Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Japanese military history task force/Archive 1

message: Not being very well versed in Japanese military history, I've used  as the banner image, as it struck me as something quite commonly associated with Japan (particularly in the West).  If there's something that would be more iconic (but is recognizable at a small size!), please feel free to change the image. Kirill Lokshin 12:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you very much for coming up with a banner image. I think that'll be perfectly fine for now. Though I may wish to change it to something more up my alley, i.e. pre-modern. Maybe a picture of the kanji for samurai or the like. The Chinese task force is already using the character for "martial", which is pronounced bu in Japanese, and used in bushi and bushido; I'll see if I feel like coming up with something. LordAmeth 14:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have discovered/created a nice calligraphic version of the character for samurai. See it here: . I see that there's only three of us at this particular moment, but I'd like to start a vote and/or discussion as to which one we should use for the tags. LordAmeth 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me, but what do I know? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heya Kirill. Are all the articles previously tagged going to automatically change to the new image, or do we have to somehow manually force them to change? LordAmeth 22:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it's all automatic.  You might need to wait for the job queue to flush through before they all get updated, though. Kirill Lokshin 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You can also combine them like this. Fg2 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's awfully nice, Fg. Definitely more colorful and bolder than mine (the kanji alone). But I still think that the Naval Ensign could be taken as offensive, and representative more of imperialism than martial ability. What do others think? LordAmeth 12:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course that's an important point. I have no emotional involvement in the graphic, and would not mind at all if it's not selected. Fg2 00:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner image 

message: I'd like to welcome everyone to our new and exciting Japanese military history task force! Thanks to Kirill, Nobunaga24, and others for supporting the initiation of this... I suppose it's not really the kind of thing that requires a hell of a lot of leadership or maintenance, but if there is call for there to an official task force leader, I'd love to take up that role. And if not, that's great too.
My personal focus is the Heian period, the Genpei Wars, and the various other Minamoto-Taira conflicts leading up to that. However, I have worked on (and will continue to work on) just about everything pre-Meiji that looks like it needs doing.
I've also put a fair bit of work into creating and organizing the Japanese warrior categories. I would love some help in maintaining the distinctions between these, and expanding them as needed.
Finally, if anyone - newcomers, members, visitors - have any questions about the task force or about the history itself, please feel free to ask me (or to just ask here, so we can all answer). I'm happy to help.
Thanks all, and welcome! LordAmeth 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome! 

message: Congrats! one note to make - under Category:World War II aircraft carriers of Japan the following two subcategories are showing up - Category:Japanese AM class submarines and Category:Japanese I-400 class submarines. They also show up in what I assume is the main category for submarines. Just wanted to let you all know.--Oldwildbill 14:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would appear that both of those classes of submarines were in fact submarine aircraft carriers. LordAmeth 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, something else I had no idea existed!  Airplanes on submarines; what will they think of next. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category error

message: Hey all. I'm going to probably be working mostly on post-Edo military-related articles, but I'm curious if military organizational articles (such as the modernization of Japanese military 1868-1931)) fall under the scope of articles to tag for the task force to watch. --Woogums 18:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, anything military-history-related (for quite broad meanings of either "military" or "history") can be tagged. Kirill Lokshin 18:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization?

message: There are some discussion on Talk:Waeseong what to name the artile. It is about Japanese castles built in Korea during Hideyoshi's invasion in the sixteenth century. As the article is related to the Japanese military history (they were built by samurai), I'd like to ask what you think. Thank you. --Kusunose 09:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of an article 

message: I've split out the simpler tasks (requests for expansion, in this case) into a new template which is transcluded in the main project open task list.  This will hopefully bring more attention to these.  Please feel free to add additional tasks (currently in one of three types); ideas for other types of work to include are also welcome! Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open tasks 

message: I have removed Genpei War from our list of open tasks. I would like to request that no one do anything major to it for a short time. Within the next week or so, I intend that between Elvenscout742 and myself, major expansions and polishing will occur; I simply want to give both of us a chance to work on this somewhat ambitious project in one go, without anyone else stepping on our toes. I know it's somewhat anti-social and anti-democratic of me, and I apologize. I just want to see this done - translation from the French article, and expansion based on the French example - in a more or less single-minded way. Once we've finished what we're going to do, everyone is of course as always welcome to once again contribute to the article in whatever small (or big) ways they choose. Thank you. LordAmeth 00:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given how long that article has sat without any significant changes, I doubt anyone will be terribly agitated over the issue :-) Kirill Lokshin 00:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template can help you work unfettered. Fg2 07:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I was planning to sit down and have a good think about it. Hope you don't mind me contributing here and there. John Smith's 10:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, go right ahead. I'll probably be getting to it pretty soon anyway. LordAmeth 10:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, thanks a lot for your work. I was glad I could help regarding style, grammar, etc. John Smith's 12:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genpei War 

