Talk:Japanese mythology/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Watch out for User:DreamGuy!

He may return and change the spellings of things on this page even though he clearly does not understand Japanese mythology. You other editors should be very wary of him, for he is a subtle one. elvenscout742 14:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a personal attack and against Wikipedia policy. The changes I made here were in order to follow Wikipedia:Capitalization rules, which are also the standard rules for English writing around the world so should be followed in general. Where he came up with his ideas on how things should be capitalized and not is beyond me. Beyond that, I actually do know about Japanese mythology, and didn;t do anything to show otherwise, so I don't understand where his claim that I "clearly" don't know anything came from. Basically what we have here is an editor out to harass another editor in revenge for edits on other articles being fixed. DreamGuy 18:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

its not a pesonal attack, its a warning to others that your erdits should be changed because you are incorrect, and hence shouild bre watched out for. your words are rude. Gabrielsimon 18:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

And here's editor number two in the gang of three harassing people. My changes to this article are correct. See Wikipedia:Capitalization. You should stop harassing people and following them around undoing all their changes. DreamGuy 18:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

im not harassing anyone, your just being stubborn. Gabrielsimon 18:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

by the way, it happens, that logicallyif more then one person has the SAME p[roblem with you, then you are the source of the problem, not them. Gabrielsimon 19:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well DreamGuy, the Japanese language is the Japanese language, it doesn't work in the same way as any other, therefore, any grammar rules that are not from the Japanese language does not apply to any Japanese names or words. Satanael ??:??, 29 July 2005

True, but that has nothing to do with what was being discussed above. English rules were not being applied to Japanese names or words, they were rightly applied to English sections of this English article... until some editors following me around to undo all my edits without bothering to check if they were right or wrong decided to screw things up. DreamGuy 17:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

About a "Content Table"

I've seen that there is a content table on the pages for Celtic mythology, and Norse mythology, I think that this page should have one of it's own to improve the layout. But I think we should keep the number of gods in it at a minimum, as there are simply to many, just have the most important ones, if anything, 25 is a maximum. I would have done it myself, but as I'm far to busy right now to have anything like that in my mind, I'm asking someone here to carry it through, hopefully as soon as possible. By the way, the different types of "Ryu" and "Tengu" should be put in it's respective article I think, to avoid too much confusion. Satanael 15:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

But I must add, when done, please do it in the manner most proper, since if poorly done, it will be hard to follow up on the edits. Study the ones on the two pages beforementioned to make sure it's done in the way most optimal. Satanael 16:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Template

In order to cut down on the KB size of the article, I created a template for the infobox at the right. The template page is Template:Jmyth infobox, for those who wish to keep track of it.--Mitsukai 19:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is not in depth enough

A quote from the article: The gods borne from Izanagi and Izanami are symbolic of important aspects of nature and culture, but they are too many to mention here.

This is exactly the place to mention all of these dieties. A wikipedia article should be as complete as possible, and not leave out importaint details such as this.

18:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not in this article, but isn't there a List of Shinto kami? This article could link to that, although I suppose that's not exactly just the ones borne from Izanagi and Izanami... Mind you, there likely really are too many to mention here, or anywhere, all in one go. There are countless kami, and if most came from these two...... JC 13:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Complex in what sense?

The first sentence of the article is "Japanese mythology is an extremely complex system of beliefs." I think we need to explain what criteria are being used to judge complexity. Jimpartame 04:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It also makes the common mistake of taking the number 8000 too literaly. In the Japanese language of olde, the word 8000 simply meant "a bunch", or "a gazzilion" if you will. The symbolic mening of the numeral 8 as the number of the directions of the sky (N, NE, E, SE...), i.e. "the whole world" being key. So when sources in Japanese claim there is 8000 (or 800, or 80000) deities, this means "an uncountable ammount". Unfortunately some translations of Japanese sources are unaware of this or simply choose to ignore it. 213.172.234.125 10:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Small complaint

Japanese folklore forwards here, but the article only seems to discuss Shinto mythology. No rush, but maybe a separate article for Japanese folk beliefs (including a list with some of the major legendary creatures like somebody wanted back at the top of the talk page) wouldn't hurt? Kotengu 05:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Centipede is a monster in Japanese mythology

Centipede is a monster in Japanese mythology, it's proven, I've got sources, I can ask anyone else who knows, do not, and I'm warning you, do not remove it, and if you do, I'll keep reverting it forever. Also, modernisation is part of mythology. You obviously don't understand the rules of mythology.

A terrifying, man-eating monster the size of a mountain. It lived in the mountains of Japan near Lake Biwa. The dragon king of that particular lake asked the famous hero Hidesato to kill it for him. The hero slew it by shooting an arrow, dipped in his own saliva, into the brain of the monster. The dragon king rewarded Hidesato by giving him a rice-bag; a bag of rice which could not be emptied and it fed his family for centuries.

www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/asia/japanese/articles.html

Hidesato

A famous, fearless hero of Japanese legend. He killed many monsters, among which the centipede.

{above unsigned but by user:Satanael))

OK, first up, the comment Also, modernisation is part of mythology. You obviously don't understand the rules of mythology. is simply irrelevent. Modernization is involved with mythology, but the things you are trying to list with that justification makes absolutely no sense to mythology. Continuing to add the "modernisated" section is ompletely pointless. And I can guarantee I clearly understand "the rules of mythology" far better than you, based upon your edits here and elsewhere. Apparently the rule you follow is any weird thing anyone said anywhere or any bit of fiction that ever came up and characters from another culture are all mythology, which is to torture the word so badly that it no longer makes sense at all.

Secondly, I'll keep reverting it forever. is not appropriate way to act here.

Thirdy, lots of stories were told about lots of animals... to be listed here they should have an actual name or incident specified. DreamGuy 20:39, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The "centipede" isn't actually a centipede, it's more of a dragonic monster than anything else. I wish that I knew the "official" name, but I've found no such account of it's name being given, also regrettably, as I don't have the original story, I can't determine it personally.

And a second comment here. You're one to talk, first of all, making such a claim as: And I can guarantee I clearly understand "the rules of mythology" far better than you, based upon your edits here and elsewhere..

Based on what? My edits on one other page, in which I was right the whole time, which I may remind you on that, I made a direct quote from both the original documents, which you ignored, twice I might add. Arguing with a 16 year old doesn't look good, Mr. published author and all around nice guy. Based on what I've seen, you carry an arrogant attitude towards any who doesn't think like you do, and as I may tell you, anyone assuming they are more right, or more conformed that others are bound to fail miserably at some point. That may sound hypocritcal, but please find a statement where I said that I was exclusively right, as I said the info was right, but I never mentioned the way I did it nor my attitude at that point".

Second, it gives off a poor view of understanding to say: Apparently the rule you follow is any weird thing anyone said anywhere or any bit of fiction that ever came up and characters from another culture are all mythology, which is to torture the word so badly that it no longer makes sense at all., this is called jumping to conclusions, third, when you say fiction, I take it you mean "Paradise Lost", "The Divine Comedy", "Lord of the Rings", "Dungeons & Dragons", among others, assuming that I consider these to be myth is a highly offensive statement, my limit goes to demonological texts, however, I carry a strict view on it. But, it's just as offensive to me as when people use "that word", about Japanese, or "that word" towards East-Asians in general, something that makes me really, really, really angry, and unless you come up with a proper explanation for that statement which doesn't involve any form of prejudice or any form of assumption, you can definitely expect that I won't cooperate with you in the future. If you're telling me to act correctly, do it yourself, as the user below put it "practice what you preach".

Now, I hope, that we can all be friends here now, without any biased statements or subtle prejudice.

Satanael 15:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Lol, whoever that is at the top of the section sure is angry. I agree with dream that this is no way to act on this site. If you wish to keep your posts and sections politely ask with no hostility if anyone objects and if someone does then you should state your reasons and so will the other person. I have made my own mistakes here on wiki but realized that hostility is not answered politely. remember, act like an adult and you will be treated as such. -Tik

Ok i ranted, sry, anyways i think if you can back that up, which with that story im sure u have a source then state it and leave it on the article, since u have proof then it can be removed if its either non-applicable to the article or if there is another source that disputes it, i think this would be reasonable.-Tik

You would have been angry too I'm sure, if you look at the situation we had at the Leviathan article. However, I'm over it now. Satanael 15:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed Satanael, Dreamguy doesn't understand anything about mythology at all, he obviously don't know much about it, and when he thinks that rules like in this place applies to mythology, he's completely deluded.

And the mythical "centipede" has no real name, talk about not practicing what he preaches, such a joke.

Additionally, modernisation has little to do with fiction, doesn't see the difference either.

The famous giant centipede does exist in Japanese folklore; it's in a story usually called "My Lord Bag of Rice" in English.

