Talk:Kōryū-ji

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

Wrongful deletion[edit]

The following text with in-line citations and an accompanying reference note template was improvidently deleted. The following bibliographic source notes were improvidently deleted as well:

  • (cur) (last) 07:03, 10 December 2007 User:Bueller 007 (Talk | contribs) m (866 bytes) (removing irrelevant history. something like "it was here that prince nakanooe shaved his head in 645" might be passable, but a whole mostly irrelevant section is certainly not needed) (undo)
__________________
In 645 -- in the 4rd year of Kōgyoku-tennō's reign ((皇極天皇4年), on the 14th day of the 6th month, the empress announced her intention to abdicate in favor of her younger brother, Karu-shinnō; but he adamently refused to accept the succession (‘‘senso’’).<.ref>Aston, William. (2005). Nihongi, p. 195-196; Brown, Delmer et al. (1979). Gukanshō, p. 266; Varley, H. Paul. Jinnō Shōtōki. p. 44. [A distinct act of senso is unrecognized prior to Emperor Tenji; and all sovereigns except Jitō, Yōzei, Go-Toba, and Fushimi have senso and sokui in the same year until the reign of Go-Murakami.]<./ref> Karu-shinnō persisted in arguing that the throne should go to Prince Prince Naka no Ōe; and then, surprisingly, Naka-no Ōe resolved the impasse by declaring his intention to renounce any claim to the throne by becoming a Buddhist monk. That same day, Naka-no Ōe shaved off his hair at Hōkō-ji in the open air between the Hall of Buddha and the pagoda.<.ref>Aston, William. (2005). Nihongi, p. 195-196.<./ref>
--References--
{{reflist|2}}
  • Aston, William G. (2005). Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A.D. 697. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company. ISBN 0-804-83674-4
  • Brown, Delmer M. and Ichirō Ishida, eds. (1979). [ Jien (1221)], Gukanshō (The Future and the Past, a translation and study of the Gukanshō, an interpretative history of Japan written in 1219). Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-03460-0
  • Varley, H. Paul , ed. (1980). [ Kitabatake Chikafusa (1359)], Jinnō Shōtōki ("A Chronicle of Gods and Sovereigns: Jinnō Shōtōki of Kitabatake Chikafusa" translated by H. Paul Varley). New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04940-4

In this unusual context, it is worth noting that there are those earnest editors whose primary contributions to Wikipedia have to do with placing tags on articles which have no bibliographic references, no in-line citations, etc. It is difficult to see how this article was somehow enhanced -- how the quality and value of Wikipedia was somehow improved -- by deleting this material and relevant data in what is, at this point, a mere stub article.

No -- this text and these references did not merit summary deletion. I am persuaded that Bueller 007's problem has less to do with the substance of this minor edit and more to do with me -- with the simple fact that it was me who posted it. If so, that's a different matter entirely, isn't it? In that case, any further efforts invested in responding to criticism about "breaking the flow" of the prose become an evanescent exercise. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bueller 007 has over-reached. His unwelcome "contributions" have been tolerated too long -- no more.

Third opinion I agree with Ooperhoofd in that the story belongs here. Simply saying that this is where someone shaved his head is not enough - you need to say why it was done and, since the reasons were directly related to the inheritance of the imperial throne, the event is worth mentioning in detail. The text needs a little rewording to improve flow and to help make its signifigance clear to the reader. I can help out with that if you like. - 52 Pickup (deal) 07:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrongful deletion" ??[edit]

1) The events in question took place at 法興寺, NOT 蜂岡寺. Both archaic temple names with the same reading ("Hōkō-ji"). Both completely different temples. The former is Asuka-dera. The latter is Kōryū-ji. Spending just three seconds reading the Japanese Wikipedia article[1] about the incident, or doing a Google search[2] could have confirmed this.
2) It's not really hard to get your head around the fact that information about *the incident* belongs in the article about *the incident*. Duplicating it all leads to redundancy and inconsistency. Bueller 007 (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever good which might have attended a discussion here is best held in abeyance pending whatever develops from inquiries at WP:WQA. In this context, I take some comfort in learning from HelloAnnyong that, at the higher levels of dispute resolution, both users come under scrutiny. I'm quite confident that my entire editing history can withstand close scrutiny. I can't see how User:Bueller 007 can feel similarly at ease with the prospect of a too-revealing examination. --Tenmei (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Bueller: A wiki article and that web address are not considered as reliable as published works.
@Temmei: Please recheck your sources to make sure that there is no misunderstanding regarding which temple we're talking about here. - 52 Pickup (deal) 11:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kōryū-ji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]