Talk:Ise Grand Shrine

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move the page to "Ise Grand Shrine", per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 13:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ise Jingu → Ise Shrine —

• Ise Jingu → Ise Shrine — The reason I am requesting this move is a bit strange. Somehow, User:Takashi Ueki solicited the help of administrator User:Shii to complete a highly controversial move without either of them consulting anyone else, the appropriate wikiproject or placing it in the controversial move section of this page. Now there are discussions here, Talk:Ise Jingu#Article Name Change and here with people fighting to get the name changed back. I request that this page be renamed to Ise Shrine and the appropriate channels are followed to get it changed to the Ise Jingu. The process is happening in reverse now. — --Torsodog^Talk 13:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why was this article's name changed from Ise Shrine to Ise Jingu without any discussion here? Yes, the shrine's name in Japanese is Ise Jingu, but it is known in English as Ise Shrine (or Ise Grand Shrine), and this is the English version of Wikipedia. The article is now inconsistent, as the shrine is still referred to as Ise Shrine throughout the article. It should either be changed completely, or not at all. My opinion leans toward leaving the article title with its English name (that is, reverting the article back to its original name). What do other people think? Ka-ru (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ise Jingu is a formal name. It is not called Ise Shrine. The -jingu that is usually attached to another shrine in this case is a formal title due to the shrines status. There has been lots of discussion, you have missed it. It may be formally called also just "Jingu" due to it being the highest status shrine in Japan. Translating the word Jingu into english is not an option, it is called "Ise Jingu". There are lots of Ise Shrines, and this is not not one of them, it is the head of them. The main argument that the suffix should not be removed from a head shrine is that frequently there are branch shrines and they are not all the same. The suffix denotes the head shrine vs the branch shrines. The western naming convention is translationally innacurate. There are significant differences between -tiasha (which is used alone means Izumo Taisha), -jingu (imperial Shrines), -jinja (Jinja Honcho associated shrines), and others. The head of all the Shrines is "Ise Jingu" not Ise shrine. The Vatican is capitalized for a reason. This shrine does not have an English Name - see [Jingu English Site]. As you can see - it is called "Isejingu" or "Ise Jingu" but never Ise Shrine. Takashi Ueki (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

It would help the discussion if you pointed us in the direction of the "lots of discussion you have missed", as you would think that discussion would have taken place here before the changes were made. The English name is "Ise Shrine" with a capital "S" for shrine (as in "The main shrine in Ise"), not "Ise shrine" with a little "s" meaning one of possibly many shrines in Ise, so that part of your argument is inaccurate. The main argument comes down to whether "Ise Shrine" is the main name in English, or "Ise Jingu". Yes, I know in Japanese it is often called just "Jingu", and I know the homepage of the shrine says "jingu", but there is also plenty of evidence of "Ise Shrine" being used as the accepted English name. Having lived in Ise for 4 years myself, I can tell you that both names are used there in an English context. As has been mentioned above, "Ise Shrine" outranks "Ise Jingu" in usage in Google. Also, using my university academic databases, I found that the term "Ise Shrine" outnumbers "Ise Jingu" 4 to 1 in recorded English sources.

Taking all of this into account, there seems to have been no reason to change the name of this article without first holding a discussion here and reaching consensus. Until consensus is reached, the article should remain with the original name, "Ise Shrine", which it has had for over 5 now (since the article was created). If we do later agree on a change, every other article that mentions Ise Shrine will also have to be changed. Ka-ru (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting kind of frustrated with all the moves User:Takashi Ueki is making without consulting anyone. Please, talk about your moves before you make them. There are others on Wikipedia that have other opinions on the matter. Also, a discussion on this move is being discussed here as well. --Torsodog^Talk 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for forcing the inertia of WP. But as we all know, no changes are made without disturbance. I have plastered my intensions all over my site, and all the main articles that I work on. I have recruited several experts in Shinto/Japanese language, including a Shinto high preist (Guji), and a Japanese linguist/translator. We have been working very hard to get the entire Shinto project up to even a basic accuracy standard. I do not see the need to poll everybodys opinion every time a change is made as nothing would get done. Point taken that there are some who are invested in their opinion and discussion should be had, however it should not stand in the way of progress and accuracy. My apologies if anyone was offended. If you want to discuss changes with me, I have a talk place like everyone else. I will cite all of my work as work progresses, as all the citation notes make for difficult editing/viewing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takashi Ueki (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

• The method to resolve this sort of dispute should be through establishing verifiable, reliable sources. if the intent of this movereq is to simply generate a straw poll of opinions, please note the Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion guideline. Since proper translation is really an expert linguistics issue (actual wars have been faught over mis-translations, after all), the personal opinions of editors (which most certainly include my own!) are even less relevant then usual. issues of past bahavior should be left behind as well, especially since a change could be made down the road regardless of what has already occured (see also: Wikipedia:There is no deadline)
  — V = I * R (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Do remember that there is an exception in the WP convention on temple and shrine naming that allows for a formal name when distinguishing between shrines. This change is based on that convention. Ise Jingu is different than every other Ise branch shrine and ther are about 2000 of them. The head shrine is meant to be named formally where every other branch shrine can be called Ise Shrine. The convention then states to make a disambiguation page to clear up the matter. This looks appropriate to me. If everyone would be happier calling it Ise Grand Shrine that is fine as well, but it as all other head shrines need to be differentiated from their branches which all go by the same name. Takashi Ueki (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This appears to be false. I quote from the convention However, write the English word "Shrine" in place of jinja (神社), jingū (神宮) and myōjin (明神). I await an explanation which is not discreditable. In the meantime, I am going to ignore this discussion until someone other than the intransigent Takashi Ueki takes part in it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Humm... in this otherwise uninvolved, humble editor's opinion, User:Takashi Ueki seems to be making the case that "Ise Jingu" is the proper name for the place. If that is actually true (and all parties here can agree on that being a fact), then Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) would seem to control here. Basically, we'll need reliable third party statistics of some sort... if someone is willing to look this up in another Encyclopedia (paper or online) and report back on what they use, that could help out.
  — V = I * R (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official naming convention

Here is an important quote about Shrine naming conventions "Japanese law permits the use of the term jinja only in connection with the traditional institutions of original Shinto wherein the kami are enshrined. The institutions of Buddhism and of the existing Shinto Sects are denied the right to use the designation....Jinja is thus a modern Sino-Japanese legal designation and does not represent the earliest known usage. Older and more widely used terms employed in the literature to indicate the abodes of Shinto dieties(kami) are miya or omiya, yashiro or miyashiro, hokora, and mimuro."^[1]

So if we lump the "new sect" Shinto in to the "shrine" designation/translation, is is clearly incorrect. The other designations jingu and tiasha are also legal designations.

Upon futher reading, most Japanese web base sources use Ise Shrine is reference to the generic complex of Ise shrines and Ise Jingu, Diajingu, Ise Diajingu, or just Jingu for the name of the head shrine itself. Encarta titles it Ise Shrine, but it is searchable through them as Ise Jingu. They do not make any distinction between sub-shrines and the main shrine and the article is 1 paragraph. Their location map is called Ise Jingu. Britannica uses "The Grand Shrine at Ise" however they list it as a "temple". Herein lies the problem. The topic of Shinto is usually poorly reported, incorrectly named, and innacurately stated. I have done my homework and feel that here at WP we can make a break from that pattern and really show the best Shinto resource available that money cannot buy. More to come as I am still reading. Takashi Ueki (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short, Takashi Ueki would like to reform the English language. That's not what we're here for; we exist to communicate in it. Very Strongly support Ise Shrine as English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Japanese National Tourism Organization] - Lists in english it as "Ise-Jingu" Shrine Takashi Ueki (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Mie Prefectural Tourism Guide in English] - Also lists it as "Ise Jingu" in english. Takashi Ueki (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Official names for reasons to follow common usage, not alleged official usage; see WP:NCGN for our practice, which includes a note that the usage of local speakers may be untypical of English usage (as in this case, it clearly is). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting coming from someone who seem to have little experience with Japan or Japanese to english sources. I guess that I will have to cite many more good sources. But I imagine that the Japanese department of Tourism employs well qualified english translators, or an American firm for their web translation.Takashi Ueki (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil guesswork, especially from someone who does not bother to capitalize English. But if correct, it puts me in the condition of our readers. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A formal name is a formal name no matter the language. I have just cited just a few of many sources for formal name usage. Takashi Ueki (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

We don't use formal names; we don't use Japanese names, except where English does; and Japanese usage matters to the Japanese wikipedia, not to us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A false statement see: Fushimi Inari tiasha Takashi Ueki (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is Takashi's point? No such article exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A typical search will find that almost every source that is able to be searched and considered reputable based on their own marit uses the formal name "Ise Jingu" in reference to the Grand Shrine at Ise. It appears to me that there might be alterior motives at work here, as who would have guessed that anyone would want to deny an organization their trademarked formal name. Very strange.

Here is a non Japanese source [Phayul News] - also links the work back to WP on Grand Shrine of Ise. Takashi Ueki (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[New York Times] - Uses "Grand Shrine at Ise" at the literal translation. Then the generic, Ise Shrine to discuss the general topic. Takashi Ueki (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[New York Times] - Again - "Ise Grand Shrine" Takashi Ueki (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[New York Times] - Again - Unabiguously "grand shrine at Ise". Takashi Ueki (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[New York Times] - Again - "Grand Shrine at Ise" Takashi Ueki (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[New York Times] - Again (w/variation) - "Great Shrine of Ise" Takashi Ueki (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like most of Takashi Ueki's links, these establish use of Ise, which is obvious and not in question. They also establish normal use of Shrine or Great Shrine, which is the proposed move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very clear that the common usage I find everywhere is: 1. All Japanese linked English base sources use "Ise Jingu", 2. Some English based verifiable sources use "Grand Shrine at Ise" or "Ise Jingu" or just "Jingu", 3. All scholarly sources (books in particular) use "Ise Jingu". I am happy to proved manu more sources. If you want to refute, please provide a counter to factual verifiable and relaible sourcing and not just opinion. Takashi Ueki (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Library of Congress Lists 100 related sources for "Ise Jingu", all of which are directly related to the shrine. They 33 when searched for under "Ise Shrine" and they almost all link to sources that list "Ise Jingu". Takashi Ueki (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link, please. How many of those are in Japanese? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[The New World Encyclopedia] Has rewritten the article to be "Ise Shinto" relinked from Ise Shrine, then uses "Ise Jingu" in reference to the main shrine. This approach is pretty good. Takashi Ueki (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Filter East] - Explains well "Ise Jingu". Takashi Ueki (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Absolute Astronomy] - Shows the confusion well. Ise Shrine shown with "(Ise Jingu???) just after then refers to Ise Jingu the remainder of the time. Also uses the "Jingu" name. Takashi Ueki (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[San Diego Union Tribune] - Uses "Grand Shrine of Ise" and "Jingu" Takashi Ueki (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Science Encyclopedia] - Exclusively uses "Ise-Jingu" Takashi Ueki (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[US News and World Report] - Uses "Grand Shrine of Ise" and "Jingu", but specifically states that it is the Japanese term. Takashi Ueki (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Stars and Stripes] a google cashed version of the good old Stars and Stripes - this article uses "Ise Jingu Shrine". Takashi Ueki (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[The Washington Times] - They use both "Grand Shrine of Ise" and "Ise Jingu" (as the formal name) together.Takashi Ueki (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ise Jingu"

Well so far I see no support for the supposition that the Highest shrine in Japan should be called the Ise Shrine. The predominance 75% of the sources that I find all use "Ise Jingu" or "Jingu" and the rest 25% use "Grand Shrine of/at Ise". Sometimes referencing Ise shrines as a generic when making broad statements. I'll provide more if this is not convincing. Takashi Ueki (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Manufacturing Net] - "Ise Jingu" and not a religious or travel ralated article. Takashi Ueki (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[The Austrailian] - "Ise Jingu", even written by a non-Japanese guy. Takashi Ueki (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Kansai Scene] - English source article - "Ise Jingu". Takashi Ueki (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[The Austrailian] - "Ise Jingu" article. Takashi Ueki (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[New York University] - A class article on UNESCO, using "Ise Jingu". Takashi Ueki (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[New York University] - Another related class article on UNESCO sites, using "Ise Jingu" and not a Japanese speaker in sight here either. Takashi Ueki (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Britannica Concise Encyclopedia] - Very strange - the concise version uses "Ise Jingu" and then links to Britannica with "Ise Shrine". When following the link, it gives you the option of "Grand Shrine of Ise" which links to no information. These encyclopedias seem to be the worst source for usage due to lack of work. Takashi Ueki (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Japan Hemp] Even the hippies go for "Ise Jingu" - not the best source, but certainly one that some people will read. And Funny. Takashi Ueki (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So there it is - the vast majority of easily accessable common usage and verifiable web sites, magazines, and newspapers use "Ise Jingu" followed by a second "Grand Shrine at Ise" and at dead last with only 1 actual reference is "Ise Shrine" having ignored all sources that link to WP which many do. In every case the name "Ise Jingu" or "Jingu" is referenced along with "Grand Shrine at Ise" or the generic "Ise Shrine" when the latter is used. I could not find a single book reference calling "Ise Jingu" Ise shrine exclusively. WP has the responsibility and the large informational foot print requiring accuracy, and I believe that I have made my case. Takashi Ueki (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Style manual

Ill quote the entire section of the style article for accuracy. This is a specific shrine needed to be separated from all the others with the same name.

Temples and shrines Use the Japanese name and insert a hyphen before bō (坊), dō (堂), in (院), ji (寺), gū (宮), sha (社), taisha (大社) and tera/dera (寺). However, write the English word "Shrine" in place of jinja (神社), jingū (神宮) and myōjin (明神). Use common name instead of formal name (Kinkaku-ji, not Rokuon-ji; Yama-dera, not Risshaku-ji). All words are capitalized and place/personal names should be offset with a space. Use redirects liberally.

I think that the instructions are quite clear. Use the Japanese Name (Ive given ample proof of the name of the shrine), put Shrine after it, capitalize it. As far as the instructions go it should turn out "Ise Jingu Shrine" or "Jingu Shrine". Takashi Ueki (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is "write the English word "Shrine" in place of jinja (神社), jingū (神宮) and myōjin (明神)." (emphasis added). That means to replace jingū with Shrine, producing Ise Shrine, which was the move request. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what is quoted... Where is that quote from, exactly, anyway?
— V = I * R (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We keep hearing the argument "Ise Shrine could mean any shrine in Ise". This is a false and inaccurate argument. There is a capital "S" in "Shrine". This is recognised as THE Ise Shrine, meaning the Grand Shine of Ise (or "jingu" in the Japanese). If it meant any shrine is Ise, it would be with a small "s". Yes, there are many shrines in Ise, and they each have their own name. Many of them are listed at the end of the article. It seems that the problem lies in the fact that "Ise Shrine", "Ise Grand Shrine", "The Grand Shrine of Ise", "Ise Jingu" and "Jingu" are all names used for Ise Shrine. The last two are the Japanese names, and obviously some believe we should be using those to be "more correct". Having lived in Ise for several years, I am quite comfortable with the "Jingu" name, but for the purpose of Wikipedia, which aims to provide useful information for the general public, we should stick to the conventions and stick with the English name "Ise Shrine". This shows no more disrespect than using the name "Japan" in the English Wikipedia instead of "Nippon" (which is also a proper-noun). It is simply common English usage. Ka-ru (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly, the use of "Ise Shrine" is what WP:MOS-JP dictates (I found the guideline and read it), as outlined above. I do not see a compelling reason being given to ignore the consensus offered by the guideline.
— V = I * R (talk) 10:35, August 8, 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Ω. The MOS is crystal clear on this point, and I am not convinced at all by the Japanese side's arguments here, which seem to mostly stem from not understanding English.

For comparison, Westminster Abbey is listed on ja-WP under ja:ウェストミンスター寺院, lit. "Westminster Temple". Would you argue that this is incorrect, and that it would be better to call it "ウェストミンスターアビー", using a word ("abi-") that's not Japanese and would not be understood by the vast majority of the article's readers? Jpatokal (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion so far, it appears that User:Takashi Ueki is in a minority of one here, with an otherwise comprehensive consensus to restore the previous name. Any last comments? Jpatokal (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It seems that what everybody is saying here is that the shrine is called Ise. It is not called Ise, the name is Ise Jingu, or Jingu. In english it is mostly translated Grand Shrine at Ise in common usage. I am not arguing that it has to be called it Japanese name, especially as I am American, but that the accepted use for the most important shrine in Japan shoule be the most accepted English usage. In all published literature, and by the rules set forth in WP style, is the "Grand Shrine at Ise". The useage of Ise Shrine just does not exist in any accepted format or in any acedemic community. It simply make the argument for its usage look ignorant to an international audience. I am trying to lend credibility to WP in an area that I understand quite well. If you want to reject that level of acedemic credibility, feel free. It does not mean that I will either agree. However I am going to take this up the chain as far as it will go. The Shrine can be called in the english "The Grand Shrine of Ise" as commonly used and called in the past here at WP. I see no discussion of that change. Takashi Ueki (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi, your comments "The useage of Ise Shrine just does not exist in any accepted format or in any acedemic community" is simply not true. The first two academic journals that I picked up (I'm doing some research on a related topic) both refer to it as "Ise Shrine" and, as I said, an academic research database accessed from my university has hits to "Ise Shrine" outnumbering those of "Ise Jingu" by 4 to 1. I've also just done another search to double check using a different multiple academic database search and the results came back 162-71 in favour of "Ise Shrine" in academic journals. It would seem the name not only exists, but is the more common name in English-usage. Ka-ru (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correctness

