User talk:Prburley

	The Original Barnstar
	For your efforts with mountains of Japan! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		Thanks for creating the new Japan-related articles, including Mount Sentsū, Hanami River and Sanbutsu-ji. Your efforts to improve Wikipedia are greatly appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Prburley by Northamerica1000(talk) on 05:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, if you'd like, feel free to add {{WikiProject Japan}} to the talk pages of new Japan-related articles. This alerts the WikiProject about the new article and encourages article improvements. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Christianity Barnstar
		for your work on Chapel of Our Lady of Help (Cachoeira) Randoperson1 (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the newly listed Mount Yonaha, and can't figure out why you blanked it. It looked like a decent enough start as an article.Boneyard90 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to blank my sandbox. Restored. Thanks always Brian!Prburley (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Boneyard90 (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I re-assessed it as C-class. Generally, if articles aren't of a certain length, they're assumed to be lacking in "coverage". Even if I assessed it as B-class, some other editor would come along and downgrade it (it's happened before). Anyway, keep up the good work.Boneyard90 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks. I suspect "Yonaha" means something in Okinawan, but I wasn't able to find it.Prburley (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not demonstrate any

Hi, I wonder how we can improve the information on the temples where you reverted my changes. The term denomination in Buddhism is a tricky task. Nichiren Buddhism is a part of Mahayana Buddhims. Nichiren Buddhism is not one single school or sect though. Commonly the term Nichiren Sect is being used to describe the time between Nichirens death and the formation of distinct Nichiren Schools. Even though Nichiren Shu is considered the largest and oldest School of Nichiren Buddhism adherents of the Nichiren Shoshu for example would not visit or pray in temples of Nichiren Shu. Omitting the fact that the temples are Nichiren Shu temples is like withholding valuable information form the reader, otherwise the article does not contain more information than any other cheap travel guide. To make a simple comparison it would be strange to label St.Pauls in London or St. Peter in Rome simply a Christian church, one belongs to the Church of England the other is Catholic. To find a compromise at least within the article one should be able to specify to which school the temple belongs to. In the case of Tanjo-ji your change now reads that it is one of the four sacred places of Nichiren Buddhism … this is not true as for most Nichiren Schools outside of Nichiren Shu this simply is not the case. So before we start an edit war maybe we could find some sort of compromise where the respective temple's home is in the sometimes confusing buddhist landscape. Please also note this: Schools_of_Buddhism. One solution would be to be more specific in the info-box. The denomination would be Mahayana, the Tradition would be Nichiren-Buddhims, the School or branch would be Nichiren Shu or like in the case of Taiseki-ji Nichiren Shoshu.--Catflap08 (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in a Nichiren edit war of articles on temples, which you describe, I think incorrectly, as "cheap travel guide[s]". Please take this discussion to the Japan Project page, where I've opened the topic [here]. Prburley (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your question: Dear anonymous user: 68.174.170.35. Please provide definitive references before modifying an article as you did in the magatama article. The section on the imperial regalia was already well supported by definitive references. I added several more. You can read them in full at Talk:Magatama. Prburley (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My response: The edit I made was in good faith. I was not modifying an article, merely flagging up the fact that an offline source from 1928 was being used to make a fact statement about something which is intentionally shrouded in mystery. Furthermore, your current assertion that "post-World War II scholarship supports the claim" isn't referenced. What scholarship is this? Can we have some references? Sorry to be a pedant — in fact, I'm sure you are right as you are (from the evidence above) far more knowledgeable about Japan and Japanese history than me. Also, maybe it would be good for one of us to edit the Imperial Regalia of Japan accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.170.35 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anonymous IP 68.174.170.35: I don't think "good faith" and an anonymous IP are a good mix, but at least your IP stays the same. I agree with everything you wrote above, except that I'm not an expert, and that after reading the Japanese sources, I found that the regalia aren't surrounded in much mystery.

I was more concerned with the neutrality of the magatama article--too much arguing about magatama vs gogok and very little about.... magatama.

Actually Anonymous IP 68.174.170.35, I'd never heard of the duplicate regalia. I read it first in the Japanese sources. Daniel Clarence Holtom in 1928 hardly seemed reliable, but I had his book in hand at work, and it generally matched Jpn sources. Post-WW2 scholarship: #39-#41, and the Japanese sources you can read on the talk page. Important point: the duplicate regalia issue didn't warrant much discussion in the magatama article, as there's no claim that the magatama is a duplicate.

The regalia article does need a huge amount of time-consuming work, but I'm not going to do that without collecting up the print sources in Japanese first. Take care Anonymous IP 68.174.170.35. Prburley (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prburley. I have nominated this article by you for use in the DYK section on MainPage. You can see the nomination and the reviewers' comments here. If you are interested in getting this article of yours showcased on MainPage, please respond to the reviewers' concern regarding the lack of footnotes. I don't have the references, so I can't fix things up myself. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not posting to the DYK reviewer comments. Will tackle the "environmental conditions" section when I have the time/energy to work from the Japanese sources, that section was indeed unsourced. They're pretty dense. Thanks! ---> Prburley (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply