Talk:Inari (mythology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articles Inari (mythology) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is supported by WikiProject Shinto, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to Shinto. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is part of the Japanese mythology WikiProject, which aims to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of Japanese mythology. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.

Removed a dead link *Michichael Folf-sunè

[edit] Torii

This sentence:

The entrance to an Inari shrine is usually marked by one or more vermilion torii and some statues of kitsune, which are usually adorned with red bibs out of respect.

could be misunderstood to mean that vermilion torii (or just torii in general) are specific to Inari shrines. Any ideas how we can rewrite this? TomorrowTime 11:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a need. That red color is heavily, perhaps almost exclusively, associated with Inari. Will be sourcing that in the rewrite, but among others, Smyers, The Fox and the Jewel, p. 177. Shimeru 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hm... I was under the impression that there is no real corelation between vermilion torii and Inari... Off the top of my head, Heian Jingu in Kyoto's got them bright red torii, and I'm sure there's plenty of other non-Inari shrines like that. But those are my personal observations, of course, so I could as well be way off mark. Oh well, you live, you learn. Thanks for clearing that up. TomorrowTime 16:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm seeking out further sources to be certain. There probably is a need to clarify, either way. Shimeru 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case, let me add another personal observation. I've only seen those "torii tunnels" (like the one in the picture in the article) in perhaps three or four shrines, and I think they might have all been inari shrines. I'm, let's say, about 75% percent sure they were all inari shrines. Maybe such rows of torii are an inari specific? TomorrowTime 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link

External link "Essay on Inari" on the bottom doesn't exist any more, or it has invalid host name (server down?) Just check: http://www.antiisland.net/library/reader.dtsl?book=1097546942&chapter=1 Pity.

[edit] Article review

This is the kind of article I would like to see submitted for a GA nom more often. While it falls short of featured article standards, it certainly meets the good article standards without question.

  1. Well-written. An editor with no knowledge of the topic could read this article and easily understand what is being discussed. Special terms used in the article are given nice brief explanations and wikilinked for further reading. Easy, pleasant and interesting to read.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable. Well-cited article. Perhaps could use a few more citations here and there, but nothing particularly stands out as missing in that regard.
  3. Broad in coverage. Nicely covers the bases, giving a solid overall view. It could expand a bit explaining a bit more about the place of Inari in modern culture and worship.
  4. NPOV. This article is excellant in that regard, simply reporting the facts.
  5. Stable. This article is stable.
  6. Images. Excellant use of images. They give a good feels to the article.

Pass. Great article. Interesting and easy read. Nicely fits the GA standards. Vassyana 09:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)