Talk:Minamoto no Sanetomo

Assassination

Was he assassinated by the nephew, or at the behest of the nephew? It's not clear which one. --maru (talk) Contribs 02:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Nihon Ōdai Ichiran, the assassin's sword which struck down Sanetomo was wielded by Minamoto no Kokio, the son of Minamoto no Yoriie:<:ref>Murray, David. (1906). Japan (Revised edition: Continuing the History to the Close of 1905, with the Provisions of the Portsmouth Treaty btween Russia and Japan), p. 504.</ref>

After having finished his prayers, he was attacked while descending the stairs of the temple. His attacker was Kokio, one of the sons of Yoriie, who was disguised as a woman. He drew his sword, crying out: "Enemy of my father ...." [Après avoir fini ses prières, il fut attaqué en descendant de l'escalier du temple, par Kokio, un des fils de Yoriye, déguisé en femme, qui tira son sabre en s'écriant: <<Ennemi de mon père ....>>]<:ref>Titsingh, Issac. (1834) Annales des empereurs du Japon, p. 235.</ref>

Sanetomo was killed by his nephew's sword. --Tenmei (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Romanization of name and specific date of event

-- This thread copied from User talk:Tenmei#Minamoto no Sanetomo's murderer.

Hi, Tenmei. I have read Minamoto no Sanetomo's article and saw that you changed Sanetomo's murderer's name from Kugyō to Kokio. Are you sure Murray is right? Every single source I consulted, in Japanese and English, gives the name as Kugyō, and not Kokio, and that's what I used in the Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gu's article. The date of the event also does not correspond to the one I found in other sources. which again agree. I am not a specialist when it comes to dating Japanese historical events, and know it's tricky business, so I don't want to press this last point to hard, but I think we should solve these glaring inconsistencies one way or the other between the two articles. urashimataro (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the question; but I'm just re-confirming what you already know intuitively.

Naming. Deciding how to deal with the matter at hand is not hard -- you say "Kugyō" is preferred usage today, and the Wikipedia needs to reflect that scholarly consensus. What can I do but agree? However, we need to bear in mind the first sentence of text at WP:V:

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

This means that as long as "Kokio" is the name mentioned in the only sources cited in the article, then in wiki-logic, "Kokio" is assumed to be correct until a credible source can be found which "publishes" a different orthography. As you will know, the Kamakura Today website identifies the assassin as "Kugyō;" and, I have edited the page accordingly.

In 1906 when Murray was first published, there were not yet a sufficient number of non-Japanese sources for uniformity in romanizations to become an issue. As you know, since 1906 there have been several attempts to standardize official romanizations in order to respond to perceived problems in the Hepburn system. The Rōmaji used by Titsingh's posthumous editors is often inconsistent with the current consensus orthography. I consider it merely curious, but not determinative, that both Titsingh and Murray have used the "Kokio" romanization in identifying Santeomo's assassin.

I'm sure I copied the data correctly in citations attributed to Murray; and I trust that Murray and his publishers were as accurate as they could have been; however, I would often -- not always, but usually -- construe romanizations in an early 19th century source as less solid than what is to be found in a review of more contemporary, credible sources like Kamakura Today.

On this issue of romanizations, I would have thought it one of the relatively few issues in which you serve Wikipedia's broader goals by pressing for the modern consensus spelling (with appropriate redirect pages). Modern search engines rely on orthographic specificity.

Dating.:For me, the dates represent a similar challenge; and I adopt much the same strategy in resolving discrepancies; however, I view dates as sometimes better served by a kind of fuzzy logic -- not either/or, black/white ... but plausibly nuanced. For example, Titsingh records that Sanetomo was assassinated on "the 26th day of the 1st month of the 1st year of Jōkyū (1219)"; and the Tsuchihashi converter provided on-line by the University of Tübingen leads me to believe that this Gregorian date would have been Tuesday, February 12, 1219. Brinkley's 1915 account of Sanetomo's death is in accord with Titsingh's facts; and Ponsonby-Fane is in accord with that Jōkyū 1 date. In this instance, if modern sources disagree with this date, by all means change what would seem to be "incorrect" in the current text. Simply append a credible citation which supports the more commonly published date -- for example, Jeffry Mass places the assassination on January 27, 1219. I don't know how best to resolve the differences amongst these credible sources. My guess would be to go with Ponsonby-Fane, but you may choose to believe that Mass has more likely gotten it right, particularly given that this accords with the article about Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gu .... Without more, these are only a reasonable guesses. The more interesting question is why? Why is there a discrepancy? I myself don't know, but I am curious.

It seems like a sufficiently important point that I'd want to make sure to be as clear as possible. This isn't one of those right/wrong dichotomies; rather, it's a conflict between "correct, but out-of-date" vs. "more correct, and accepted-by-contemporary-scholars" ....

Emperor Jimmu became the object of national commemoration in February 1940.

I do know just one FACT absolutely, without any doubt whatsoever: If I had been walking in the streets of Kamakura on February 11, 1940, and if anyone asked me when Emperor Jimmu ascended the throne, I would have answered immediately without any hesitation -- February 11, 660 BCE. Do you see my point?

This is only my modest opinion; but I would hope that this helps by simply confirming what you had already decided? --Tenmei (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)