Talk:Fujiwara clan

Note: I've changed the Talk page so that we more clearly delineate the various topics and it uses a more common format. --JLBadgley 16:10, 27 November 2007 (PST)

Standardization of names

Why is no one listed with the "no" that is generally seen as standard in names of this period? e.g. Minamoto no Tokiwa, Fujiwara no Kamatari, Sugawara no Michizane. --LordAmeth 18:09, 26 November 2007 (PST)

Frankly, I didn't use "no" because the primary source that I'm currently referencing isn't using it. We should clarify whether it should be used or not. Of course, my primary source(s) contains 'interpretations' of Japanese scholarly essays, so how the interpreter chose to translate (e.g. I sometimes see 'Nobuko' and sometimes see 'Junshi' depending on where it is) has a lot to do with it. Also, I'm fuzzy on when to and not to use 'no'. We could use it for everyone pre-Kamakura, but since it is usually added in as an afterthought anyways, I don't know where we'd stop. Most Japanese texts I've seen have 'Sugawara Michizane' in kanji and gloss it with furigana as 'Sugawara no Michizane'. --JLBadgley 04:58, 27 November 2007 (PST)

I've been thinking about it--I think there was something in the forums about this a while back, but the main article probably should not have 'no' in it. That way, we can be standardized across the board. The 'no' can be a separate redirect if it is used enough, but I think we should probably leave it out unless there is a really good reason to use it. To look at it another way--if someone sees a name in Japanese and doesn't know anything about it, they will look it up without the 'no'. It is easy enough for someone with a 'no' name to simply delete it out on their search. --JLBadgley 16:10, 27 November 2007 (PST)

The problem I see with not using "no" is that pre-Kamakura history books *do* include "no". When I first read Capital and Countryside, I felt so awkward not seeing the "no" in names in which I had been seeing it in multiple books before. If it were me, I would do "no" where it is already standardized (Heian and before), and write a resource page on the issue. I've got 7 days left before I leave the University -- I'll ask some kanbun and history professors. Nagaeyari 11:22, 9 December 2007 (PST)

We should probably take this to the SA Forum discussion here: [1] JLBadgley 12:18, 9 December 2007 (PST)

Ako Affair

You mention the Ako Affair, which I have always seen as referring to the Chushingura (the 47 Ronin story) - Google "Ako Affair" and you'll see. Was this Fujiwara-related event also called the Ako affair, or is there a mixup somewhere? --LordAmeth 18:09, 26 November 2007 (PST)

The Ako affair is a separate one. In this case 'Ako' means 'Superior Counselor' or something similar (I need to look it up to see exactly what). It is the title that was suggested for Mototsune by another official to answer his complaint, but Mototsune really wanted the 'Kanpaku' (And should that be 'Kampaku'?) --JLBadgley 04:58, 27 November 2007 (PST)

I changed it to the 'Ako Incident' and explained it a bit. Still 'incident' and 'affair' are close enough to need a disambig if we ever link 'Ako Incident' to something (imho). I guess the question is whether it is important enough to write an article on--I'd say it is rather minor considering everything else we should get done (we do have the entire history of Japan to cover up until modern times). --JLBadgley 16:10, 27 November 2007 (PST)

Standardization of Titles

Should we stick to using terms such as "Prime Minister" which are only rough translations, or should we call the offices by their actual names? --LordAmeth 18:09, 26 November 2007 (PST)

I would also like clarification on using terms such as 'Prime Minister' vice 'Dajodaijin'. In this case, I think it is apt--Dajodaijin is the prime minister, in that he is the first of the ministers of state. The next three are the Sadaijin, Udaijin, and the rarely seen Chudaijin (I think that is it... I don't have all my books with me to look it up). I've been using the articles I have as a guide (though I've been foregoing their tendency to use 'Great King' instead of 'Emperor' (or they will use 'Tenno' by itself). Also, they occassionally use titles for a person who has the de facto powers but isn't actually in that postion. --JLBadgley 04:58, 27 November 2007 (PST)

If possible, it would be best to use the Japanese terms, though, since those could be linked to descriptive articles themselves. --Kitsuno 12:06, 27 November 2007 (PST)

Should we capitalize titles? Also, should we try to include it in the Japanese name (e.g. Fujiwara no Udaijin Fuyutsugu) or should we just leave it as 'the Udaijin, Fujiwara Fuyutsugu'? Or does it really matter? Frankly, I find the latter easier to deal with when linking because you can link the name without something in the middle of it. --JLBadgley 16:10, 27 November 2007 (PST)

[[Fujiwara Fuyutsugu|Fujiwara no Udaijin Fuyutsugu]] is fine, or the other way with both links - whatever works for the article. And I guess titles should be capitalized. The article the link points to would be capitalized no matter what, since the first word of an article title is automatically capitalized. The problems we have is that second words onward can be both, which screws up links. --Kitsuno 21:59, 27 November 2007 (PST)