Talk:Isshi incident

Appropriateness of Rating

Please see my comments at Talk:Soga no Iname. There is precisely one description of this incident in the historical record, and this article contains pretty much all of the information contained in that description. You just aren't going to find much more information out there unless you add in a bunch of stuff regarding satellite topics.-Jefu 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Virtually every event that took place in 7th century Japan is described in precisely one surviving historical record (the Nihon Shoki). The reasons for that are that much of the earlier records were destroyed by fire, an incident described in this article. That event has been discussed in literally thousands of scholarly texts within and outside Japan; it was one of the contributing factors to the compilation of the Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki. The lack of reliable primary sources on Asuka-period figures is irrelevant for Wikipedia, since we are expected to primarily use secondary sources. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Oppose -- In my view, the growth and development of further content is not likely to be enhanced by a merge at this time. Perhaps at some later date when one or both of the articles has been expanded, this issue could be re-visited. --Tenmei (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree on partial mergers --- I understand the proposed moves are for individual sections within the Asuka-dera article. The present day Asuka-dera and Gango-ji's are totally independent therefore the removal of Gangō-ji section from Asuka-dera article is natural. Isshi Incident is a historical event that better be described in the article for its own, therefore the Isshi Incident section should be removed and merged to Isshi Incident article. The Asuka-dera article itself should survive and focus on its own description. Mantokun (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree --- I support edits proposed by Mantokun. This is arguably constructive. --Tenmei (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarify the abdication intentions statement

In the section, "Response from Empress Kōgyoku and eventual abdication," The first sentence of the second paragraph is difficult to understand because it seems to silently shift subjects. "Although Kōgyoku wanted to abdicate immediately in favour of Naka no Ōe, on the advice of Nakatomi no Kamatari he insisted that the throne should pass instead to his older brother, Furuhito no Ōe, or to his maternal uncle (Kōgyoku's brother) Prince Karu."

Commonly, this would be interpreted as "Kogyoku wanted to abdicate, but insisted otherwise on the advice of Kamatari." This does not make sense because Kogyoku is female. I'm guessing the pronoun "he" actually refers to Naka no Oe, but that is uncertain and unclear in the current construct.

If that assessment is correct, please consider re-wording that sentence along lines similar to the following:

"Kōgyoku indicated her intent to abdicate immediately in favour of Naka no Ōe. However, on the advice of Nakatomi no Kamatari, Naka no Ōe insisted that the throne should pass instead to his older brother, Furuhito no Ōe, or to his maternal uncle (Kōgyoku's brother) Prince Karu." ShoneBrooks (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)