Talk:Fujiwara clan

Moved from Redirects for deletion

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


 * Fujiwara clan -> Fujiwara family; to move the latter to the former (Fujiwara clan has two revisions). It is inaccurate to call it family. After moving, I will put Fujiwara family again as a redirect.--Aphaea 12:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This is probably the right move; I'll check some of my reference books. Noel 16:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. -- User:Docu
 * This appears to have been a mistake. A Google search shows "Fujiwara family" is more common (2,080) than "Fujiwara clan" (915). In addition, the Britannica has them under "Fujiwara family". Noel (talk) 16:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If so, the article should be updated, then moved back. -- User:Docu
 * Fujiwara family has no history, so this can be moved without needing to delete any redirects. Therefore, I've removed it from RfD. requested moves would be a better place to discuss this that RfD. Angela.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

CfD
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Sorry; I hadn't noticed this old discussion. Somewhere (I wish I could find it) on either the talk page of WikiProject Japan or WP:MOS-JA we've discussed the logic of setting a standard for "clan" over "family". Standardization is a good thing. LordAmeth 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Google searches should be used with caution, and I wouldn't trust anything the Brittanica Encyclopedia has to say about Japan. It is notoriously outdated and badly written. Having said that, the question of clan over family should be answered with respect to the clan/family in question, and not based on some arbitrarily imposed standard. Assuming family refers to a limited set of blood/marriage ties and clan refers to ties by a combination of blood and mere association (as well as geographic location, in some cases), I think there are good arguments for referring to Fujiwara as a family, to be distinguished from true clans like the Sogas and the Mononobe. Although the most famous of the Sogas form a direct line of descent from Uamko to Emishi to Iruka, my understanding is that they hail from a larger clan who don't necessarily all share blood ties. The Fujiwaras, on the other hand, trace their ancestry back to the first Fujiwara, Nakatomi no Kamatari. On the other hand, family also seems to imply a limited group, where the Fujiwaras comprise people spanning generations scattered throughout Japan. Therefore, it seems a bit of a stretch to consider them a "family". And I think this goes for the Minamotos and the Taira as well. On the balance, I would opt to keep these as "clans", rather than "families".-Jefu 05:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the Minamoto and Taira began as honorary names granted by Emperors to court nobles (kuge), many of whom I believe were related to the Imperial family in one way or another, and not necessarily particularly closely related to one another. Those two in particular I would definitely call clans, as they had a great many branch families (Seiwa Genji, Kawachi Genji, Kammu Heishi... the Ashikaga, Nitta, Takeda and Tokugawa claimed descent from the Minamoto, the Chiba, Miura, Hatakeyama, and Hojo from the Taira). ... It's one of those difficult things with some subtleties to the connotations and meanings of the terms, "clan" vs "family". LordAmeth 08:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am late and I'm no specialist on this matter, either. But I added a bit in the lead to clarify how Fujiwara clan differs from other kuge family like Konoe family, and why the article ought to be named Fujiwara clan not Fujiwara family. The distinction may be technical but seemingly significant, as this sort of technicality is all noble people care. -- Taku 11:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word clan is also inaccurate and many historians advise against using it. The Fujiwara were an extended family in the sense that its members were related by blood, marriage, or adoption, so that I don't think the word "family" is entirely misleading. It's not perfect, but not wrong. Perhaps "lineage group" is better. At the very least, the article should indicate that there is no ideal term for uji and that the word clan is controversial. Michelle Li

Regents table
The above was moved from the main page. Since it is duplicate to the list found in Sesshō and Kampaku, I'm not sure about the point of the table. Maybe some different kind of a list can be useful, but what could that be? -- Taku 14:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Branch families
Though not explained in the article (perhaps it should be), it seems obvious to me that the Hokke, Nanke, and Kyōke are "northern house", "southern house", and "house of the capital", respectively. I know the Hokke were based in the north, in Hiraizumi, and can assume that the Kyōke (which I never heard of before today) was based in Kyoto (Heian-kyō), but what's the story with the Nanke? What is the kanji for Shikike, and what can we add about that branch? Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)