Talk:Kojiki

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Metal Linx.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed a link that goes to a Japanese/French site with no apparent connection to the Kojiki. Please explain the significance of the link before putting it back. Is it information on the Kojiki in Japanese and French? If so, is it of relevance to an English-language article? I also can't help but notice that the user who added the link picked a username that resembles the name of the site. Is it a site you have some personal/professional interest in? --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 01:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now, this article is highly defensive and POV in its presentation. It is not up to general anthropological or mythographic standards. 68.58.119.197 15:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Could User 68.58.119.197 elaborate on this claim, please. Bathrobe 03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"User #" doesn't need to "elaborate on this claim", you silly Wiki-bureaucrat. You people just use childish games to push POV.

The 1st paragraph of "History" is obvious Japanese nationalistic hogwash that couldn't stand the rigor of objective academic study if its life depended on it. It's about as scientifically-backed as Mormonism or Wiccanism, both based on 1800s pseudo-archaeology. Any clear-thinking scholar can see after a year of study that the earliest Japanese stuff is mostly borrowed from China, and mostly not of local origin. Scientists, at least, should see past Japanese delusions, in their quest for objective truth.

Bathrobe and clones, push your POV all you like. All you've turned Wikipedia into is flaming pile of shit. I can't name a serious academic who would dare contribute to your elaborate hoax.

98.224.167.169 (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused that, under Misconceptions, "the Kojiki itself is ... not the History of Japan itself"but under Creation (why is this section called Creation, anyway?) three parts of the text are listed. It looks like two of the three are about the emperors of Japan. I am confused. Isn't that a history of Japan?

On a more general note: I am new to this topic and I am confused by the Misconceptions section. Could it be clarified? What, exactly, is the misconception and what is the factual reality?71.196.157.200 03:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The history section has some *major* issues. Besides the obvious errors in chronology ("The Kojiki was presented by Ō no Yasumaro to Emperor Temmu in CE 680"; ...which had been memorized by Hieda no Are in 712."), the "kujiki" was not the only source. I do recommend someone grabs Philippi's annotated Kojiki. He's got a great rundown of the history in the front. Nagaeyari 00:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article about the Kojiki should be removed and written completely new. There are too many errors in detail and there is absolutely no sense in the the article as whole. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.112.150 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. After reading the article, you come away shaking your head in wonderment -- wondering what it was all about. The article needs to be rewritten so that people can understand (1) what the Kojiki is and (2) what problems/controversies surround it. This article fails to do that.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it kill anyone to elucidate the actual content of the text? I was attempting to discover whether Susanoo-no-Mikoto's rampage with the flayed horse implied a contrast between horsehide (and by implication tanned leather and tanners) and the overtly distaff weaver's arts. Tanned hides imply Siberian or Arctic provenance, as would the long night of Arctic winter, and by implication Amaterasu in her cave. Without access to a Cliff's Notes version of the text, in an article allegedly about the text, lacking pointers to Japanese anthropology on the subject, the article remains obscure and rather pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.89.153 (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to add it as the source for the English translation of the title quoted in the first line. But since the date is so important to doing so, I decided to double check that. This article quotes the 1919 edition, since that is the one available free on the Sacred Texts archive. However, I am pretty sure the translation itself was at least thirty years older. Lafcadio Hearn's 1894 Glimpses of Unfamiliar Japan, if I recall correctly, contained an essay written on or shortly after his arrival in Japan in 1890, in which he mentioned having read Chamberlain's translation. I recently moved out of my parents' house (and half way around the world), leaving my copies of the Kojiki and other such behind, so at the moment I do not have the full bibliographical details. But I was wondering -- if the work is available for free online, and we include that link in the External Links section, do we still really need to quote the online version and the date presented therein in the bibliography for the article? I ask this here for clarification, and also for the fact that I cannot myself add a more "scholarly" source (the paperback version published by Tuttle) at the moment. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kojiki. 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/20070825113418/http://rekishi.jkn21.com/ to http://rekishi.jkn21.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825113418/http://rekishi.jkn21.com/ to http://rekishi.jkn21.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825113418/http://rekishi.jkn21.com/ to http://rekishi.jkn21.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825113418/http://rekishi.jkn21.com/ to http://rekishi.jkn21.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, as part of a college project I will be working on this article. Currently my ideas for improving the article are the following:

• Adding references to some statements missing citations
• Adding new information from the Japanese page mostly through translation--particularly organizational information such as chapter titles or content
• Adding new information from English references to provide both simple facts and multiple perspectives
• Adding images as there are none

A quick list of new references I have found through my University. I plan to find more, possibly some of those that were mentioned in previous talk messages but not actually referenced.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}Metal Linx (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)