Talk:Uesugi Kenshin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Uesugi Shingen[edit]

Form Edit[edit]

My edit of this page (which is listed under the user 70.245.226.26 due to my forgetting to log-in at the time), while possibly appearing quite drastic, is almost entirely dealing with matters of form. You will notice that very little of the original content has been changed, but the earlier draft was repetitive due to two seperate accounts of basically the same story being written. I have tried to rectify that here, and have gone into details on a few points I thought deserved it. At the moment, almost all of my information is provided through the external link at the bottom of the article, and if there is a point of contention, feel free to bring it up either here or on my personal page. Pellinore 02:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Takeda and Shingen[edit]

I don't plan to edit it or dispute the point for the moment, but I am curious as to the source of the statistics presented recently for the Fourth Battle of Kawanakajima (Kenshin losing 60% of his forces and Takeda losing 40%). Many thanks. Pellinore 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Those statistics came from Stephen Turnbull's "The Samurai Sourcebook" [1], or perhaps from his "War in Japan: 1467-1615 [2]." I don't have the books in front of me right now to check which one, but I distinctly remember it coming from one of those two sources. Thanks for asking, and checking my facts. LordAmeth 16:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that information. I am still curious, should you find the original source, what references he provides for these figures. Granted, my own information found at "samurai archives" [3] could certainly be inaccurate (though cross-references seem to largely support it); I was aware of only one source of information written on the fourth battle of Kawanakajima, that being the Koyo Gunkan, a rather disjointed and questionable record of Takeda affairs during Shingen's rule. To my knowledge, the only information provided on the outcome of this battle was that Shingen had managed a stalemate, though he led a victory cheer after the event. It is interesting that, while two major Takeda generals were killed, no major Kenshin generals suffered the same fate (that I'm aware of). Also, it was very shortly after the battle that Kenshin was fighting again in the Shimosha Province. Just a note of curiousity, should you find the time to look into it. Appreciations. Pellinore 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that I look it up again, Turnbull (in his 'Samurai Sourcebook') gives the numbers as a 72% loss for the Uesugi, and 62% loss for Takeda, as a percentage of the number of troops present at the beginning of the battle. His primary source is likely the Koyo Gunkan; Shall I change the article to reflect these figures? LordAmeth 04:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It might help for clarification purposes, especially considering Wikipedia's own page on the battle supports these other figures as well. As for the validity of the percentages, I'm not really in a position to judge on the matter in any case considering I have never read the Koyo Gunkan myself; I had just been unaware it provided such information. I assume you won't mind if I take the liberty of changing those two figures myself to save time. My own curiosity is sated on the matter, thank you for the information. Pellinore 20:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Religious Affiliations[edit]

I am just curious if anyone is aware of the precise sect of Buddhism Uesugi Kenshin entered. His dedication to Bishamonten is often mentioned, but if I remember correctly this is a Shinto deity and unrelated. I had always assumed his to be a form of Zen Buddhism, but this is just assumption on my part. Thanks. Pellinore 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

A woman?[edit]

Allan Lee, you make some compelling and logical arguments towards the idea of Uesugi Kenshin being a woman. I have never heard of this theory, however, and am curious as to your source. LordAmeth 03:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Kenshin a Woman?[edit]

