![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Not being very well versed in Japanese military history, I've used
as the banner image, as it struck me as something quite commonly associated with Japan (particularly in the West). If there's something that would be more iconic (but is recognizable at a small size!), please feel free to change the image.
Kirill Lokshin
12:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I feel about using the Rising Sun Naval ensign (which is what I think that is) as characteristic of the scope of Japanese military history. It works for now, but I'm partial to the samurai kanji as the symbol since it's more historically linked to Japanese military traditions. The Rising Sun really is more of a modern Imperialist logo than a symbol of Japanese martial prowess. -- Woogums 18:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the image to the samurai kanji. If anyone wishes it changed back, or has other suggestions, please simply say so. Discussion breeds community, and improvement. LordAmeth 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to welcome everyone to our new and exciting Japanese military history task force! Thanks to Kirill, Nobunaga24, and others for supporting the initiation of this... I suppose it's not really the kind of thing that requires a hell of a lot of leadership or maintenance, but if there is call for there to an official task force leader, I'd love to take up that role. And if not, that's great too.
My personal focus is the Heian period, the Genpei Wars, and the various other Minamoto-Taira conflicts leading up to that. However, I have worked on (and will continue to work on) just about everything pre-Meiji that looks like it needs doing.
I've also put a fair bit of work into creating and organizing the Japanese warrior categories. I would love some help in maintaining the distinctions between these, and expanding them as needed.
Finally, if anyone - newcomers, members, visitors - have any questions about the task force or about the history itself, please feel free to ask me (or to just ask here, so we can all answer). I'm happy to help.
Thanks all, and welcome! LordAmeth 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Congrats! one note to make - under Category:World War II aircraft carriers of Japan the following two subcategories are showing up - Category:Japanese AM class submarines and Category:Japanese I-400 class submarines. They also show up in what I assume is the main category for submarines. Just wanted to let you all know.-- Oldwildbill 14:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey all. I'm going to probably be working mostly on post-Edo military-related articles, but I'm curious if military organizational articles (such as the modernization of Japanese military 1868-1931)) fall under the scope of articles to tag for the task force to watch. -- Woogums 18:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There are some discussion on Talk:Waeseong what to name the artile. It is about Japanese castles built in Korea during Hideyoshi's invasion in the sixteenth century. As the article is related to the Japanese military history (they were built by samurai), I'd like to ask what you think. Thank you. -- Kusunose 09:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I've split out the simpler tasks (requests for expansion, in this case) into a new template which is transcluded in the main project open task list. This will hopefully bring more attention to these. Please feel free to add additional tasks (currently in one of three types); ideas for other types of work to include are also welcome! Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed Genpei War from our list of open tasks. I would like to request that no one do anything major to it for a short time. Within the next week or so, I intend that between Elvenscout742 and myself, major expansions and polishing will occur; I simply want to give both of us a chance to work on this somewhat ambitious project in one go, without anyone else stepping on our toes. I know it's somewhat anti-social and anti-democratic of me, and I apologize. I just want to see this done - translation from the French article, and expansion based on the French example - in a more or less single-minded way. Once we've finished what we're going to do, everyone is of course as always welcome to once again contribute to the article in whatever small (or big) ways they choose. Thank you. LordAmeth 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've done all I'm going to be doing for a while. Sorry for making such a big deal of this, and thank you for not stepping on my toes. LordAmeth 16:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not know much (read: anything) about this topic, but I am hoping that some of you do. I have noticed, as a result of someone mentioning the article on LJ, that the Japanese Planned invasion of Australia during World War II article makes quite a number of uncited and undefended assertions. There is certainly a significant possibility that this is all true; it just needs to be cited, defended, verified.
Among the statements in question:
"He ( Kenosuke Sato) indicated that Australians would not have been treated very harshly if they had surrendered. He seemed to know a great many leading Australians and he indicated that he was quite certain a good number of Australians would have agreed to co-operate with the Japanese."
Thanks for the help, guys. LordAmeth 06:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Please join in the discussion over at Talk:Battle of Nagashino. There appears to be a debate over the extent to which cavalry charges did or did not occur in feudal Japan. LordAmeth 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello again all. I hope your work is going along well. I realize I'm one of the only ones to post here, and I hope you don't mind. But I do believe that people do read things here, which is ultimately all that really matters.
A number of articles make reference to (and link to) Hideyoshi's Kyushu Campaign. Now, normally, I would not think we ought to have separate articles for every campaign that a given general embarked upon. These things are generally well enough explained in the individual person's article, or in those of the battles and wars involved. For example, Hideyoshi's "Korea campaign" has an article as Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) aka Imjin Waeran, and his "Odawara campaign" is sufficiently handled I think by linking to the decisive final battle, the Siege of Odawara (1590).
I guess this is getting kind of long here, so I'll get to the point. His move to Kyushu is not described extensively in his own article, nor is there any one battle that defines this campaign. Should we create one? Is there even anything much to be said there, other than summarizing the battles, and the causes/effects and events surrounding them? How should we resolve the links in the articles of these various samurai?
Thank you, as always. LordAmeth 12:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Japanese battleship Kongō that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears that a lot of the biographies that have been added verbatim from the Samurai Archives ( http://samurai-archives.com ) (see end of comment for a few example links), do not cite their source. These entries should either be properly rewritten and cited or deleted until such time that someone can do actual research on them to maintain the high standards of wikipedia. There is no attribution that they are taken from the Samurai Archives, where they had been translated and researched. The following are only a miniscule few of many, many examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiraoka_Michiyori from: http://samurai-archives.com/dictionary/h1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goto_Ujifusa from: http://samurai-archives.com/dictionary/eg.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachisuka_Yoshishige from: http://samurai-archives.com/dictionary/h1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furuta_Shigekatsu from: http://samurai-archives.com/dictionary/eg.html
What would be the best way to proceed? Please forgive the double post (once on LordAmeth's talk page, as well); I am just making sure this is seen by those that it should be seen by, as Category:Samurai seems to fall under your jurisdiction. I realize that this is not a fault on your end, as the plethora of articles being added and edited on Wikipedia makes for a difficult surveillance job. Nagaeyari 03:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of exams, but the posts here last night caught my attention, so I figured while i was here at the library this moring doing research, i'd give my opinion. I spent a few hours last night in my dormroom really looking around our "samurai" and japanese military history articles, and tracing down links, and there are many valid points here brought up against the contributor who has been taking articles from the samurai archive site.
Most of the old ones are almost taken ver batim, almost none of those are cited. The more recent ones that person has "contributed" are still taken almost verbatim, with a "reference" heading, under that Samurai Archives. In my opinion, that is not a reference at all - he is taking a word-for-word paragraph or two, and creating an article with it. I look at it like this.
What if:
Say Turnbull has an entry for "Joe Samurai" in the Samurai Sourcebook. And this is the entry:
Joe Samurai was a nominal vessal of the Kaga clan. He was known for his kabuto adorned with deer antlers. He fought bravely at Anegawa and was given a 200 koku fief in Kaga province. It is thought that he died in 1577.
Now, what if someone created an actual wikipedia article like this:
Joe Samurai
Joe Samurai was a minor vassal of the Kaga clan of kaga province, who was known for wearing a kabuto adorned with deer antlers. He was said to have fought bravely at the battle of Anegawa, and was given a 200 koku fief in Kaga province. It is believed that he died in 1577.
==Reference==
Samurai Sourcebook by Stephen Turnbull
The above is basically what was done to the samurai archive site. That would be deleted out of hand as a blatant copyright violation if it has come from Turnbull. Also, I saw that the "sengok dictionary" that a lot of teh articles were taken from had a copyright right on the page, and like someone else mentioned, that samurai wiki also has a copyright note of sorts on the home page.
I am currently working on a BA in Asian Studies here, and if I turned in a paper like that, I would be immediately failed for plagiarism. Not only is it almost word for word, but it is also the only source listed. That is also an indication of poor academic scholarship.
As someone who has not only contributed to Wikipedia, but also contributed 2 original articles to Japanese history on wikipedia (shorter versions of two college term papers), first off, I feel like my work has been cheapened since I put a lot of work into gathering many sources for my articles, and two, that it cheapens wikipedia altogether. In many circles, wikipedia is not taken seriously, dismissed as a combination of internet bias, pop culture, and bad scholarship. This sort of thing only backs this argument. Furthermore, since I have contributed my own work to this site, it would bother me if some other site copied my work. Like a lot of people, I am invested in my work in wikipedia, and i want us to be able to hold everyone to the high standards we hold ourselves to.
I think it is really cool that we have this new japanese military history task force, but the issues brought up now really highlight that either this taskforce needs to delegate some people to monitor and examine the articles, or maybe to create a sub-task force for this task. My thought is a wiki page where people can put suspect wiki articles, and match them with the "source" that they appear to be copyright infringements of, much like the user nagayari did up at the start of all this. Then moderators could compare the wikipedia article to the source, and decide if it needs to be deleted.
I think anyway that the articles that have already been found should be deleted now as copyright vios. this is because after doing a lot of looking around last night, I really, really dont think that it will be possible to leave them up and "add to them" from other sources. As far as I can tell, a lot of the entries on the samruai archive site are original and probably come from japanese sources, so it will be very very hard to build on them. i think we should delete them until such time that two or more sources can be used to create original articles.
I am in the middle of examns and a thesis paper now, so i won't be available for a while, but i really encourage this. The only people who can monitor wikipedia are us users, and we need to really buckle down if it is ever going to be taken seriously.
I hope you consider my thoughts, because, as a contributor, I really want wikipedia to continue to flourish. I really think this should be addressed, and i may be biased, but I think the idea of a page to post suspected articles would be a good idea. And when I finish with my exams and thesis, I'll be right into it too.
Thanks. -- 128.171.106.233 23:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I've ran across a neglected page which I believe would fall under the scope of this project. I've done what little I can with my little (read lack of) knowledge of the subject. I thought maybe someone here could improve on it, as I found it as an unfortunate blank page with only infoboxes... akuyume T C 03:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for Battle of Wuhan that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
To the small extent that the histories of feudal domains has been covered on Wikipedia, it's been done in a number of different ways.
Right now, Choshu domain, and nearly every alternate spelling of "Choshu" are simply redirects to Nagato province, which contains very little information on the pre-Meiji history of the domain. Satsuma han is a stub article which stands separate from articles on the Shimazu family and any number of other things linked to from the Satsuma disambig page. Matsumae clan does a fair job of describing the history of the domain as well, since the history of that family was especially closely related to its holding, and not to the actions of its individual members. But Matsumae, Hokkaidō and Matsumae Castle are both stubs with next to no information.
I'm more than ready to start doing some serious work on reconciling all of these different things, and starting articles on just about every domain and clan I can find sufficient information for. But we need a standardized system first. I am also posting this at WikiProject:Japan in the hopes of getting some good suggestions over there. If we do end up reaching completely different consensuses (consensi?) on both Projects, I'm not sure what I'll do. But for now, comments and suggestions, please. LordAmeth 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been going through various Japanese military history related articles for a few weeks now, and the number of completely uncited articles is staggering. There are some very well written articles that don't cite thier sources along with the other uncited articles, and many only cite one source (which isn't a bad thing, but I'm sure we'd all agree "the more the better". I've been tagging them as I find them, but personaly I think this should at least be a second-tier priority in getting sources into these articles. -- Kuuzo 05:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
This article needs some serious expansion and help. It is difficult to walk the fine line of objective neutrality when it comes to these sorts of topics sometimes... I am hoping that one of you who might be more of a serious scholar of WWII Japanese ideology might be able to help with this. The article as it stands isn't too blatantly or drastically anti-Japanese, and of course we do not wish to be too pro-Japanese in our treatment either. As it is written right now, however, it essentially identifies the concept of the Sphere as a front, as a falsity created simply to justify "evil" fascist/imperialist/militarist actions; and while this is certainly not entirely untrue, I think it would be quite enlightening (and important) to discuss the subject within the context of Japan's rise to militarism, it's views of imperialism in light of trying to be a modern country ala their perception of the Western model, etc etc. To what extent was this simply a front for militarists to extend an exploitative arm over supposedly inferior people, and to what extent did the Japanese people/soldiers/politicians genuinely believe they were acting nobly, to the benefit of all of East Asia? (I do apologize to simply leave it open to you all, but this is truly not my field of expertise... maybe once we discuss it in class in the next month or so I'll feel more prepared to write on it - in the meantime, as I am sure at least one of you must be more experienced, knowledgable, and interested in this subject than myself, please go ahead and do what you can, if you are so inclined.) LordAmeth 21:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
After creating the article on the Battle of Yawata, I learned that there is very little information on the battles of the Muromachi period. Please take a look at it. -- Ineffable3000 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a new peer review request for Battle of Edson's Ridge that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Edson's Ridge that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Did the battle of Battle of Shijō Nawate occur in 1348 (stated so in Kusunoki Masatsura) or in 1339 (as stated in the main page)? -- Ineffable3000 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)