Talk:Kibi Clan Rebellion

Disputed
removed the content of this article, describing it as "pseudohistory presented as fact". I've restored the content, but marked the article with a disputed header until someone knowledgeable can take a look at this. -- The Anome (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The source outright describes this whole era as “protohistorical”, with all that implies; stating as fact anything only known from legend isn’t good practice. Qwirkle (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The article relies heavily on century old sources. I find it hard to believe that no modern critical edition of Nihon Shoki exists, or that the story has not been commented on by more up-to-date reliable sources.  Reference to these to create a section on the scholarly consensus about the historicity or otherwise of the story seems the way to go.Monstrelet (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course, in the end. In the meantime, labeling the problem with a tag is the second-best thing for the unwary reader. Qwirkle (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that this should be made more clear. (not sure whether the disputed template is suitable in this case though). FWIW, Sansom (A History of Japan to 1334), p 41f, considers the time around the year 400 as a cut-off between fiction and somewhat reliable history. Quoting: From this date onwards we enter into the period of recorded history, and can place some trust in the national chronicles. They are not entirely reliable for the first century or so after 400, but what they tell us about the events after 600 is on the whole credible, [..]. bamse (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)