Talk:Shogun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Shogun was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject Japan / History / Military history / Royalty & nobility (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 01:28, July 24, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the History task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Royalty and nobility task force.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.


Generally, though not technically,[edit]

it is used in reference to western military leaders of past and present from, for example, Carl von Clausewitz and Erwin Rommel, to Tommy Franks. Shogun Japan 🎓🎓 Is that so? We don't have to cover minor usage of an English word shogun. -- Taku 02:29, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Aint nobody got time for swag

[edit]

I think the word "overcomes" (in "great generalissimo who overcomes the barbarians" ) sounds too passive to be a translation of "征夷"). "Raids" might be more appropriate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.128.229.43 (talkcontribs) 04:09, 15 November 2003.


[edit]

In the article there is a subsection "Conquest of the Ainu", and it is described that they were conquered by the earliest shogun.

They may have been the Ainu, but the people who lived in today's Tohoku region may not have been necesarrily the Ainu, or more accurately, it is not known who they were. The only person whose name is known is Aterui, which doesn't sound like Japanese. (I don't know if this can make sense in the Ainu language.) There are some place names in Tohoku region which some claim are of Ainu origine, but it's not enough evidence that proves the people conquered by the shogun were the Ainu. Aniway we could modify this paragraph. -222.15.81.187 11:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Dates in article[edit]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras states, "Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BCAD 1 or 1 BCE1 CE." For that reason, I removed "c.e." from the header. Fg2 00:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

European styles[edit]

Were shoguns addressed by a standardized European style? Would European diplomatic missives have been addresse to "Son Altesse le Shogun de Japon," or some such? One would imagine that, at least between Perry's opening of Japan and the end of the Shogunate, this would have been addressed. (My hours in the archives full of formalized usage of styles is driving me mad, I fear.) john k 21:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Most European documents of the time referred to the Shogun as "King of Japan" or whatever the equivalent may have been in the English/Dutch/Portuguese/Spanish/German/Russian of the time. The Europeans seemed for the most part quite confused, or oblivious, of the presence or role of the Emperor, or for that matter of the very deliberate efforts on Japan's part to not be called "King" in communications with other Asian nations. LordAmeth (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 19, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: interesting prose, no big beef.
2. Factually accurate?: this is the crux. Whole sections have no refs, some POV statements are unsourced, and some refs are incomplete (or in the case of #4, have no content).
3. Broad in coverage?: a good explanation and history.
4. Neutral point of view?: seems good.
5. Article stability? no rapid changes being reverted, fine.
6. Images?: all are free domain/GFDL, pass.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — David Fuchs (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm... at some point, somebody moved a large chunk of the references down into the "further reading" section (including the contents of the now-fixed 4th ref you mentioned) -- perhaps that wasn't the best idea, in this light. Live and learn. I've restored a few of them to their previous positions, and will hope to find a few more I can move up again. I'm not sure which unsourced POV statements you're referring to, though? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
"He became the practical ruler of Japan, and received the title sei-i taishōgun.", the entire Heian period section... normally I wouldn't complain about that except the main article doesn't cite references. David Fuchs (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
while I still think that in order to get FAC more statements will have to be sourced, I feel confident it can at least merit a GA. David Fuchs (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What does Sho mean?[edit]

The intro to the article says that sho means commander or general, yet there is also a page called "sho" about a japanese wind instrument. I think that translation may be wrong?  The Robot Champion  talk to me  01:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens of kanji with the pronunciation "shō," including a wind instrument and the first character of "shogun." Fg2 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
And to answer your question more directly, yes, the kanji 将 in 将軍 does have the meaning "commander" or "general." Fg2 (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Japanese is one of the hardest languages to learn because of these many syllables all representing different meanings. This is mostly due to the limitations of the language itself, only a handful of options (about 80, modernly). A lot of the words were taken from Chinese where shò and shó are totally different but said by a Japanese speaker (or English speaker in this case) is just sho (in the case of "shogun" it is actually shō, a long o which in Japanese Romaji usually written shou) so that the word "sho" in Japanese can mean a few different things, more precisely, more than a few kanji can have the same "sho" as it's reading or yomikata. - (笙 - shō) (将 - shō) (少 - shō) -- Billy Nair (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's one of the easiest in my opinion, since there aren't nearly as many different verb conjugations as in most Western languages, there's only two irregular verbs, and no masculine/feminine agreement issues. The kanji do a far better job than spelled-out words in other languages of relating their meaning and etymology upon a quick glance. It is also far easier than any tonal language to pronounce, and doesn't even have the strange accent of French or the accent issues of many other languages. Not only that, but unlike English, the basic grammar forms are quite straightforward and logical, and have very few exceptions. Talk to a Japanese (or just about anyone who doesn't speak English as their first language) and I can practically guarantee that they have tons of trouble with spelling - that doesn't happen in Japanese, as *everything* is pronounced precisely the way the kana spelling indicates. LordAmeth (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess in those ways it is a pretty easy language. Maybe more like, easy to learn, hard to master? Yeah it doesn't have tones or weird influxes so the initial get up and go might seem easier, but the number of near native speakers of Japanese vs most other languages is a lot smaller, like Spanish for example. BUT, that wasn't the point of my post, i was just saying that Japanese uses the same "word" (if you can call it that: "shō" or "kyō") for multiple meanings. -- Billy Nair (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I know what you meant. When writing in romaji or in kana, or for that matter, in speaking, it can be really difficult to distinguish between different words. Didn't mean to jump down your throat... LordAmeth (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobunaga and Hideyoshi mistook as Shoguns?[edit]

I have removed the line "Even though westerners mistook them as shoguns,[citation needed] they were not actually shoguns at all." which has gone uncited since August. Western documents from that period, almost without exception, refer to Hideyoshi, Ieyasu, and the other Tokugawa shoguns (and perhaps Nobunaga as well) as "King of Japan", or possibly as Taiko or Kwampaku in the case of Hideyoshi, but not as Shogun. LordAmeth (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

Should the name of this article be "Shōgun"? Torsodog (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, I mean the novel by James Clavell uses "Shōgun" and so does the article title for the Wikipedia article for the novel. Also, it says Shōgun throughout the article (admittedly, there are some areas that don't use it.) This article needs to be moved. An administrator would have to do it because Shōgun already redirects here. stevenrasnick (talk) 14:24, November 20, 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The English word is "shogun" and it is found in reliable dictionaries with no macron. It is a loanword of Japanese origin, but is now part of the English language. It is the correct title according to the relevant naming convention, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). The macron is for the romanization of the Japanese word. It is inappropriate when writing English if an English word exists, as it does in this case. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#English words of Japanese origin, which says "An English loan word or place name of Japanese origin should be used in its most common English form in the body of an article, even if it is pronounced or spelled differently from the properly romanized Japanese . . ." This article should stay with the present title. Fg2 (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Shogun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will be doing the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found this article to not meet the GA Criteria. Here are my concerns:

  • There are several sections that either have no citations or only have one citation. The article should be better references. I've added a couple of [citation needed] templates to help identify some of the areas where citations are needed.
  • Comprehensiveness is also an issue. This is a huge subject with the potential for a lot more information to be added. The history section is fairly minimal and should be beefed up with more facts. The impact of imperialism on the Shogunate is an interesting subject that has no coverage here. Also expanding on that is the influence of Europeans in general is also not explored in this article.
  • The lead is to be a summary of the article yet there are sections of the article not mentioned in the lead.
  • There is also a clarification needed tag that has been on the article since November 2008 with no apparent action.

Overall I can't keep the article as GA as it currently stands. I will hold it for one week and see if work can be done to improve it. H1nkles (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been a week with no apparent work done on my suggestions. As such I will delist the article. Should editors disagree with this decision please bring the issue to the WP:GAR page for a community reassessment. H1nkles (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting accounts need fixing[edit]

The inconsistency between the following two articles needs fixing:

The Tokugawa clan article tells us: The Tokugawa clan ... nominally descended from Emperor Seiwa (850–880) and were a branch of the Minamoto clan (Seiwa Genji) by the Nitta clan.

But the Shogun article tells us: Tokugawa Ieyasu ... received the title sei-i taishōgun in 1603 after he forged a family tree to show he was of Minamoto descent.[11]

11.^ Titsingh, I. (1834). Annales des empereurs du Japon, p. 409

Unless one of these versions is purely an eccentric fringe theory, then both versions need to appear in both articles, due to WP:NPOV. If one of them is fringe (something which I'm in no position to decide), then the non-fringe version needs to appear in both articles. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)