The creature's Japanese name is just mukade (centipede) or ōmukade (big centipede). www.pantheon.org Encyclopedia Mythica is however a highly-dubious source that you should never rely on. Kotengu 06:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add Japanese names

Hi! Could somebody with a thorough understanding of Japanese mythology and language history take the time, and add at least the contemporary Japanese, non-romanized version of names contained in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wilderns (talk • contribs) 12:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Origins of Japanese mythology

User Ebizur marked the following section of the opening paragraf as requiring sources:

Due to the influence of the ancient Chinese civilization, much of Japanese mythology and religion originated from the mainland^{[citation needed]}, though there are still many myths uniquely Japanese.

I agree that this is a problematic sentence. First off, some questions need to be answered:

-What time of history exactly is ancient Chinese civilization here refering to? Is there any proof that Japanese mythology originated mainly form this ancient Chinese civilization? How about religion? Does this imply Shinto is essentialy a Chinese religion?

-How much is much of Japanese mythology and religion? Can this be ballparked in percents? 50%? 75%? 90%? On the other hand, how many is many myths uniquely Japanese?

Looking at the whole context of the opening paragraph, it appears as though somebody has forcefully inserted this sentence. I suppose somebody was trying to make clear the point that Japanese society has learned much from the Chinese society. If this assertion is absolutely necessary, it should be done in other parts of the opening paragraph. So it is my opinion that unless the questions above can be answered and the sentence cleared of the weasel language accordingly, this sentence has got to go - it contributes no particularly new info and disturbs the flow of the text. TomorrowTime 21:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The citation needed tag has been there for almost a month or so now, and since nobody clarified the sentence or answered the questions I posed here, I'm removing the sentence. The opening paragraph functions just as well without the sentence.

I am not trying to deny the immense cultural influence China had on Japanese civilisation over the centuries, nor do I deny the fact that a great deal of Japanese mythological beings and cosmogony was at least influenced by or in some cases borrowed completely from China. I do however object to the way the sentence in question is formed, for reasons stated above. In case somebody wants to debate this deletion or a possible reinsertion, here is the deleted sentence again:

Due to the influence of the ancient Chinese civilization, much of Japanese mythology and religion originated from China, though there are still many myths uniquely Japanese.

I would suggest a more clear and concise sentence; or else an elaboration on just how much of Japanese mythology is borrowed from China somewhere else in the article. TomorrowTime 15:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is telling the stories more then its telling about the stories

The intro paragraphs contains some good topics that could be used in the article but the article goes in a completely different direction. The article doesn't really tell me about Japanese Mythology, instead it went in and gave a plot summery of several stories which goes against #7 in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#INDISCRIMINATE It seems it would be a good idea to scrap the article text and use the topics in the intro paragraphs to rewrite it. I wish I could actually fill in this information but I do not know enough about the topic to do more then notice it didn't read like an encyclopedia entry.

Ras Qulec 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

idea

hey, is there an article on the use of japanese mythology in modern culture? 137.141.250.49 20:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Amaterasu+moon+human legend

There is a legend where Amaterasu fell in love with the moon, and they both came to earth where they further fell in love with a man. Can anyone cite this or help me provide documentation? Chris 10:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

What is the source for the myths related here? I'm just curious, because there are some odd spots in the translations of terminology here and there. For instance, in the first few sentences of the Creation Myth chapter, the Amanonuhoko is refered to as a "halberd", when the word "hoko" means something more along the lines of "spear", rather than "halberd". The translation for Amanonuhoko reads as "Heavenly Halberd of the Marsh", eventhough the word "marsh" isn't implied in Japanese. Hiruko is translated as "watery child", when it's really "leech child". I have no intention of criticising anybody, and I assume that the terms I pointed out are from one of the official translations of Kojiki. I also realize that it is probably not my place to barge in on bits and peaces of the translator's work without having extensive knowledge of the whole and having only a rudimentary understanding of classic Japanese. For all I know I could be wrong, but at least on the marsh bit, Kōjien backs me up. I wouldn't mind a small word of warning somewhere in the article regarding possible inacurate translations of names. TomorrowTime 10:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't Amanonuhoko be a naginata, not a halberd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.231.84 (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiny Text

Is there any reason why the section "Spelling of Proper Nouns" has such tiny text? Or is it just some vandalism? Fruckert (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Since I never got an answer, I just took matters into my own hand. Fruckert (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronounciation outline

Near the bottom of this article, there is a short list of the japanese prounounciations. unfortunately, it has less than half of what it should, and in no way helps this article. i don't feel it really needs to be here, but if someone does, they are welcome to complete it with an a,k,g,s,z,t,d,n,h,w,y,b,p, and don't forget "~n". i have neither the time or patience, but i wish it were either completed or taken down. and it would really make it feel more helpful to the article if it had the hiragana alphabet along with it, to show the true characters.

