Talk:Prince Shōtoku

message: I removed the following addition from an anonymous user as it is terrible English and made no sense to me:
:The name of Shōtoku Taishi is considered it is called in posterity, and Japanese school textbook adopts the name Prince Umayado (厩戸皇子) together or insteadWikipedia Japanese site, and Asahi Shinbun paper[] reports  Teikoku-shoin, Nihon-shoseki-shinsha and other publishing firms use the name together. in modern days.
If someone wants to decipher this and re-add it (assuming it's worthwhile), please go ahead.
-Amake 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is very famous in Japan today. As the link, school text book is using the name Prince Umayado(厩戸皇子) instead. And also historical TV programns air this fact/change in Japan very often. I am Japanese and live in Japan now. The Japanese page of this article also describe this. --220.111.68.99 05:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's great, but the problem is that the English is so bad as to be meaningless.  I'm removing the sentence.  -Amake (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification please 

message: "According to `Japan The Nation of the Cross`, published by Tokuma Shoten there is a widely held view that in fact Prince Shotoku was a Christian immigrant from the Mainland who strongly fought against the secularized buddhist system."  Or maybe he's a space alien or one of the reptilian overlords. There's also a link to a Japanese christian website at the bottom of the page. Who puts this stuff in here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.200.20 (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian? 

message: "Japan still paid tribute (朝貢) to China" is true. 
"Japan still paid tribute (朝貢) to Korea" is a lie.
--Eichikiyama (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The truth and lie

message: I think in the article where it says "Ōyama seiichi argued Prince Shōtoku was not a historical person at all" the next sentence: "Many other historians dispute this claim" is a little ambiguous as to what they're disputing, are the historians disputing the claim that Prince Shōtoku was a historical person or the calim by Ōyama that he was not? I feel that this could be rephrased to be less ambiguous. It might be possible to just add te word "also" after the word "dispute" of either replace "this" with "Ōyama's" to make the sentence easier to understand. I Feel Tired (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rephrasing

message: I think this article is too short, especially when compared with other articles on Japanese historical figures.  It is true that Shotoku may not have in fact done all the things that are attributed to him.  But he and his life came to represent something much bigger and important in Japanese history:  the triumph of Buddhism, central government, and political organization along Chinese lines.  All that Buddhism later came to be in the Japanese political realm (the religion of the samurai, the warrior monks, etc), had its start in the movement represented by the life of Shotoku.  Prince Shotoku stands large in Japanese history.  --Westwind273 (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Enhancement

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prince Shōtoku. 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/20100916074029/http://www.khyentsefoundation.org/patronkingsVIII.html to http://www.khyentsefoundation.org/patronkingsVIII.html
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) 02:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified