Talk:Sakuradamon Incident (1860)

vandalised

This page has been vandalised numerous times - too many. I believe it must be locked for the duration of its stay in the main page -- DragonFly31 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.88.180 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ronin

So what happened to the other Ronin? Were they punished, etc.? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know the same thing. I assessed the article for WP: Japan, and felt it lacked "Coverage" on this point, thus the C-class rating. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Pro-foreign?

I'm not quite sure whether Ii Naosuke should be described as "pro foreign" in the introduction. Yes, he signed the Harris Treaty, but this was less a sign of love for the US or the European powers but rather a keen sense of realpolitik. He knew he had to open Japan if he didn't want something like an Opium War on Japanese territory. Compare true pro-foreign politicians of the period like Shimazu Nariakira or Katsu Kaishū. --Mkill (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: after inconclusive discussion, "Sakuradamon Incident" was moved to "Sakuradamon Incident (1932)" and "Sakuradamon incident (1860)" was moved to "Sakuradamon Incident (1860)" by the nominator. "Sakuradamon Incident" was then redirected to "Sakuradamon Incident (1860)". DrKiernan (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

---

• Sakuradamon incident (1860) → Sakuradamon Incident
• Sakuradamon Incident → Sakuradamon Incident (1932)

– 1860 is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Relisted Cúchullain ^t/c 19:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)elvenscout742 (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC) elvenscout742 (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I would do this myself, but the current article under the title Sakuradamon Incident is blocking my unilaterally making the move. Neither incident is widely known in the English-speaking world, which explains the relatively low Google hit-counts for both "Sakuradamon Incident" Naosuke (4,320) and "Sakuradamon Incident" Hirohito (3,680), although the 1860 one is still higher. Both incidents are from Japanese history, and Google search of the Japanese names for 1860 (263,000) and 1932 (11,600) indicates no competition. Also, logically, the importance of a failed assassination attempt that led to the assassin being executed and one of his target's bodyguards getting injured, is incomparable with that of a successful assassination that historians credit as one of the main contributing events leading up to the Meiji Restoration. --Relisted Cúchullain ^t/c 19:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)elvenscout742 (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC) elvenscout742 (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment if it isn't renamed, then Sakuradamon Incident (1932) should be implemented as a redirect -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: Prior to closing this move request, there are two issues that I see: (1) whether "Sakuradamon Incident" is really the typical English name for either (or both) of these events, and (2) if so, whether one is the primary topic of that name. From what I can see, neither generate many Google Books hits (which is a better measure than a normal Google search). "Sakuradamon incident" 1860 returns only 26 hits, while "Sakuradamon incident" 1932 returns 37. However, "Assassination of Ii Naosuke" returns 265 hits. This suggests that the article's current title is not really the common one, and perhaps it ought to be moved. Is the attempt on Hirohito ever called anything else? If not, I might suggest we move this article to Assassination of Ii Naosuke, and leave the Hirohito article where it is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment The suffix no Hen used by Japanese historians is routinely translated as "Incident" in English. The Isshi Incident and Incident at Honnō-ji are two examples of where Wikipedia follows this nomenclature, despite those terms bringing up significantly fewer Google Books hits than "Sakuradamon Incident " 1860.[1][2][3] "Assassination of Oda Nobunaga" brings up more Google Books hits than the latter[4], but that is not the standard name for the incident. The fact is that the only generally used name among historians for all of these incidents is that used by Japanese historians, and the wording "assassination of such-and-such" appearing in a slightly larger but still small number of reliable works in English than "such-and-such incident" should not be outweigh the overwhelming weight of Japanese scholarship. (All of them bring up far more results when the Japanese names are used.[5][6][7][8] And in case it should be considered "original research" to use translations of Japanese terms that have only appeared in a small number of reliable sources in English, I might point out that Faithfully translating sourced material into English ... is not considered original research.) elvenscout742 (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I think assassination of Ii Naosuke should redirect here, since it apparently has been used in some literature on the subject. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia article titles follow use in English-language sources. We don't follow use in foreign language sources (or direct translations of foreign language sources) if there's a common form in English. We need to first determine how this subject is most commonly referred to in English sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

English-language sources use the name "Sakuradamon Incident" (Why has Japan Succeeded, p.68; Nationalisms in Japan, p.90) or similar terms (The Mito Ideology: Discourse, Reform, and Insurrection in Late Tokugawa Japan, p.145 uses "Sakuradamon assassination incident", although the index says "Sakuradamon Incident"). It is the conventional name that historians apply to the incident. There is no "common form" in English, because the incident is not "commonly" known or discussed outside Japan. It is impossible to examine all English-language sources to find out how it is "most commonly" referred to, but the current name used in the article is well-established and follows normal conventions. My argument is that "Sakuradamon Incident" implies the assassination of Ii Naosuke, rather than the assassination attempt on the Showa Emperor. The fact is that people who are interested in/studying this area of Japanese history are likely to be surprised if they look up "Sakuradamon Incident" and get redirected to "Assassination of Ii Naosuke", since "Sakuradamon Incident" is the standard name used by historians. People who happen across the phrase "assassination of Ii Naosuke" and decide to look it up on Wikipedia, on the other hand, would only benefit from immediately learning that historians refer to the event by a particular name. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

From WP:UE: If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject [...] In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader. Basically, Wikipedia policy is that, in a case such as this one where a proper noun does not have an established English name, we should follow the Japanese nomenclature. If we translate the Japanese name in order to create greater understanding for the reader, we should follow the translation used in English-language reliable sources, i.e., Sakuradamon Incident. Assassination of Ii Naosuke, while it is used in some English-language sources, is not an established English-language name for the incident, and is likely used in less specialized texts (ones that do not focus on the incident itself) as a descriptor rather than a set name. This is why I created a redirect for that wording, but hopefully soon Sakuradamon Incident (1860) will also redirect to Sakuradamon Incident, and Sakuradamon Incident (1932) will be the location for the article on the assassination attempt on the Showa Emperor. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of English-language sources for Naosuke's assassination. As I said, 256 Google Books hits for "Assassination of Ii Naosuke"; there are also over a thousand for "Ii Naosuke"+assassination. Just at my university library, a search reveals 77 titles that discuss Naosuke[9] and at least ten that turn up specifically for "Assassination of Ii Naosuke".[10] I'd suggest that even if "Assassination of Ii Naosuke" were not the most common name in English, it's preferable as a descriptive title per WP:TITLE.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:TITLE indicates that descriptive titles are for when using the established name may bring up questions of POV, or be opposed by members of a particular group. The name of the event is the Sakuradamon Incident, and I don't see any reason to believe that some people are opposed to this name -- the overwhelming majority of people who know of the event refer to it by this name. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Additional comment I've weighed in far too much to close this myself, though I believe the issues I mentioned in my initial comment still stand. For the record, I'd oppose the proposed move and recommend Assassination of Ii Naosuke as a superior title to the current one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support First, I agree that the historical significance of the 1860 event warrants it primary topic status. Second, I agree to use the name of the event (Sakuradamon ...) rather than a title made of descriptors (Assasination of ...). My understanding of WP:NC-EVENT is that it recommends to use the latter only when the former is not available. --Kusunose 04:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• No Primary - Google Books shows that there isn't sufficient disambiguity in sources for the term "Sakuradamon incident" to be clear as a standalone with no context. Sakuradamon incident (1860) to stay where it is, Sakuradamon Incident → Sakuradamon incident (1932) and Sakuradamon incident to remain as disamb listing both, and Big I "Incident" redirects created/retained for all 3. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You're ignoring the arguments above. They are both called "Sakuradamon Incident", but the 1860 event is more historically important and more widely discussed in reliable sources. 1860 changed the course of Japanese history, which explains why a Google Books search for the Japanese names for both bring up 13,000 hits for 1860, but only only 1,770 for 1932. 1932 is relatively minor by comparison. Additionally, in both cases "Incident" must be spelled with an upper-case "I", since it is a name like the Boston Tea Party or the Arab Spring or the Nanjing Incident (I mean the 1927 one). elvenscout742 (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I just don't agree with the arguments above. The disambiguation "(1860)" is doing no harm whatsoever when sources like Ian Hill Nish Japanese Foreign Policy in the Interwar Period 2002 Page 78 have "On 8 January, Koreans opposed to Japan's annexation of their country made an abortive move to assassinate the Emperor on his way to open parliament in what is known as the Sakuradamon incident" small caps, referring to 1932.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Some sources (erroneously) using a lower-case "i" is not a justification for the Wikipedia article to follow suit. I could name as many sources that spell either one of them "Sakuradamon Incident". "Sakuradamon Incident" is the name for both, like the Boston Massacre (to give another example). Additionally, 1860 is the primary topic. When Japanese-language reliable sources are taken into account, it is discussed in far more reliable sources that 1932. We must be careful when discussing Japanese history on English Wikipedia to avoid systemic cultural bias, since the (relatively, not absolutely) larger number of English sources that cover 1932 is almost certainly due to the fact that western media were more active in covering Japanese affairs in 1932 than in 1860, but neither can be accurately judged by western standards, since they are exclusively Japanese affairs. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but it's not my fault that there are more books on the 1930s than 1860s, that would only support that 1930s is more notable. Equally we must be careful when discussing Far East history on English Wikipedia to avoid Japanese cultural bias - Your argument would need to include that when Korean-language reliable sources are taken into account, 1932 is discussed in far more reliable sources than 1860. (As for small i, that is a secondary issue, there's so much over-capitalization in both en. sources and en.wp that it doesn't matter). I've said what I'm going say here. Cheers and good luck. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Both of these are JAPANESE history articles. ONE happens to be SLIGHTLY more significant in Korean history than the other, but is still essentially an internal Japanese affair. Please provide evidence that 1932 is considered an important event in Korean history and is widely discussed in Korean reliable sources. Where is the evidence that 1932 is discussed in far more sources? I have already pointed out that among Japanese sources (the only ones giving significant coverage to either) 1860 is EIGHT TIMES more prominent. Please do not attempt to judge which events are considered significant in Japanese history based solely on a small number of English books available online. 182.249.241.101 (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC) (Elvenscout742's phone)

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

Confusing wording.

"A total of 17 Mito rōnin ambushed Ii Naosuke together with Arimura Jisaemon (有村次左衛門), a samurai from Satsuma Domain.[6] While an attack at the front drew the attention of the guards, a lone assassin fired one shot into the palanquin containing Ii Naosuke, with a Japanese-made Colt 1851 Navy Revolver, which had been copied from the firearms that Perry had given the Shogunate as gifts. Drawing the injured and likely paralyzed Ii Naosuke out, Arimura decapitated Ii Naosuke and then committed seppuku."

My reading of this is that Arimura Jisaemon was travelling together with Ii Naosuke, perhaps as a bodyguard, and was attacked at the same time. He then decapitated the mortally injured Ii Naosuke to prevent anything shameful from happening to him, and then committed seppuku himself either because he was hopelessly surrounded by assassins or else because he had failed in his mission as a bodyguard.

But that is not correct, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.20.170 (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)