Talk:Fujiwara clan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

[edit] Moved from Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion

  • Fujiwara clan -> Fujiwara family; to move the latter to the former (Fujiwara clan has two revisions). It is inaccurate to call it family. After moving, I will put Fujiwara family again as a redirect.--Aphaea 12:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • This is probably the right move; I'll check some of my reference books. Noel 16:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. -- User:Docu
    • This appears to have been a mistake. A Google search shows "Fujiwara family" is more common (2,080) than "Fujiwara clan" (915). In addition, the Britannica has them under "Fujiwara family". Noel (talk) 16:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • If so, the article should be updated, then moved back. -- User:Docu
        • Fujiwara family has no history, so this can be moved without needing to delete any redirects. Therefore, I've removed it from RfD. requested moves would be a better place to discuss this that RfD. Angela.

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I hadn't noticed this old discussion. Somewhere (I wish I could find it) on either the talk page of WikiProject Japan or WP:MOS-JA we've discussed the logic of setting a standard for "clan" over "family". Standardization is a good thing. LordAmeth 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Google searches should be used with caution, and I wouldn't trust anything the Brittanica Encyclopedia has to say about Japan. It is notoriously outdated and badly written. Having said that, the question of clan over family should be answered with respect to the clan/family in question, and not based on some arbitrarily imposed standard. Assuming family refers to a limited set of blood/marriage ties and clan refers to ties by a combination of blood and mere association (as well as geographic location, in some cases), I think there are good arguments for referring to Fujiwara as a family, to be distinguished from true clans like the Sogas and the Mononobe. Although the most famous of the Sogas form a direct line of descent from Uamko to Emishi to Iruka, my understanding is that they hail from a larger clan who don't necessarily all share blood ties. The Fujiwaras, on the other hand, trace their ancestry back to the first Fujiwara, Nakatomi no Kamatari. On the other hand, family also seems to imply a limited group, where the Fujiwaras comprise people spanning generations scattered throughout Japan. Therefore, it seems a bit of a stretch to consider them a "family". And I think this goes for the Minamotos and the Taira as well. On the balance, I would opt to keep these as "clans", rather than "families".-Jefu 05:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the Minamoto and Taira began as honorary names granted by Emperors to court nobles (kuge), many of whom I believe were related to the Imperial family in one way or another, and not necessarily particularly closely related to one another. Those two in particular I would definitely call clans, as they had a great many branch families (Seiwa Genji, Kawachi Genji, Kammu Heishi... the Ashikaga, Nitta, Takeda and Tokugawa claimed descent from the Minamoto, the Chiba, Miura, Hatakeyama, and Hojo from the Taira). ... It's one of those difficult things with some subtleties to the connotations and meanings of the terms, "clan" vs "family". LordAmeth 08:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I am late and I'm no specialist on this matter, either. But I added a bit in the lead to clarify how Fujiwara clan differs from other kuge family like Konoe family, and why the article ought to be named Fujiwara clan not Fujiwara family. The distinction may be technical but seemingly significant, as this sort of technicality is all noble people care. -- Taku 11:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regents table

Regent Lived Sessho Kampaku
Yoshifusa 804–872 866–872 —
Mototsune 836–891 876–884 (887–890
Tadahira 880–949 930–941 941–949
Saneyori 900–970 969–970 967–969
Koretada 924–972 970–972 —
Kanemichi 925–977 — 973–977
Yoritada 924–989 — 977–986
Kaneie 929–990 986–990 990
Michitaka 953–995 990–993 993–995
Michikane 961–995 — 995
Michinaga 966–1028 1016–1017 —
Yorimichi 990–1074 1017–1020 1020–1068
Norimichi 997–1075 — 1068–1075
Morozane 1042–1101 1087–1091 1075–1087, 1091–1094
Moromichi 1062–1099 — 1094–1099
Tadazane 1078–1162 1107–1114 1106–1107, 1114–1121
Tadamichi 1097–1164 1123–1129, 1142–1151 1121–1123, 1129–1142, 1151–1158
Motozane 1143–1166 1165–1166 1158–1165
Motofusa 1144–1230 1166–1173 1173–1179
Moroie 1172–1238 1184 —

The above was moved from the main page. Since it is duplicate to the list found in Sesshō and Kampaku, I'm not sure about the point of the table. Maybe some different kind of a list can be useful, but what could that be? -- Taku 14:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)