74.61.2.12 (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Voodoo Chile

Move

This relates to Ras Qulec's comment above... The story parts of this article should be moved to respective articles (Kuniumi, Kamiumi, etc) in my opinion. bamse (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

kuni/kami umi

What is the motivation for treating "kuniumi" (or "kamiumi") as one word? Checking with a couple dictionaries (eg. [1]), it is never one word but two (eg. "Kuni Umi", Land Birth). For analogy, we don't transliterate the full name of a person as one word despite the parts being written without a space between them in Japanese. (Would hyphenation be a compromise, e.g. kuni-umi?)

More genearlly, as many of these terms are not conventionally known at all in English, wouldn't it make more sense to prefer the translation (instead of the transliteration) for use in the article? For example, the first mention should write "... the Birth of the Land (国産み, kuni umi) ..." and subsequent mentions would only use the English description (e.g., "The birth of the land concluded with ..."). Unless we're deliberately introducing a great deal of new vocabulary into English, then even the normal Japanese writing (e.g., kanji) should be preferred before giving romaji. (One exception to this might be "kami", a word which actually is starting to be used in English, particularly since its translations are contentious; the kami article emphasises that "spirits" is usually more accurate than "gods" or "deities", although "deities" doesn't seem so unreasonable to me in specific cases of these first generations.)

Also, since this article so emphasises these divisions (kuni-umi and kami-umi), it needs to explain them. When does each division start and end? Who and where introduced these distinctions? (I acknowledge some of the shortcomings in this article have simply been imported from Spanish wikipedia etc, and the wikipedia demographic may have a dearth of experts on Japan's mythology since that was more or less abolished and forgotten by fiat as part of the capitulation after the nukings.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusing subheadings

Two sub-heads, "Conquest of the east (23-26)" and "Yamato Takeru (44-48)" in the Legends section don't seem to make any sense, and have no text within their sections. They seem to be an attempt by someone to add references to the above information, but I cannot tell. --65.100.122.208 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Transliteration of Proper Nouns" section needs content change

While reading the (IMO at least) mostly well-written article Japanese Mythology, I noticed that section 13, Transliteration of Proper Nouns, which is ironically collapsed by default, contains statements to the effect that in Japanese Romanization, certain spelling changes have occurred "over time". For instance, in one sentence, it is stated (I'm paraphrasing—please excuse me—I'm late for something at the minute) that [the syllable] hu is now "modernized" as fu, or zi and di are "modernized" as ji. With respect, I must humbly submit that the section's author(s) are mistaken.

Fu is not the modern form of hu, but actually just a different system of transliteration, or spelling conventions, for the Romanization of Japanese, specifically, the "Hepburn System" (ヘボン式—"Hebon-shiki"). The other main system of transliteration, that that uses hu and ti, for example, is the official "government-backed" version, although the government understands and respects the use of Hebon-shiki, as it is one of the most widely-used forms for teaching Japanese to non-native speakers. I honestly don't have time to insert any references right now, but I will as soon as I can. But it shouldn't really be necessary. Just ask pretty much anyone who is fluent in Japanese, or better yet a teacher of Japanese. I'd bet good money they'll tell you the same thing, almost word for word (I just read it the other day in one of my books, Japanese Kanji and Kana, published by Tuttle and written by Hadamitzky and Spahn (I had to include at least one reference, but I can't remember the book section).

With the utmost respect, I hope this is changed soon. Otherwise, if no one objects, I can even change it and probably add a little more. I don't want to step on toes, only improve the accuracy and quality of an article on one of my very favorite Websites, and one I'd like to start giving back to after all these years.

Yours respectfully, Froszthamr (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It hurts my eyes...

I like the index bar but must it be such a garish color?