As an undergraduate student of Japanese religion I am hard-pressed to explain why "Shrine" became the default English word for all sorts of shrines, except that it is common. The dictionary definition is "sacred place"-- who decided it's a good translation of jinja, jingu, etc.? As far as I can tell nobody in the scholarly world has given any thought to that issue. I don't think there is any logical reasoning behind using the "common" name instead of the technically accurate one; it speaks only to a lack of Western knowledge about Shinto classification of shrines. If we stuck with what is common we would still be calling the Dalai Lama the Grand Lama like we did in the 18th century, and Muslims would still be "Mohammedians". But eventually cooler minds prevailed in both those cases and we decided to use the terms that those people called themselves to ensure accuracy, and we should do the same here. This is a case where encyclopedic value would be sacrificed for the sake of an unimportant and arbitrary term, and I would recommend the guideline be changed. Shii (tock) 04:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, That some articles may contain factual errors is regrettable, but inevitable. An Encyclopedia should report knowledge, not attempt to influence or generate knowledge. It's sometimes tough to deal with that when you see something which you are certain is untrue in some fashion, but the Five Pillars are vital to building the encyclopedia. The important thing is, when you see something like this which you feel is inaccurate, you should first find references to back your stance up with, and then discuss the issue in the most appropriate place. From what you stated above it appears that your primary complaint is the standards which Wikipedia currently uses in order to romanize Japanese. As you can see from the other discussion above you're not alone... so, participate in discussion on the project page and see if you can change things.
— V = I * R (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are applying strange logic here. This is different from a WP:OR situation, because we have loads of Japanese-language scholarship. Would you like me to pull up an article on the different kinds of shrines? It's not like we don't know that the real name of this shrine is Jingu. It's our choice whether to "translate" that or not. Shii (tock) 14:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody disputes that in Japanese the formal name (正式名称) of the shrine is indeed 神宮 — but this is the English Wikipedia, and for what it's worth, even the Japanese Wikipedia calls it ja:伊勢神宮. Jpatokal (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now, scroll up and see my argument about why this detracts from the article's encyclopedic value. Shii (tock) 16:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the viewpoint that you're expressing, and agree that the Wikipedia logic can seem strange. This issue is not at all unusual, especially among those editors who are in the middle of academic studies. I think that we all struggle with it, from time to time (especially on subject which we have personal knowledge about). The key though is realizing the importance of two issues fundamental viewpoints underlying Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an academic journal or academic work. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and the key to all of us working together is Verifiability.

Using this to build a contrived example (meaning, I'm not actually advocating anything here, this is simly illustrative), I could insist that "伊勢神宮 is not a sacred place at all! I am the foremost expert in the world on this subject, and you're wrong, wrong, wrong!" Since none of use can readily verify anything about anyone else (it's certainly possible with work, but that's contrary to the "anyone can edit" attitude) the only solution is to basically ignore personal opinions and seek consensus on verifiable reliable sources. That way, the interpersonal aspects of these disagreements are significantly downplayed, and everything becomes an excercize in referencing (which, not coincidentally, builds on the quality of the Encyclopedia).
— V = I * R (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this has nothing to do with WP:V. There is no scholarship or research behind the word "shrine" at all-- it is simply a word that is generally used. But it's not used to anyone's benefit, and this could be easily verified with a look at Japanese scholarship. Shii (tock) 19:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, Wikipedia is not and shold not be the place to advocate change. What you're saying may be 100% true, but unless and until everyone else realizes that and adjusts how it's referred to in English it's just not going to (and shouldn't) change on Wikipedia. Wikipedia comes last, not first.
— V = I * R (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Or perhaps more accurately, we are "not the first by whom the new are tried,/ Nor yet the last to lay the old aside." But in this case, the old usage, as exemplified by Watson and Reischauer, is still common parlance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contra claims of WP:OR

