|WikiProject Japan||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject East Asia||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Major edit for readability
I have just performed a major and, if I may say so myself, BOLD edit for readability. I hope that most people, even those with a vested interest in this article, will find that it is now much improved. If you don't, please dicuss the reasons here so that we can all work in the same direction instead of arguing back and forth.
- I have removed all the kanji except for 安土桃山時代 at the beginning of the article. This is an English language article and the gratuitous addition of a foreign language, especially at every instance of a name, is distracting. If someone has a problem with this, please let's discuss it here before we get into an editting war.
- I have tried my best to retain all the information that was in the earlier article, but I have done considerable rearranging and have also added a lot of new information. Please let's try to avoid duplicating the same information in different sections.
- I am not a professional historian and may have introduced some factual inaccuraries, for which I would appreciate corrections. I also, however, have removed more than a few, which I hope do not find their way back in. One example is the idea that any lord with a domain of 10,000 koku or more was a daimyo. To the best of my knkowledge, that particular distinction was implemented by the Edo bakufu and is irrelevant to this period,which predates that usage.
Spventi 06:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hideyoshi and the office of shogun
I removed the text "As a commoner, Hideyoshi was ineligible for the title of Seii Taishogun." The same reasoning applies to the office of Taikō, yet he took that higher title. See Berry p. 170, where she gives these reasons for Hideyoshi not taking the title of shogun: (1) a resolution ... to dissociate himself from a shogunal instutution that he knew in a debilitated state" and (2) "Shogunal power was partial power, and shogunal title would diminish a man who held greater military and political authority than any of his martial predecessors." Fg2 11:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- That might be what the way Berry understands it, but most of the Japanese reference works I've read, including ja:征夷大将軍 place emphasis on the fact that only descendants of the Genji could become Shogun. That nothwithstanding, however, I agree that the issue does not boil down simply to bloodline. Maybe some time in the future, someone will have time to research and write about this more completely, but for the time being I agree with your edit, anyway.
- By the way, I'm glad to see someone else who wants to keep English language articles in English. Good job.
- Spventi 05:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just to give a little more of what Berry intimates (she doesn't actually say it): It was historians writing during the Tokugawa regime who emphasized the importance of the title and office of shogun. Those historians lived in a state ruled by shoguns. This makes it natural to put the shogun at the pinnacle. (I'd quote it, but my book's not handy.)
- Many of the historians worked either for the shogunate itself, or for a branch of the Tokugawa family (Mito, which compiled an extensive history of Japan). The Tokugawa influence on writing history makes it natural that Japanese historians have repeated this.
- But as you note, "it does not boil down simply to bloodline." Hideyoshi got the office of kanpaku without being Fujiwara (by being adopted). If Hideyoshi had wanted to become shogun that badly, he would have gotten it! The Tokugawa likewise were not Genji; yet they found a way to become shoguns. (See ja:征夷大将軍#歴史上存在した俗説: 「系図を偽造して清和源氏と称したというエピソードも残っている」.)
- Anyhow, thanks for understanding that I removed the statement about Hideyoshi's motivations since this article's not about Hideyoshi but about the Azuchi-Momoyama period. For this article, a brief summary containing objective, factual statements about the people and events seem the better way to go. (We have more scope for developing the major trends of the period.) In the article on Hideyoshi, we have more room to present alternative views of his motivations. Fg2 07:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
He wrote the deletion reason. Any reason for deleting generals' name and replaced "A king"?
I questioned him.
- You deleted Japanese Samurai Kato Kiyomasa
- You deleted a Chinese general Li Rusong
- You added two Koreans. (Won Gyun and Yi Eok-gi)
The Japanese and the Chinese whom you deleted gave big influence in the Azuchi-Momoyama Period. However, did two Korean people whom you had added influence in the Azuchi-Momoyama Period?
He answered. And, he concealed my question. 
Eichikiyama Unwarranted exaggeration. All you have to do is to add "RELIABLE sources" before complaining your unexplained edits.
An edit war is tiresome, even for those who only watch from the sidelines.
Historiographer -- As you know, cooperation and consensus represents a better way forward. You will notice that each paragraph has been tagged "citation needed." Why not add citation support to at least one of the sentences you want to see in this article? A small step in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
青鬼よし -- As you know, cooperation and consensus represents a better way forward. You will notice that each paragraph has been tagged "citation needed." Why not add citation support to at least one of the sentences you want to see in this article? A small step in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This broad subject is not one which interests me specifically, but I am interested in a few of the incidents and small details which are encompassed within this overview.
QUESTION: Why is it not possible for each of us to "reformat" the rationale which informs slightly different point of view ... much in the same way the wiki-software makes it easy to reformat the blocks of text in this thread? --Tenmei (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Historiographer -- Your persisting changes of a section heading do not encourage the development of consensus. Without an accompanying discussion thread in this venue, your "edit war" tactic cannot become part of a process which evolves into a successful strategy. Have you invested time in thinking about the differences between a mere "tactic" and a "strategy"? --Tenmei (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)