Andy 07:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Mythical creatures list

Saw over at the Chinese mythology there's a mythical creatures subsection. would be nice if there was such a list for Japanese mythology as well. --69.214.226.102 00:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Your wish is my command, milord 69.214.226.102. Unfortunately, it is woefully short and incomplete. It is far too big a task for myself alone to create such an august list. elvenscout742 14:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

GAH! Some folk seem to have been repeating my mistakes of old and modernised the spellings of certain names. This needs to be changed back. elvenscout742 21:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I can see where 172.138.217.222 was coming from, trying to make it more neutral, but I'm almost 100% certain that the perception IS false. I'm changing it back. elvenscout742 22:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TODO: Fix the English. There's a lot to fix indeed. Cymydog Naakka 11:06, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm working on cleaning up the english. Since I don't know much about Japanese mythology, you might want to make sure I don't change the meaning. 68.184.12.19 20:01, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if these comments seem overly critical - just trying to make sure we're on the same page.

Anyone else think this article is too short?

Bearing in mind the length of some articles, and the sheer complexity of Japanese mythology, does anyone else think this article needs a lot added to it to make it fulfill its purpose? Perhaps something about Yamato-Takeru factored in? I think it's fair to call him mythological... elvenscout742 22:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With respect, I personally think it's not too short for a Start-Class article. A lot of articles are somewhat short at first. Considering it's now 2017 and I'm replying to a comment made over a decade ago, it should probably be longer, but what I'm trying to say is that at least IMO a Wikipedia article is like a living being. It starts out as an imperfect, ignorant and passive infant (i.e., a simple, start-class article with basic info) and over time grows into an adult, learning everything it needs to survive (like a Wikipedia article that is edited and expanded, revised and perfected over time). It's just an opinion, though. =) Froszthamr (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

...for I must admit that I myself am none other than 213.94.237.169, and I have now at last attoned for my crimes. I have undone all the destruction that I had previously caused to this article by modernizing all the spellings in it from the bottom up without reading the article through. elvenscout742 19:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Susanowo"?

I've never seen "Susanowo" as a Romanization of this -- rather, "Susano'o", "Susano-o", or some variant thereof (not using "wo") conform to Hepburn and Kunrei Romanization. Even the Japanese article on Susano-o uses the Romanization I mentioned as preferred. Can someone point to a source where the "Susanowo" Romanization is preferred? If not, we should probably use the standard transliteration. --armage 17:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, User:DTOx has fixed all of them, but it is common practice in English to use the more archaic spellings of Japanese gods and stuff, and this article does it abundance. If you look at the Japanese page, it has the old spelling in parentheses, and it redirects from that spelling, too. elvenscout742 14:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I am currently reading a book on Japanese mythology in english and nowhere in the book is the roman version used susanowo, this should not be used and to keep from confusing the reader we should use traditional spelling.-Tik

The oldest form of translating Japanese to English involved placing a "w" between "o-o". It's not incorrect, but certainly outdated.

Creation of the World

There doesn't seem to be any english word that exactly replaces "happened". The best I could come up with was "appeared". Might help if I knew whether the first gods were born/created there, or if that was just their first appearence and they had existed for some time.

I think "appeared" is the best term. Ancient Japanese believed that things (=deities) would appear out of nowhere without someone or something influencing them almost like lifting a veil that hid them. In Kojiki, death is also called "sugatakakusi", literally meaning hiding their forms. Revth 06:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by "two and five pairs"? Is that a total of seven (7) pairs, making a total of fourteen (24) gods, or a total of twelve (12) gods?

It's 2 deities plus 5 pair of deities meaning twelve.Revth 06:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm assuming you used "mysteriously" because Izanagi and Izanami first appeared on the earth instead of in heaven.

I'm not sure where this came from but they first existed in heaven. Remember that they made the ground.Revth 06:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Was the bridge they were standing on "a" bridge or "the" bridge? "a" would imply that there might have been several such bridges. "the" would imply that it was the only bridge between heaven and earth, and would also tend to imply that the bridge exists to this day, unless it was destroyed.

It should be "the" as it is the only bridge that god could come down with and it is not "destroyed" or "exist" in a sense. This is a floating bridge that could be moved around at will. This is not proven to satisfaction anywhere but this "bridge" is believed to be a rainbow. A half rainbow stretching from a cloud to the ground looks like a bridge yet no one can find where it lands.Revth 06:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Was the first two, badly created, children of Izanagi and Izanami gods or islands? Or both?

Neither. As it is not stated that they were destroyed, they probably stil exist somewhere.Revth 06:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Dozen" means exactly twelve (12). Might replace with "many" or "about a dozen".

Was Kagututi a daughter or a son?

I think Kagututi is a son as a god with a destructive power is usually associated with a male. Revth 06:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Was Kagututi "an" incarnation of fire, or "the" incarnation of fire?

