Talk:Sengoku period

message: Can we move this one to "Sengoku period" since all the other <foo> periods are lowercase? -- EmperorBMA|話す 23:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Move article

message: ** from a scholarly perspective, this article is rubbish ** interested persons should consult a proper resource, or else use at your own risk !!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.240.92.137 (talk • contribs) .  08:39, 20 Jul 2006
** One thing the author of the page mentions in the section pertaining to the Sengoku Period and modern culture is pretty obviously wrong. He states that the Lone Wold and Cub manga are set during the Sengoku period, but the entire storyline of the books revolve around the protagonist's, Ogami Itto's, struggle to bring the treachery of the Yagyu to the attention of the Shogunate. Considering that the end of the Sengoku Period led to the rise of the Shogunate, it is difficult to imagine how this could be true.** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sorokahdeen (talk • contribs) .  22:59, 23 Aug 2005
The above comment is false. The Sengoku period preceded the Tokogawa Shogunate, but was itself preced by the Minamoto and Ashikaga Shogunates.
I have struck out the above two unsigned and undated comments because they are no longer pertinent to the article as it stands.
Spventi 13:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I unstruck them because you shouldn't modify others' comments. I've marked who wrote them. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article rubbish

message: Is anyone interested in the following 狂歌?織田がつき　羽柴がこねし　天下餅　すわりしままに食うは家康Oda pounds, Hashiba kneads, and Ieyasu eats the tenka cake.
--LittleTree 23:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another saying　(a ''kyoka'' or a comic tanka.) 

message: I'm sorry, but I don't understand why a photo of Japanese arquebus of the early Edo era was added to this article. There is no mention of weaponry of any kind in the body of the article itself, and the Edo period is clearly NOT a part of the Sengoku period. My inclination is to remove the photo, although I do think it would be nice if it could be replaced with a more appropriate image. I think an image of the Battle of Nagashino would be nice if we could find one, but there is already an image of the Battle of Kawanakajima used in the Takeda Shingen article, so we could use that for the time being, as well. Any other suggestions or comments about this? Spventi 10:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese arquebus? 

message: The main article says the Sengoku Period lasted from the "the middle of the 15th century to the beginning of the 17th century", but the time-period chart says it ended in 1573, which is the late 16th century.  The article itself goes on to state that the Battle of Sekigahara, which occured in 1600, was the last official battle of the Sengoku Period.  Since the Azuchi–Momoyama period is considered a part of the Sengoku Period (it says so in both articles), I propose merging the two pages. Either merge the pages or resolve the time-span conflict.  75.157.115.154 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time-Span Conflict 

message: This was in the opening paragraph:
:The name "Sengoku" was adopted by Japanese historians in reference to the Warring States period in Chinese history (Sengoku jidai (戦国時代) in Japanese) which preceded the unification of China.
This sounds completely irrelevant to me, and as currently worded, I think it makes things more confusing, not less. Yes, the Japanese use the same name to refer to the Japanese sengoku period and the Chinese warring states period. So? English speakers use the term "civil war" to refer to the American Civil War, the English Civil War, the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, etc. -- it's not surprising that they're all called "civil war". They're all basically the same thing (just in different times and places), so they get the same name. If the Chinese warring states period were also called "sengoku" in English, it would have some relevance, but it's not. So I don't see any reason to keep this line. - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I think that this wording came about because of some rather flaky alternative translations that were put in the article, so in one sense, I agree that it might be appear to be superfluous as currently worded. One argument in favor of reinstating the sentence, however, is that it is factual. The Japanese of this era considered what was happening in their own nation to be analogous to what had previously happened in China and consciously adopted this name from the Chinese, using the same kanji. Frankly, I am inclined to revert the edit unless others disagree vehemently. Spventi (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese warring states period 

message: I have changed the English name of the period back to "the Age of the Country at War", as this is the terminology used in Sansom's well-regarded (definitive?) history of Japan, and is the more accurate terminology. Sansom's book points out (I forget the page number, but I recall it is the first page of the chapter "Chronology of the Onin War and the Age of the Country at War") that while the name Sengoku is used in Japan as a reference to Chinese history, it doesn't make sense in a Japanese context, as the warring entities were not "states" but warlords. The above citation of Japanese-English dictionaries seems sketchy, as Wikipedia prefers reliable secondary sources written by historical specialists. I appreciate that it is sometimes called the Warring States Period in English, which is why I have added the sentence below with boldface. But the English translation given in the opening sentence should be one from a reputable source. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  English name 

message: This entire so-called encyclopedia has multitudinous issues and is an abject failure.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.255.246 (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as? Drive-by one-off's serve no purpose.50.111.23.141 (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has multiple issues? 

message: How many died during the Sengoku Jidai? Is there anyway to find an estimate somewhere on the net? Thanks Freedom Fighter 1988 (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that Sengoku is the name for a period of a little over a century rather than a specific conflict, I think it's a pretty good bet that virtually everyone in Japan died at least once. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: This appears to be a 諸説あり situation, but every single encyclopedia and dictionary entry here dates the end to either 1568 when Nobunaga entered Kyoto, 1573 when Nobunaga formally abolished the Muromachi shogunate, roughly 1570 when these events were happening, or roughly a century after the Onin War (i.e., roughly 1567); none of them mention Sekigahara or the sieges of Osaka. Meanwhile, our article doesn't seem to even mention the idea that the Sengoku period constituted roughly a century between the Onin War and the rise of Nobunaga. Can anyone explain this discrepancy? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  End date? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jialeijiang (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ENGL 15-013

message: I hope that everyone can equally see how and what I edited on the Wikipedia article. I am an amateur writing student working with a class on here as is mentioned above this post. 
In particular, I replaced a paragraph under the summary topic with a few paragraphs that would give context of the Onin War and how it had rippled conflicts from thereon forth on every stratified social level. I felt it had a better flow potentially, but again this is merely for an assignment for class; so feel free to remove the results of my research if you so deem it necessary. 
Thank you all for your patience in providing me the opportunity. Nmartinezofficial (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution on 03/23/2023