Talk:Jindai moji

Category
Does this article really belong in Category:Japanese_writing_system? I would hazard "no", but perhaps someone has a convincing argument. Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 07:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * i too was wondering what category to put this in. i think it's ok here, since it is actually being used in Shinto, so it is in a sense a writing system of japan, albeit derivative & with a fabricated history. it would also belong in the hoaxes category. Appleby 23:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wosite
I made to the typeface sorce.Do i write to pass for article on the Infobox? Exsample.

That is a infobox test.

I think the Infobox are like this, what can write about it in my hand? I will ask the opinions of everyone.-基 建吉(MOTOI Kenkichi) (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Source of positive opinions on Jindai moji sounds like occultism
For your information to realize what is the position of the positive opinions on Jindai moji in Japan, I have to say that recent positive sources are basically issued by publishers or authors who prefer contents, you know, like Mu continent-Nostradamus-type of occultism. So, what I am thinking is that it is almost impossible for those books and authors to be used as citation for verification along with Wikipedia guideline. Moreover, the positive opinions by scholars are mostly written in Edo period though it should be possible to introduce what the scholars on positive side in Edo period were saying.--Orcano (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As 15:49, 27 November 2011, this article gets highly original-reserched with unreliable sources just like I have mentioned in this section earlier. I thought more reliable source would come if I had mentioned prior to the edit. I web-searched the author, Kiyohiko Azuma, whom the new edit about affirmative opinions mostly cited, and I picked up some of the publishers and they all seemed fairly fishy, one of the publishers which is still on business after 35 years was like, I don't know, Edgar Cayce, Jasmuheen, Universe Rule of Success, Krishnamurti, Secret of PSI, the Apocalypse 2012 - finally decoded. This article, Jindai moji will be being annoyed with edits from those sources. I would leave it to the Wikipedia's collective intelligence method, because I don't have any intention to go through those occult stuffs or check timeless original researches, although I can delete some. This article is dropping in terms of quality.--Orcano (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

How do we get rid of the Mu-continent type of content from Jindai moji?
I searched some books and report by Japanese scholars on Jindai moji and found that it is completely denied by anyone who researched. Actually, all the books took Jindai moji with just one section of it; technically there is no anti-Jindai moji books. As a result, all the pro-Jindai moji books are written by civilians who haven't went through severe academic discussions, so they all are not authentic as a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. The thing is those who are positive to Mu-continent type of topic do not care about Wikipedia guideline. I saw Japanese ja:神代文字 and it was not Wikipedia article any more, though it gets better as Japanese Wikipedians keep asking one after another somewhat. It was just sum of anything each person thinks it true. This kind of contents always have problems that "supporters" continue to edit with religious manner while others do not want to spend time for something not real. As a result, the articles get so occult and very Mu-continent. Whatever the source, author or publisher of the edit is fishy, I think it has to be gotten rid of. But this problem will keep annoying the article.--Orcano (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

about this edit
Using this edit, I want to put source of discussion about editing the article Jindai moji. It was a revert from edit by Nissy-KITAQ. I hope he would discuss especially why he delete reliable sources and bring back obvious original researches.

There are 8 paragraphs. I want him to respond to each of them. Because, he firstly deleted and changed each of them, so he must have reasons.

First part, I put two templates of Original research and Unreliable sources. Because, the article is still likely that it will have Unreliable sources even after getting rid of obvious original research and sentences citing unreliable sources and it figured this time for just a day or two.

Second part, the paragraph which contains long reference, . I don't know why he?Nissy-KITAQ deleted sentence with reliable sources and make it a problem with NPOV or making the article poorer than what it was. So I translated citation from the Japanese source of Aichi Gakuin University, which he deleted.

Third part, starting from "In 1930," I wonder why he deleted it because more detailed description of the incident was written. Also, he put new citation, Ochiai Naozumi in 1888, for. Ochiai Nozumi seems authentic because of his carrier in Japanese shrines.

Forth part, which I deleted whole section of "Allergy" because it was nothing but an original research. Plus, even though the had become 1888 Ochiai Naozumi, the sentences from modern perspectives were exactly the same from the was Ago Kiyohiko 1995 which I described at. That made whole edit that he made unsure.

Line 17, hmmm. This is difficult to explain but it was from ..... it is weird.

Line 26, I assumed that he might know something particular because he seems to read some books about Jindai moji as his description itself is sure. Maybe all the scholar are not about Shaku nihongi in Kamakura period. So, I put "first" to make it more clear even if not all the scholar cite Shaku nihongi.

Deletion from :Nihon shoki  is the same reason with "Forth part" above. So, sentence from has been deleted. About the reference "上記鈔訳 Translation of Uetsufumi" which describes about "上記 Uetsufumi", I searched "上記" and I found it was regarded as a forgery again. Moreover, the author of "上記鈔訳" can not be reliable sources as he was not a scholar and refused even among scholars in Kokugaku after he published about Uetsufumi. The fact that he was even called "a lunatic" turn me off to put sentences about him at Jindai moji.

At "Usage" section, I don't know why he revert Usage to Use.... Anyway, the section has no reference and sure description. So I had put. He deleted it, so I put it back. Also, I searched if the shrine, Kojinyama, has Jindai moji stuff just like the picture File:Koujin yama.png. I couldn't find it, so I wanted citation, because even the website of Kojinyama shrine didn't note anything about Jindai moji. So, I wonder, in "Reliable sources", if there is any description about Jindai moji and Kojinyama shrine. But he deleted it. --Orcano (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Claims in favor of jindai moji
This section sounds very fishy to me. The first argument looks like something pulled out of context and the second one holds no weight: there are forgeries now, there could equally well have been forgeries then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this section doesn't seem very strong. From what I've read on the Japanese Wikipedia, the so-called "Ahiru characters" appear to be two separate sets of glyphs -- one is very clearly a slightly modified form of hangul (the ja:阿比留文字 or Ahiru moji), and the other may be a cursive form of the Siddhaṃ script (the ja:阿比留草文字 or Ahiru kusa moji).  The statement that "some recent writers" -- with no names given -- is suspect at best.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)