Post-death Ascension bias? [#3260]
22.214.171.124: Post-death Ascension bias?
(2016-07-02 11:32) [#10747]
EdIV?: I have a few issues with this part of the text. It seems to me that it says and implies things that are at the very least contrary to the material that it is sourcing.
1:When it says particularly in the opinions of 1 editor, Segoe. It fails to mention that books just gave 1 opinion and that it is assumed to be Segoe as he was by far the strongest involved.
2:It seems to imply that the conclusion of the 10 volume publication was that Shusaku was the 'Go Sage'. However the conclusion in the book was that Jowa was the strongest.
The relevant passage from Honinbo Jowa - sage or scoundrel:
"It is not clear who wrote what, but I follow Hayashi Yutaka in agreeing that it is inconceivable that Segoe's views would not prevail. It is therefore especially interesting to see the entry for Jowa in the biographical section. Segoe (we shall assume it is he) suggests trying to set up a sumo-type ranking list covering the players from the Kansei era to the end of Keio (1789-1868). He lists the claims of the 7th Yasui, Senkaku, for his "splendid power", Genjo as Jowa's teacher, Chitoku who managed to awe Jowa like a tiger, Gen'an of course, and Shuwa, Shusaku and Shuho. He then says that each of these probably has qualifications to object to placing Jowa in the seat of Yokozuna (Grand Champion) of the East, but "taking these points all in all, we will discover that we cannot but recommend Jowa for first place. Truly, this 12th Honinbo was the personification of power in go."
3: A slightly smaller thing, but Ishigaya Kosaku's praising of Shusaku wasn't entirely unselfish as Shuwa allowed him to use the -saku in his name(before that it was Koji)
I didn't really know what to do since it wouldn't be the first time that a fanboy changed an edit.
At the very least I think either the source should be changed or the section of the article should reflect what is actually in the source.