I agree. 
There's a bit a grey area where a term is derived from a passage, but is not a quotation or a proverb. It would be nice to have a succinct way of indicating the etymology, e.g. <<deriv. from 史記 passage>> or <<based on 古事記 passage>>.

This was last discussed in the comments of 2833957. For that entry, we decided that one tag was enough.
I still think it's unnecessary to have [quote] and [proverb] on a single entry. 
Given that daijs just gives a modern translation, I think [quote] is correct here.

Did we really decide on that? I don't 
tgink it makes sense from a data 
perspective. Not all quotes are proverbs, 
so [quote] shouldn't be treated as a 
subset of [proverb].

Agree.

@@ -13 +12,0 @@
-<misc>&proverb;</misc>

i think we kind of decided elsewhere that there is no need to tag something as both a quote and a proverb.  in this case because the source is known and is relatively recent (compared to say, confucius), i would suggest that it is best left as 'quote'