Talk:Kamakura

message: Hi Urashimataro, 
Thanks for adding the section on the Hojo Regency, but I don't think it's right for this article. The section discusses national politics, but this is an article on the city. It's not about the city; it's about events that happened elsewhere while Kamakura was the military capital.  
I'd suggest moving it to another article. Wikipedia already has an article on the Kamakura period and another on the Kamakura shogunate. It would strengthen either, particularly the latter. (There's also Jōkyū War; you've got a red link to Jōkyū Disturbance.) You can also probably remove the link to a specific torii; very few torii deserve articles. 
Best regards, Fg2 (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hojo Regency 

message: Hi, Fg2. 
This was the last historical section I was planning for Kamakura specifically for the reasons you quote, but I honestly thought the Regency period was relevant enough to justify its inclusion, if nothing else because Kamakura was the de facto capital and the place where the Nitta Yoshisada events took place. I propose a compromise. We move the article as you said, and I resize it in this page refocusing it on Nitta Yoshisada. About Ichi no Torii, it has an interesting history that I thought was worth a page, and I was hoping to make more people aware it's actually there and it wasn't made in the fifties. If you don't mind, I would like to leave the link there. -- 220.148.197.172 (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To Fg2: Made the modifications I suggested. See if they are OK to you. Cheers -- 220.148.197.172 (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be honing in on the city now. Many thanks Fg2 (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized I left the last two comments without logging in. My apologies. -- Urashimataro (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitta Yoshisada 

message: Hi, FG2.
I just bought the official textbook for the Kamakura Knowledge Test (Kamakura Ranko Bunka Kentei, published by the Kamakura Trade and Industry association),  and found that's where most of the material I got from different sites comes from. Do you think it's worth changing the references to improve the perceived reliability of the page? I am willing to do it, but I wonder if it isn't better to have more sources of info, rather than a single one. I could add, rather than replace, but that would be messy.
Urashimataro (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, that's a bit outside my area of expertise. I'd say the Wikipedia community values print sources more than online ones. And the sources of other sources are more authoritative. Maybe that's more important than numbers? But if the same information is available both in print and on line, double citation serves a useful function: people can look it up via the Internet, and know that there's a print source to back it up. So if there's a way to add to the present sources without making it too messy it seems both reliable and convenient. But my opinion is not strong. Some people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan might have more insight. Thanks, Urashimataro, for really beefing up this article! Fg2 (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. I will double-reference all I can. It will make further editing a little harder, but I think it will be worth it. The more I think about it, the more I believe that double-referencing is the way to go. The textbook is in Japanese, useless to most people. Knowing however that the info in English has been checked against a reliable Japanese source will be very useful. This of course assumes that I am a honest man  ... -- Urashimataro (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion requested 

message: I have been preparing a section about Festivals in Kamakura and, to limit their number, I decided to describe only those chosen by the city of Kamakura for their site. Even so it becomes easily the longest section of the article. Do you think it's OK?
Second opinion request
I also was thinking of writing a shortsection about Nichiren, explaining that Kamakura was the cradle of the Nichiren Buddhist sect. Kamakura is rich of places important to the sect. Do you think it would be appropriate?
Urashimataro (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please.  Be BOLD.  The subjects you propose to expand are relevant and interesting.  I look forward to learning more. --Tenmei (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with you and Tenmei that the subjects are relevant and interesting; however, I'd place the material in different locations within the Wikipedia project. Festivals: if this section would become the longest in the article, it sounds like a perfect opportunity to spin the material off into a daughter article. In the article on the city, a few sentences can summarize the information, and the "main" template can lead readers to the separate article. Regarding Nichiren, my opinion is that information on Nichiren belongs in the article Nichiren. The article on Kamakura should have little more than a phrase or a sentence to introduce him, apart from material directly relevant to the city (events that took place within the geographic area of the present-day city, locations etc.). Fg2 (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: What about trying something like this: Why not check out Chūshingura#The Historic Events -- and then use copy-and-paste to create a link which is similar to the Main article: Forty-seven Ronin?  Also, you may want to note Forty-seven Ronin#The Forty-Seven Ronin in the Arts where an elegantly contrived back-link is presented as well -- Main article: Chūshingura.  I hope this helps move things along. --Tenmei (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Guess we're thinking along the same lines. Kamakura certainly has places connected to Nichiren, and the article should include a discussion. You can see the  template in lots of articles. Now that you know what it is, you'll suddenly start noticing it everywhere. Tenmei has given good examples, and you can also see helpful advice at Wikipedia:Summary style including Wikipedia:Summary style#Levels of desired details. Best Fg2 (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two opinions requested 