I believe it should be "the" as he is the only fire god in Kojiki. But Japanese language has no article and that even a minor difference is enough to make another god exist, it could be "an" too. Revth 06:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"The detested Izanagi" would mean that he was generally hated by everyone. I don't think that's what you mean, but I'll leave it alone since I don't know what you do mean.

I would put something like this, but I don't know what gender Kagututi is: "Kagututi was killed by his/her father, the detested Izanagi."

Might want to provide a link to a list of Izanagi and Izanami's children.

"Awashima (island of bubbles)" I checked the japanese article, "Awashima" comes from 淡島（淡い島, "pale island"), not 泡島. I corrected this. Komuta 14:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yomi

What do you mean by "he flew back"?

Iwayado

By ornament chain, do you mean necklace or braclet perhaps? Maybe we should use the orginal Japanese word and explain what it means in paranthesis.

"Getting gentle females acquitted Sasanowo." How did this feat clear him? What were the orginal rules of the contest?

Is this what created the cycle of night and day?

No. This is believed to be a mythological recounting of a solar eclipse. Revth 13:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Eight-pronged Dragon

Was Sasanowo kicked out of heaven, or did he leave of his own free will?

Did he make the sword out of the tail of the dragon, or did he find one there?

He had tried to cut the tail but his sword struck something and that turned out to be a sword. Revth 13:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Prosperity and eternity

I'm assuming their love was mutual.

"Sakuya conceived by a night" I'm not sure what that means. "Within in a night, Sakuya was pregnant, causing Ninigi to doubt her." Perhaps? Or "A night later, Sakuya gave birth to three children, causing..."

So, since she took a gamble and it paid off, it proved her luck still held. Since she had sworn by her luck, this proved that she had told the truth?

Ebb and Flow

"[She] entrusted her yearning to her sister." Does that mean she told her sister about her love, or asked her sister to look after her husband?

"Wani" in current Japanese means an alligator but until recently, it meant a shark. It's fixed. Revth 13:38, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Major Edits by Student Wikipedian

I felt that some of the myths included in the article are more summaries of the myths than information about the myths that fit in an encyclopedia entry. They also lacked proper citations. I am documenting this in case I learn more about the subject and want to re-write the section in a more appropriate way. I deleted the following sections from the article: Ōkuninushi helps the white hare, Princess Suseri, Jimmu's conquest of the east, Izanagi in the underworld, Amaterasu and Susanoo, Susanoo and Orochi, Prince Ōkuninushi, Ninigi's descent to the Middle World, Ninigi's marriage, Luck of the Sea and Luck of the Mountains.

Additionally, after making major edits I read a scathing review of a book I used frequently for a reference, so I will cross-reference material and double check details for accuracy. Accuracy is nearly impossible since I can't rely on a primary source, and secondary sources vary wildly due to translation choices, compilation choices, idiosyncrasies of the writers, and the colonial-settler gaze. I will double check the way I wrote details of myths to make sure they are not so vague that they become inaccurate. I will also check tone to make sure there is a seperation of mythology and religion, and address directly the issue that some Japanese myths are also tied to still-practiced Shinto religion. Most of the review of the book that was negative was cirtiquing the book for using buddhist imagery that had nothing to do with the pages on the book and spending too much time on topics unrelated to mythology, so, I'm not too concerned about inaccuracies since most of the book's mistakes were in captions of photos. -- Pisces Unicorn (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible typo

> After spending so much time in Yomi, Izanami cleansed himself with a purification ceremony.[10] As Izanami cleansed himself, the water and robes that fell from his body created many more gods.

Shouldn't this say Izanagi? He was the male diety who managed to escape Yomi + following sentences

> Amaterasu, the Sun goddess and divine ancestor of the first Emperor Jimmu, was born from Izanagi's eye.[1] The Moon god and Susanoo the storm god were born at the same time as Amaterasu, when Izanagi washed his face

And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaterasu > All three deities were born from Izanagi when he was purifying himself upon entering Yomi, the underworld, after breaking the promise not to see dead Izanami and he was chased by her and Yakusan-no-ikaduchigami (八雷神), surrounding rotten Izanami. Amaterasu was born when Izanagi washed out his left eye, Tsukuyomi was born from the washing of the right eye, and Susanoo from the washing of the nose.

Or maybe I misunderstood something

Thanks for catching that typo, it appears someone corrected it already.

Pisces Unicorn (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)