Why has this section deleted? The reasons cited were very logical and compelling. It seems like it would have been perfectly reasonable to include a "resources needed" link to show that this is merely a theory. LauraOrganaSolo 02:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete it, but I can imagine it might have been because it was sitting there for over a month with no sources to back it up. Something as absurd as that, with no citations, borders on vandalism, no matter how logical and compelling it may be. Besides, Wikipedia forbids original research, so sources would be required in order to put forth such a theory. LordAmeth 13:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I come bearing sources that address this theory! Thanks to NHK's upcoming Fuurin Kazan drama, Uesugi Kenshin is getting some spotlight action in Japan right now. This book has information on the fictionalized account in addition to historical information and theories -- including the theory that Kenshin might have been a woman. LauraOrganaSolo 05:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese wikipedia talks about the theory Kenshi may have been a woman here: ja:上杉謙信女性説, and there are sites that go into here (上杉謙信は女性!?). Basically everything that was in the woman theory section is written on that site (which includes its bibliography at the bottom), so it should be re-added and that site could be the reference. And, the fact the Japanese wikipedia has an article on the woman theory should show it's not "vandalism." on camera 15:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire thesis of this book: 上杉謙信は女だった (Uesugi Kenshin was a Woman - available on amazon.co.jp) is obviously that Kenshin was a woman. I haven't read the book, and so can't comment on the validity. --Kuuzo 07:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated, I simply translated what is on the Japanese version of wikipedia and put it here, as it seems to be a section that is wholy missed in the English version. The citations and sources are presented in the Japanese version... I recall I added them in, but it could be due to my mistake on the reference wiki-tags. In any event, if there are no other objections, I will re-edit the section in. Allan Lee (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes please, I think it is worthwhile. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been a while since this discussion, and still there is only one sentence in the article about this topic and without any sources. May I add a translation of the Japanese article? Shuzen Akuha (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Uesugi and Takeda - wording[edit]

The final paragraph in the section titled "Uesugi and Takeda" seems to have been informally translated from another language. Perhaps grammar correction would be in order, to make it more comprehensible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digital Oni (talkcontribs) 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Casualties in 4th Battle of Kawanakajima[edit]

The article for the Battles of Kawanakajima state different casualty rates than this page does. I'm not sure how to reconcile them, would anyone else like to take a stab? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citrus538 (talkcontribs) 11:33, 5 May 2007

The figures given on this page match those given by Stephen Turnbull, in his "Samurai Sourcebook", p272. However, I do not imagine that the numbers are truly known, and thus these are somewhat estimates based on scholarly interpretation of primary documents which may have exaggerated the numbers present, and the numbers lost. (I also don't fully trust Turnbull to get everything right all the time.) LordAmeth 16:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture references[edit]

I think this is one of a number of articles which tend to run a bit out of control with the pop culture references. I trimmed them last week or so, and thank god there was no indignant uproar, but they inevitably creep back in. I don't think that it is my place (my right, nor my responsibility - after all, who am I but an anonymous editor like everyone else) to dictate what does and doesn't belong, nor to maintain the list, cutting off whatever I personally think is irrelevant.

Long story short, I should simply like to express my concern on the issue, and whoever is keeping a closer eye on this page than myself, whoever feels a closer feeling of ownership or protectiveness of the page, please do keep an eye out for this. Cheers. LordAmeth 01:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Koei.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Koei.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UesugiKenshin.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:UesugiKenshin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Death poem[edit]

I think the given death poem may be wrong, or at least incomplete. It's much shorter than the one list here, which reads:

Even a life-long prosperity is but one cup of sake;
A life of forty-nine years is passed in a dream;
I know not what life is, nor death.
Year in year out-all but a dream.
Both Heaven and Hell are left behind;
I stand in the moonlit dawn,
Free from clouds of attachment.

--Gwern (contribs) 03:25 13 March 2008 (GMT)

Amour[edit]

removed the picture, since i am not able to find evidence that it is not only fictional promotion material from the videogame "samurai wars" for psp3, as the "TGS" (Tokyo Gameshow) suggests, for more game related infos see

http://koei.wikia.com/wiki/Kenshin_Uesugi
Fictional Replica of Uesugi Kenshin's armor

87.162.62.201 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Father's death[edit]

I'm confused about this and I don't think I'm the only one. On this page it says Tamekage's death took place in 1536, whereas the Tamekage page has both 1542 and 1536. Meanwhile the Japanese Tamekage page says he died in 1543 (though there is also a theory he died in 1536). There seems to be some uncertainty at any rate, which is not currently reflected in the first section of the life.--Rsm77 (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)