Talk:Tadasu no Mori

UNESCO Monuments of Kyoto

The list of 17 Monuments of Kyoto listed together as a World Heritage Site in 1994 includes three shrines and no forest. Two of the shrines--Kamigamo Shrine and Shimogamo Shrine--are within close vicinity, but Uji Shrine is quite distant.Tksb (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying/amplifying ...?

Yes, of course, the UNESCO list here is very clear -- indisputably plain in identifying

Serial ID No. 688-001: Kamowakeikazuchi-jinja (Kamigamo shrine)

Property: 63.799999 Ha

Buffer zone: 242.699997 Ha

Serial ID No. 688-002: Kamomioya-jinja (Shimogamo Shrine)

Property: 10.7 Ha

Buffer zone: 105.300003 Ha

It also happens that the Shimgamo official website here explains near the bottom of the page in the "Tadasu-no-mori (Forest of justice)" section:

This is about 12.4 hectare size Forrest and is a National Historic site. This is also designated to the World Cultural Heritage along with the other shrines and halls in Shimogamo shrine. This forest is a Natural Heritage, and a foundation was organized in order to protect its natural environment ....

I am unable to resolve any perceived contradiction between these sources or with Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities); however, I did accurately cite the source which supports the second sentence of the first paragraph.

As for the phrase "other shrines in the vicinity," I was intending to acknowledge the other shrines -- perhaps accurately identified as "sub-shrines" -- on the Shimigamo web page, e.g.,

• Kawai shrine
• Mitsui shrine
• Izumoinoheno Shrine
• Hiraki shrine
• Koto shrine

• Reiji-sha shrine
• Aioi-sha shrine
• Aka-no-Miya (Kamohani shrine)

I suppose the general term "vicinity" could be construed to encompass Uji, as in

vicinity of Kyoto = Kyoto and its nearby environs.

In order to minimize unhelpful ambiguity, I've substituted "environs" for "vicinity" in the article text.

I wonder: Does this address the questions your comment seems to suggest? --Tenmei (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

On the Japanese side of the Shimogamo Shrine web site, the section about the Tadasu-no-mori is as follows: 史跡糺の森は、高野川と鴨川が合流する三角州地帯の森林をそのように呼ばれている。かつては、約495万平方メートル（約150万坪）の原生林であったが、中世の戦乱や明治4年の上知令によって現在の約12万4千平方メートル、東京ドームの約3倍となった。現在は全域を国の史跡として保存されている。　史跡糺の森は、旧山代原野の原生樹林の植生を残す唯一の森林で、ケヤキ、ムク、エノキなど約40種、樹齢200年から600年の樹木約600本が生い茂っている。　樹林の間には奈良の小川、瀬見の小川、泉川、御手洗川の清流があって四季におりなす林泉の美と幽すいは、市民の憩いの場として古くから親しまれてきた。源氏物語、枕草子をはじめ数々の物語や詩歌管弦にうたわれている名所旧跡でもある。Ｔhe Japanese　side gives no claim that the forest is "designated to the World Cultural Heritage" (whatever that means). What it does mention in terms of the forest's having to do with being a Historical Site is that the whole forest, comprising 124,000 sq. m today, is preserved as a national historical site (を国の史跡）. As for what the English says, the statement there is that the forest is designated to the World Cultural Heritage (??) along with the other shrines and halls "in Shimogamo shrine." Not much construing should be necessary to understand what that means and doesn't mean. Tksb (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tksb -- I wonder if I can ask you to re-state your point in different words? Are there specific questions which remain unaddressed? Are there specific sentences in this article which need further work?

We recognize that this article is about a certain parcel of property inside the city limits of the current municipality of Kyoto. This property is mentioned on a UNESCO list of properties in Japan and in other countries.

UNESCO: Japan --Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

UNESCO: Japan -- Information related to Intangible Cultural Heritage

Neither this sacred grove nor any Shinto Shrine is included on UNESCO's Intangible Cultural Heritage list; but this is not to say that the intangible aspects of the Kamo Shrine (or Kamo shrines) ... or Tadasu no Mori are excluded from this Wikipedia article. --Tenmei (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that this wooded area known as Tadasu-no-mori is among the property of Shimogamo Shrine, which comprehensively (the shrine grounds altogether, with its various sacred buildings and other historical features, including the forest) is designated as one of the UNESCO Historical Monuments of Kyoto. Despite whatever may have been the forest's primordial situation, this is the situation now. If it must be mentioned that the forest is somehow among the UNESCO Historical Monuments of Kyoto, this distinction is particularly relevant, because the forest's inclusion in the site/sanctuary called Shimogamo Shrine, designated as one of the 17 UNESCO Historical Monument of Kyoto, is why it can be regarded as so.Tksb (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tksb -- I've repositioned the UNESCO-related text and added your explanatory language. This is intended to be a consensus-building step. Perhaps you will want to tweak this text a bit more? As I construe it, your cramped point-of-view is mistaken; but I do not dispute that it is consistent with WP:V -- "that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

This causes me to suggest that you may want to review the modest edits I've contributed at Sacred grove#Japan and Seifa-utaki? --Tenmei (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Japanese Translation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2023 and 17 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tomaszwachjadlo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tomaszwachjadlo (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)