• Rosemarie Bernard. "Shinto Ritual and the Public Sphere: The Politics of Representation in Television and Press Coverage of Ise Jingu's Shikinen Jingu". Abstracts of the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association. American Anthropological Association, 1996.
• ----. The image world of Jingu: media representation and the performance of rites of renewal at the Grand Shrines of Ise, 1869-1993. Harvard University, 2000.
• ----. "Mirror Image: Layered Narratives in Photographic and Televised Mediations of Ise's Shikinen Sengu". In Hent de Vries and Samuel Weber (eds.), Religion and Media. Stanford University Press, 2001.
• ----. "Implications of GHQ Policies for Ise Jingu". Lecture presented at the Institute of Asian Research, National University of Singapore, May 27, 2001.
• ----. "Hello Kitty Goes to Ise: Imperial Jingu and Nostalgia in Postwar Media and Cultural Production". Lecture presented at the Departments of Religious Studies and Anthropology, New York University, APril 19, 2004.
• ----. "Imperial Jingu, or Why Ise Jingu Matters to the Tenno". 19th World Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Tokyo, March 26, 2005
  • Bernard uses the term Jingu because it is official and accurate (2001 p.339).
  • She worked at the Jingu as an information officer (2001 p.347) and is thus familiar with correct terminology.
• Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett. "Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production". Museum International 56.1-2 (2004).
• ----. "From Ethnology to Heritage: The Role of the Museum". Proceedings of the Societé Internationale d´Ethnologie et de Folklore, 2005.
• Dominic McIver Lopes. "Shikinen Sengu and the Ontology of Architecture in Japan". Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 65.1 (2007).
• Jeffrey M. Perl. "Regarding Change at Ise-Jingu". Common Knowledge 14.2 (2008).
• Barbara Sandrisser. "Cultivating Commonplaces: Sophisticated Vernacularism in Japan". The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56.2 (1998).
• Kyoko Yakushi. "Taboo Words and Saiku Imikotoba". Mejiro Journal of Humanities 4 (2008).

Shii (tock) 19:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • As far as I can see, this is a defense against a charge nobody has made, that Ise Jingu is completely unused in English. Of course, like other appeals to specialized knowledge, from Nippon on down, it is used - sometimes, before a scholarly audience. But we are not, Heaven knows, written for scholars. This is a misunderstanding of what has been said - and what the English Wikipedia naming conventions are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Shrine at Ise?

If something like Grand Shrine at Ise would induce either of the dissentients to join the consensus, I would be equally happy with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.
— V = I * R (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good consensus for me, but only if Takashi Ueki agrees. He is doing excellent work to improve all the Shinto-related articles on Wikipedia and I am convinced (especially after reading the articles by Bernard) that his request to me was not some anti-English POV pushing but an insistence on correcting sloppy terminology. Shii (tock) 21:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we are not free to "correct" the terminology actually in normal use. Derailing this on such a ground would be grounds for WP:dispute resolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As shown above, the #1 English-speaking expert on Ise Jingu uses the Japanese term. Shii (tock) 22:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whom do you mean? And, more importantly, in what context? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went looking for articles about Jingu in terms of its purpose and cultural value (as opposed to architecture) and found Rosemarie Bernard had written the most peer reviewed papers on the subject. Shii (tock) 22:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This line of reasoning is exactly why we rely on WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia doesn't really care about "the #1 English-speaking expert on Ise Jingu", precisely because that entire line of debate is to be avoided. Add references to the article which clearly state the name that you think is appropriate in order to establish a common name. If it's true that "Ise Jingu" is most accurate, then that should be easily aparent in the references. According to (yet another) quick survey of the references that are in the article however, (and also through reliance on WP:MOS-JP guidelines) "Ise Shrine" is the WP:COMMONNAME. We're not trying to dispute any facts here, we're simply trying to not directly participate in these sorts of issues. This debate should occur outside of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia will catch up once the references change.
— V = I * R (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And as far as I can tell - at least one major university library has nothing by her at all - she uses "Ise Jingu" to her colleagues, and "Grand Shrines of Ise" in her book title, which is - at least in theory - communicating with the general public; we are doing the second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

Seems the arguments have been put forward and the discussion has died down. What happens now? Ka-ru (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By my reading we seem to have reached some consensus on using Grand Shrine at Ise. Obviously not everyone is fully supportive, but I doubt that some people will ever bend from the "use the most correct" line of reasoning and this is a decent compromise.
— V = I * R (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support Ise Shrine, Ise Grand Shrine, or Grand Shrine at Ise. Any alternates should be mentioned in the lead, too, and redirects should be in place for them as well. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with any of those three, my preference being either of the first two. The only question I have is in regard to the WP naming standards. As long as they meet the standards (or the standards are changed), then things are fine. Ka-ru (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.