.
  2. NPOV? You don't know what you're talking about.
  3. Verifiability? Well, yes, as I said, all my sources are readily available. I've even posted a few above.
  4. Not being civil? I love how you don't even address your comments to me, just talk about me behind my back as if I weren't even here, and then accuse ME of not being civil. When I address a comment directly to you, your only response is "This dispute cannot be resolved." Bueller 007 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Bueller 007 -- Yours is a history of abrasive edits. Your own conduct has deprived you of any justification whatsoever in claiming abused indignation nor affronted dismay. You don't appear to work and play well with others, but that can change for the better .... What I did say is now emphasized with green in the original text and repeated here for clarity:
In my view, this is not a dispute which can be resolved on this page.
At present, I see nothing to diminish my belief in the accuracy of that informed assessment. Your screed needs a wider audience that this talk page is likely to attract. --Tenmei (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said on my talk page, I want to get back to the content dispute; issues between users can be discussed elsewhere. Is everyone okay with my proposed solution? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A few more things: First, Tenmei, WQA will not deal with content disputes - that's what this page is for. I should also remind you that LordAmeth and I are in agreement with each other (see here). As such, unless I hear convincing argument that the proposed solution is unacceptable, I'm going to go ahead and implement the solution. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- User:HelloAnnyong: As you know, there is no urgency involved here -- none save what has been built up because I've dared to speak up firmly, resolutely, clearly, indisputably? Thre has been no consensus sought. There has been no real discussion. No reason to rush. No time for sober reflection and reconsideration. Let's see this aside for later review. No that I think about it, if I am going to labeled by you as as "hot tempered," why not allow time for cooling? Did you not allow for the possibility that I will learn from my experience and that I might draw lessons you have not considered? Nothing about my approach to Wikipedia has been frivolous -- no less today than yesterday or last month or last year.

You do not have my assent to a major overhaul of this article, nor will I engage in further argument on this subject now. If you or anyone else accomplishes a major edit of this article until WP:WQA has run its course, I will not touch the edit. I will not modify it in any way. That means that I will cause no problems, but it also means that you or someone else is deciding to cut off the motivations that have encouraged me to contribute to this specific article with dedication, verified seriousness, scholarly attention, and care. I was angry yesterday. Now I'm furious at how this is playing out. If WP:WQA doesn't work, I will take this further. NO. You have not surveyed User:Bueller 007's edits, nor mine. Is it not remotely possible that mine is a reasonable reaction to something unreasonable which has gone on for far too long because I didn't know how to ameliorate the situation? Think again.

User:HelloAnnyong: You yourself send me to WP:WQA -- now the unanticipated sequelae begin to accumulate. Have you so little faith in the resolution process that you think it won't work when all is said and done? Think again.--Tenmei (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I do have faith in the process, but I'm also separating out article content from user conduct. I'll say it again: WQA is not going to bring the content resolution that you want; it only deals with user conduct, and it will only end in one or both of you being reprimanded. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
User:HelloAnnyong: I have enhanced your edit by putting what I construe to be the gravamen of your position in bold. Until now, I have accepted the "obvious" reasoning which parses content and user conduct separately -- an axiomatic statement which can't withstand strict scrutiny in this specific situation. In light of your further comments, I have withdrawn my complaint from WP:WQA. Instead, you've convinced me that mediation is the better remedy. No doubt this will take some time. In this evolving context, I would mildly suggest that you and User:Bueller 007 should re-evaluate what's happening here:
Is it not remotely possible that mine is a reasonable reaction to something unreasonable which has gone on for far too long because I didn't know how to ameliorate the situation?
Think again. --Tenmei (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose, but I don't even really know what you're still so agitated about. I've lost track of the argument; if you've got a personal vendetta against Bueller, well, that's your own issue, and you can register your complaints wherever you'd like. I don't really know how or why I convinced you that mediation is the remedy here, but I don't want credit for that. The only reason I'm involved in this page is because someone asked for a third opinion on how to solve the issue of whether or not the names of the eras should be literally translated. That's all I came here for, and that's all I want my involvement to be. You've dragged me along, and I don't want to be a part of it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Protect?

An anonymous user keeps deleting the table of eras. Should this page be protected at least for a while to prevent that repeated deletion? Nik42 (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NB

"NB: It is protocol in Japan..." I think this just means "Note:", but I'm not absolutely sure, and I can't think of a creative solution at the moment. brain (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Meanings

As suggested above, I have removed the literal meanings from each of the nengo. They belong on the individual pages in a "lit." section of the nihongo template, not here. For example, each page would start as: "Taika (大化, lit. "Great Reform") is a Japanese era name...". The page can then also include a real etymology that goes into more detail about why the name was selected. I'm of the opinion that meanings add absolutely nothing to this article for a number of reasons:

  1. They reduce the readability of the table, and many of these have been waiting to be filled in for more than 1.5 years.
  2. Literal meanings were often not the basis on which nengo were selected. They were selected because they were parts of poems, etc. Their literal meanings are often irrelevant, or worse, misleading.
  3. Many of the literal meanings, as listed, are incorrect.

I also make no pretence about one other thing. I'm making this correction now because user:Tenmei, whom I've found difficult to deal with in the past, has been forced to get a mentor who will help to improve his prose and interactions with other users. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with above points. Bendono (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japanese_era_name/Archive_2&oldid=1136836538"