Talk:Yamato Okunitama

AfC Comments
@Immanuelle, I'm replying here because going back-and-forth in AfC comments gets a bit difficult. This certainly looks like a big improvement over the earlier draft I reviewed and makes a much better case for its existence. I'd have to look more closely at it to be sure, but first, can you explain your edits to the article since my decline? There are a lot of them, without edit summaries (no criticism intended, just stating a fact here), and I don't really want to redline it or sift through each diff individually. I see that you borrowed some text from other articles with this edit (thanks for making that very clear in the edit summary and the edit itself!). Can you tell me in general what you did to the article and why? Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Asilvering firstly I borrowed text from other articles, the deity is quite significant to the reign of Emperor Sujin and religious changes in that period.
 * Secondly I added more content providing context to the deity. Primarily from this paper which covers the potential influence related to the switch to patriarchal religion in Japan, and provides more context with the potential identification with the deity Ōmononushi. Which also gives more context for the eventual movement of Amaterasu to Ise Grand Shrine I also used some information from this book which provides more context about the worship of the 800,000 deities, and the relationship with the Izumo province and larger scale social organization. And I cited the website of Kokugakuin University for the development of the priesthood of Amaterasu from the incident. I think I will add that content to other articles since it’s also very relevant to Amaterasu and related articles.
 * In the future what should I do with their website since pages like this https://d-museum.kokugakuin.ac.jp/eos/detail/?id=8608 get broken like this when citing it, and it’s a pretty prestigious institution that readers should be able to see in citations. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 17:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering can you get back to me on this? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation! I'll be able to spend more time on this tomorrow. What do you mean about that footnote being broken? It looks fine to me. It's lacking in metadata, like the name of the author. Is that what you mean? The easiest way to fix this is in visual editor - click the citation, click edit, and then add the fields you want. -- asilvering (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering the citation gives no link. It just goes to an error page. The automated citation generation system somehow doesn’t understand the pages. I think it’s because the pages have a php get on them so it goes from https://d-museum.kokugakuin.ac.jp/eos/detail/?id=8608 to https://d-museum.kokugakuin.ac.jp//eos/detail/ taking away the last part of the url. I’m afraid of introducing such links since someone else might accidentally convert them to nonfunctional ones Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's very strange. I don't think it's likely that someone will convert them to nonfunctional links if you fill out the proper metadata for them. Try introducing the footnote manually and running IAbot? If the bot archives the page correctly, it won't matter if someone later changes it to this corrupted form. -- asilvering (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering how do you manually run IAbot? Also do you think there's a need for more sources in this article or do you think it is well sourced now? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 17:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Immanuelle You manually run it here: . Make sure "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" is checked. I haven't had time to check the sources on this draft yet. -- asilvering (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Immanuelle, can you clarify this sentence? It doesn't make any sense: However it is also interpreted as potentially having represented a decline of the role of Amaterasu in Japanese religion and a shift to patriarchal power structures in Japan.. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This has been suggested as representing a population migration from Izumo., too, doesn't make much sense here. -- asilvering (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Asilvering I decided to remove both of those (although I kept a part explaining the reduction of the role of Amaterasu), as both theories would probably require a lot more than a single sentence to explain. It might be worth adding a theories section at some point with paragraphs for each though, but not now. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)