message: A brief mention of "mouths" is not irrelevant as a conventional description of Kamakura's Seven Entrances. I'm not saying that the term is superior --  rather, I'm persuaded that it is a necessary appositive.  The term "mouth" is not so important that it needs to be mentioned more than once -- briefly; but just one terse reference in passing to the word "mouth" remains so suggestive that, in my view, the article's value would be significantly diminished if the term "mouth" were excluded.  This anthropomorphic term is sufficiently peculiar and specific that it deserves to be retained.
 
I can't immediately come up with a Kyoto-related citation to bolster my argument in favor of this very modest edit; but I do remember taking note of the term in more than one 19th century source.  Given the amount of attention I've devoted in the past year to Titsingh's Nihon Ōdai Ichiran, it's more than likely that I'm remembering something from that French translation, but I'm somehow almost remembering that I've encountered this usage in more than one other non-English source as well ....
::See User talk:Urashimataro#Kamakura's Seven Mouths ....
I do note that this anthropomorphism is mentioned in passing in Seidensticker's Tokyo Rising: 
:Shinjuku was one of the "mouths," the last of the old post stations on the way into and the first on the way out of Edo.<:ref>Seidensticker, Edward. (1990). Low City, High City: Tokyo from Edo to the Earthquake: How the Shogun's Ancient Capital Became a Great Modern City, 1867-1923, p.51.</ref>
I would hope that this is sufficiently persuasive to convince anyone that this one word -- "mouth" -- needs to be retained in the context of this article on Kamakura. If not, we can re-visit this minor issue when I've re-discovered one or more Kyoto-related citations in which the same term is to be found.--Tenmei (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Urban "Mouths" as a useful term of art

message: There are 83 steles in Kamakura, all erected almost a century ago in important historical sites. Their text is always interesting and I have already translated several, including their content in appropriate articles (see for example Inamuragasaki. They can all be found [here]. I would like to translate them all so that their text would be widely available, but I can't dream up a good way to do it and an appropriate article title. Any ideas would be welcome.
urashimataro (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could put them on Wikisource, with links here. --Amble (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion requested 

message: This is draft text, the proposed beginning of an new section:
:On November 14, 2009, President Obama specifically acknowledged his childhood memories of visiting Kamakura by mentioning it in a speech at Suntory Hall in Tokyo.<:ref>"Obama revisits Kamakura's Great Buddha," Japan Times. November 15, 2010; "Remarks by President Barack Obama at Suntory Hall," November 14, 2009; excerpt, "Some of you may be aware that when I was a young boy, my mother brought me to Kamakura, where I looked up at that centuries-old symbol of peace and tranquility -- the great bronze Amida Buddha.  And as a child, I was more focused on the matcha ice cream.  (Laughter.)"; retrieved 2011-06-13</ref>
Although trivia is generally disfavoured, is it possible that a small number of such anecdotes about Kamakura could be an arguably meaningful enhancement? --Tenmei (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: In popular culture

message: The statement says in effect that "Kamakura was considered to have been the defacto Capital of Japan, but this was never the case. Recent research refutes it." Actually, one source alone is stated, which stands against the full weight of historical opinion, which considers Kamakura to have been the capital, from 1192-1333. It isn't acceptable to have such a contentious assertion in the introduction, and it invalidates the whole Wikipedia article on Kamakura. Thankyou.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.182.244.246 (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ----I suspect the statement in the introduction about Kamakura never being the Capital is not neutral---- 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kamakura. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014735/http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/geschichte-japans/nengo_calc.htm to http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/geschichte-japans/nengo_calc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029114949/http://nice.fr/Collectivites/La-municipalite/Villes-jumelees-avec-la-Ville-de-Nice to http://www.nice.fr/Collectivites/La-municipalite/Villes-jumelees-avec-la-Ville-de-Nice
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kamakura. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080402021608/http://www.city.kamakura.kanagawa.jp/foreign01_english/1_1_outline.html to http://www.city.kamakura.kanagawa.jp/foreign01_english/1_1_outline.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612232436/http://guide.city.kamakura.kanagawa.jp/matsuri/matsuri_index.htm to http://guide.city.kamakura.kanagawa.jp/matsuri/matsuri_index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified