Talk:Nanboku-chō period

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
WikiProject Japan / History / Military history / Royalty & nobility (Rated C-class, High-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, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 18:55, May 18, 2018 (JST, Heisei 30) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-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.

Controversial sentence[edit]

Before the following sentence can be re-integrated into the main article, the substance needs to be expanded, and it needs the support of an additional in-line citation:

  • "According to one source, the current Imperial Line is northern."
-- <.ref><./ref>?

I would have thought that this blunt assertion would need a context. A reader unfamiliar with this subject needs more information in order to evaluate the validity and possible consequences of this controversial claim. --Tenmei (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Major revision[edit]

I have put in an entirely new article covering this time period.--K.H. (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC) I will be integrating footnotes into the body of the text in the next few days.

Ideological and economic basis of war[edit]

Nihonjoe was unquestionably correct in deleting the following sentence:

Both the ideological and economic basis of the Nanboku-chō War, and the rise of the Muromachi regime will be examined.

However, I have moved the sentence here as a reminder -- this overview/concept needs to be re-integrated into the article when a relevant source citation can be appended.

Personally, I guess I've been so focused on parsing the political aspects of the Nanboku-chō period that I almost forgot about its ideological and economic genesis. When I read this deleted sentence, I was struck by my curiously narrowed perspective -- when did that happen, I wondered?

My sense of personal surprise in reading this otherwise unremarkable sentence was the motivation for creating this odd thread. I'll get back to this in due course; or someone else will follow-up, I suppose. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Japan & MilHist Assessment Commentary[edit]

This is without doubt an excellent article. However, I rated it as "Start" by WP:Military history, and C-class for WP:Japan. Here are some points for improvement:

  • References: This is the weakest point. There are plenty of sources, but most of them are not in the accepted Wikipedia format of in-line citations. Some are, many aren't.
  • Style: I'm a little surprised that there aren't more blue-links in the article.
  • Supporting Materials: Some images of some kind would be helpful; battle scenes, paintings of major players, something. I'm sure there is plenty on Wikimedia Commons.

Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Who is this 'I'?[edit]

The second sentence of the Consolidation of Ashikaga power: 1360-1370 section starts with "I will cover the following points". What is this doing there? Who is this I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmab (talkcontribs) 00:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Why begin at 1334?[edit]

The article states that this period began in 1334, but does not list any reasoning why. -- (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

De facto vs de jure[edit]

There is no need to restore "de facto" rule. De facto means that power is already in practice. Only de jure means that the power exist only in the books and needs restoration. Thanks. Facto means fact and jure means law in latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1530:1010:816:F8DC:364A:1045:79E (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)