Talk:Shimabara Rebellion

message: "And yes, back at Wikipedia, the Jesuits are still credited as supporting the Shimabara Rebellion."
Why hasn't it been changed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.0.152.205 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please quote from the article any concerns you have. -- Stbalbach 15:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or to be clearer; it was changed almost as soon as the NYTimes article was published; we didn't catch it before that (which is what the Times means). One editor reverted, once, and was counter-reverted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the NYT is often wrong, thats why they have a 'corrections' department
Thought I would simply add that the NYT article and the phenomena of Wikipedia itself, call into question the concept of truth and knowledge.  On the whole, it seems we are in the midst of a movement that is altering the way people seek truth and by doing so, we alter the truth itself.  The idea of a collaborative internet Encyclopedia creates additional levels of responsibility and moral choice that do not exist with simply bound book encyclopedias.  It is incredible, but always requires close attention.
For the person that wrote the paragraph directly above this one- I would have to disagree with your assertion that "Thought I would simply add that the NYT article and the phenomena of Wikipedia itself, call into question the concept of truth and knowledge." The people criticizing Wikipedia, for the most part, say it is inaccurate in its facts not in its portrayal of reality, or truth. There is only one truth, yet many ways of looking at it. Incorrectly citing historical facts, is not truth- it is just plain false.
We need to edit the new york times.
Here is the article in question: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/21wikipedia.html?em&ex=1172379600&en=ad418204e5130dd2&ei=5087%0A  
Given how clearly it shows a fault in this article, as well as highlighting the good and bad of wikipedia's nature, this entire article should be sourced. Rapidly. ThuranX 01:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: wow. That's fast. I just read the article on NYT and it's already been mentioned here __earth (Talk) 03:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesuits?! 

message: Re: this NYT article
It is not clear that the Wikipedia article was incorrect. In all likelihood not only were "foreign" Jesuits present, there were Japanese converts ordained as Jesuit priests or in lay roles. For example, "In Japan, confrarias [communities] were established shortly after the Jesuits arrived; in the long years of persecution and isolation they functioned as underground cells of Japanese Christians, sustaining their faith, while their leaders acted as lay pastors …"[http://www.jesuit.org/sections/sub.asp?SECTION_ID=194&SUBSECTION_ID=548&PARENT_ID=489#notes
Jesuits functioned in secular roles. "…the Society of Jesus would prove to be the main protagonists in ensuring the continuance of Portuguese interests in Japan. This was achieved both by means of their role in overseeing the commerce between Macau and Nagasaki, as well as by the fact that they were an indispensable element in the integration of Japan into the Portuguese Padroado in the East." http://cham.fcsh.unl.pt/engl/bulletin2_e.htm 
The Jesuit secular roles included technology transfer in fields such as printing and, notably, artillery. "…the Jesuits introduced …Western Style Artillery in the 1580’s. Projectile incendiary mortar shells rendered all previously constructed Japanese military fortifications obsolete.  http://www.columbia.edu/itc/ealac/V3613/overview/html/foreigners.html
Assessment
The Shimabara Rebellion was the last major event in the rise and fall of Christianity in medieval Japan. Any Jesuits alive in Japan at the time of the last major rebellion almost certainly were with their flock and supported them with whatever resources they could. Whether Jesuits (or lay participants) smuggled in weapons or other materials from Macau during the months of the rebellion itself as opposed to long before is an open question, but clearly they had brought in weaponry and other material of war. Whether Jesuits were present in sufficient numbers and did enough to justify the statement that the rebels were "backed by the foreign power of the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church" depends on interpretation and is far from being an egregious error. The students at Middlebury perhaps deserve a recount. Fultonwilcox 15:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessment

message: Just thought I'd post here and indicate that I am presently in the process of translating content from the Japanese article on the rebellion, and also inserting sources where possible. This article really needs to be seriously reworked, and I'd like to do my part. -Tadakuni 02:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm almost done reworking the article. Anyone care to give it a preliminary review? -Tadakuni 03:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking in progress 

message: I have seen just about everywhere that Shimbara Rebellion and Shimabara Rebellion are used as synonyms in both 'historical' sites and commercial ones and was wondering if either spelling is correct or if one is preferred over the other...if both are correct, perhaps it would be helpful to add "(also Shimbara)" to clear things up. Katlover86 (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no such thing as a "Shimbara Rebellion." The Japanese kana syllabary system spells the name of the place out as shi-ma-ba-ra. There is no kana for "m". However, sometimes you might see m's where they don't belong, but because it makes it easier to pronounce in English (I guess), for example Tanba is sometimes written as "Tamba" in English, even though this is incorrect and in Japanese it is spelled Ta-n-ba. If this was the case, the "Shimbara" you mention would have to be "Shinbara," and there's no such thing as the Shinbara Rebellion. I chalk it up to misspelling, is all. -Tadakuni (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shimabara vs. Shimbara 

message: The infobox states "1900 killed, 11000 wounded" for the shogunate. Both numbers appear to be unsourced, and Shimabara Rebellion#Final push and fall mentions over 2000 killed on February 3, 1638 alone. My suspicion would be that the infobox is wrong, but I don't have a source to use in updating it. 16:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causalities? 

message: Infobox stated attackers strength as 200K while article itself stating 125K (Japanese article states 124, so it is probably a correct one), whatever is right it cannot be both, please fix it. Also, isn't professional armies at the time was pretty compact, around 25-30K? Pretty sure there wasn't any conscription from peasants until Meiji reforms. 176.116.142.150 (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: The info box said that the rebel death toll was 27,000+. However the source cited only gives the number 35,000-37,000. I have changed the number to 37,000. But both the body of the article and the source used for the infobox give the number 37,000 for the number beheaded after the rebellion, not the total number of rebels that died during the rebellion, which was presumably not zero. So we still the total number of rebels that died. My correction moves the number in the right direction, but is still not accurate LastDodo (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebel Death Toll