![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warnings citation needed and dubious – discuss have been appended to the sentence ...
"A situation inflamed by their discovery that the Christian daimyo and Portuguese were engaging in the slave trading of Japanese women."
... in the section Christianity in Japan of the main article.
Miguel de Servet ( talk) 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I removed the part about 500,000 women being sold into slave trade. The population of Edo at the time was only 1 million, and the next biggest centers (Osaka and Kyoto) were about 400,000. On top of that, the main armorers, such as Katsu and Ryoma had nothing do do with salve trade and everything to do with the navy.
Hmm...I dredged up on Google that the quote is said to have come from notes kept by the Tensho Embassy, a group of converts that journeyed to Europe from Japan. I Googled all over the place and was able to find no other indication anywhere that the Tenshō Embassy had anything to say about Japanese slaves coming to Europe... Anyhow, the notes kept by the Tensho Embassy are available in a manuscript called "De Missione Legatorum Iaponensium ad Romanam Curiam, Rebusque in Europa." If anyone wishes to look through the notes for any mention of slavery, that'd be the place to start. At first blush, I can't find any translations... :(
Joren ( talk) 08:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This very long section is entirely based on a first-party source - the cited article in the Catholic Historical Review entirely depends on a pamphlet summarizing the letters of Jesuits and survivors of the persecution. There has been a "needs additional citations for verification" tag on the section for almost two years. I don't doubt much of the information is accurate, and probably impossible to obtain in other sources. However, it reads as decidely one-sided in the account, highlighting examples of particular faith and zeal among the martyred. Perhaps there wasn't a single person who recanted (and avoided martyrdom), perhaps the martyrs all either remained silent or "rejoiced for being able to die for Christ", but it doesn't seem appropriate to accept this version with no independent collaboration. Certainly it runs contrary to WP:THIRDPARTY.
This section is also far more detailed and lengthy than the other sections, but does not appear to be greater in importance.
I'm inclined to drastically cut this section back into a bland summary, or at least to try to render the tone more neutral, but I invite comments or suggestions first. I dislike removing material sourced by possibly the only possible source, however first-party it may be. I do note, also, that the earlier editors made some improvements on the cited material in terms of neutrality: the Dutch "reported to the Japanese" that Catholic priests were onboard, rather than "betrayed the fact", for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grothmag ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Martyrs of Japan. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Is this written by someone church resource? The quality of writing and the bias is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Rmantha ( talk) 11:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warnings citation needed and dubious – discuss have been appended to the sentence ...
"A situation inflamed by their discovery that the Christian daimyo and Portuguese were engaging in the slave trading of Japanese women."
... in the section Christianity in Japan of the main article.
Miguel de Servet ( talk) 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I removed the part about 500,000 women being sold into slave trade. The population of Edo at the time was only 1 million, and the next biggest centers (Osaka and Kyoto) were about 400,000. On top of that, the main armorers, such as Katsu and Ryoma had nothing do do with salve trade and everything to do with the navy.
Hmm...I dredged up on Google that the quote is said to have come from notes kept by the Tensho Embassy, a group of converts that journeyed to Europe from Japan. I Googled all over the place and was able to find no other indication anywhere that the Tenshō Embassy had anything to say about Japanese slaves coming to Europe... Anyhow, the notes kept by the Tensho Embassy are available in a manuscript called "De Missione Legatorum Iaponensium ad Romanam Curiam, Rebusque in Europa." If anyone wishes to look through the notes for any mention of slavery, that'd be the place to start. At first blush, I can't find any translations... :(
Joren ( talk) 08:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
This very long section is entirely based on a first-party source - the cited article in the Catholic Historical Review entirely depends on a pamphlet summarizing the letters of Jesuits and survivors of the persecution. There has been a "needs additional citations for verification" tag on the section for almost two years. I don't doubt much of the information is accurate, and probably impossible to obtain in other sources. However, it reads as decidely one-sided in the account, highlighting examples of particular faith and zeal among the martyred. Perhaps there wasn't a single person who recanted (and avoided martyrdom), perhaps the martyrs all either remained silent or "rejoiced for being able to die for Christ", but it doesn't seem appropriate to accept this version with no independent collaboration. Certainly it runs contrary to WP:THIRDPARTY.
This section is also far more detailed and lengthy than the other sections, but does not appear to be greater in importance.
I'm inclined to drastically cut this section back into a bland summary, or at least to try to render the tone more neutral, but I invite comments or suggestions first. I dislike removing material sourced by possibly the only possible source, however first-party it may be. I do note, also, that the earlier editors made some improvements on the cited material in terms of neutrality: the Dutch "reported to the Japanese" that Catholic priests were onboard, rather than "betrayed the fact", for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grothmag ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Martyrs of Japan. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Is this written by someone church resource? The quality of writing and the bias is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Rmantha ( talk) 11:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)