message: Please join in the discussion over at Talk:Battle of Nagashino. There appears to be a debate over the extent to which cavalry charges did or did not occur in feudal Japan. LordAmeth 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked up and quoted some sources that may help (or complicate) the matter on the Nagashino talk page. --Kuuzo 21:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Takeda/Sengoku cavalry charge 

message: Hello again all. I hope your work is going along well. I realize I'm one of the only ones to post here, and I hope you don't mind. But I do believe that people do read things here, which is ultimately all that really matters.
A number of articles make reference to (and link to) Hideyoshi's Kyushu Campaign. Now, normally, I would not think we ought to have separate articles for every campaign that a given general embarked upon. These things are generally well enough explained in the individual person's article, or in those of the battles and wars involved. For example, Hideyoshi's "Korea campaign" has an article as Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) aka Imjin Waeran, and his "Odawara campaign" is sufficiently handled I think by linking to the decisive final battle, the Siege of Odawara (1590).
I guess this is getting kind of long here, so I'll get to the point. His move to Kyushu is not described extensively in his own article, nor is there any one battle that defines this campaign. Should we create one? Is there even anything much to be said there, other than summarizing the battles, and the causes/effects and events surrounding them? How should we resolve the links in the articles of these various samurai?
Thank you, as always. LordAmeth 12:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating an article would seem to be a sensible approach, if there's enough material for it.  If we try to put everything into Hideyoshi's own article, we'll eventually wind up with a very bloated piece that's trying to be a biography and a combat narrative simultaneously. Kirill Lokshin 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created an article over at Kyūshū Campaign. I'm not sure what kind of precedent this sets for me, but as I continue to be (I think) more or less the only editor working on Sengoku battles, I think I'll figure something out with myself. LordAmeth 08:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Toyotomi Hideyoshi's campaigns in Kyushu

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Japanese battleship Kongō that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Japanese battleship Kongō]] 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 21:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I've ran across a neglected page which I believe would fall under the scope of this project.  I've done what little I can with my little (read lack of) knowledge of the subject.  I thought maybe someone here could improve on it, as I found it as an unfortunate blank page with only infoboxes...  akuyumeTC 03:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchukuoan Anti Bandit Operations 

message: There's a new peer review request for Battle of Wuhan that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Battle of Wuhan]] 

message: To the small extent that the histories of feudal domains has been covered on Wikipedia, it's been done in a number of different ways. 
#The ruling clan is described in the article for the province, castle, or capital city of their han. 
#A separate article entirely has been created for the domain, as is the case with Tsushima Fuchu domain, which is a separate article entirely from Tsushima Subprefecture, Tsushima Island, Tsushima Province, and Sō clan.
#The territory or domain is described in the clan's article.
Right now, Choshu domain, and nearly every alternate spelling of "Choshu" are simply redirects to Nagato province, which contains very little information on the pre-Meiji history of the domain. Satsuma han is a stub article which stands separate from articles on the Shimazu family and any number of other things linked to from the Satsuma disambig page. Matsumae clan does a fair job of describing the history of the domain as well, since the history of that family was especially closely related to its holding, and not to the actions of its individual members. But Matsumae, Hokkaidō and Matsumae Castle are both stubs with next to no information.
I'm more than ready to start doing some serious work on reconciling all of these different things, and starting articles on just about every domain and clan I can find sufficient information for. But we need a standardized system first. I am also posting this at WikiProject:Japan in the hopes of getting some good suggestions over there. If we do end up reaching completely different consensuses (consensi?) on both Projects, I'm not sure what I'll do. But for now, comments and suggestions, please. LordAmeth 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feudal domains 

message: There's a new peer review request for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)]] 

message: I've been going through various Japanese military history related articles for a few weeks now, and the number of completely uncited articles is staggering. There are some very well written articles that don't cite thier sources along with the other uncited articles, and many only cite one source (which isn't a bad thing, but I'm sure we'd all agree "the more the better". I've been tagging them as I find them, but personaly I think this should at least be a second-tier priority in getting sources into these articles. --Kuuzo 05:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that many, if not most, of the military history articles on the Japanese Wikipedia don't cite sources.  Thus, I suspect that what happens is that some of the Japanese editors will work on Japanese military history articles on the English Wikipedia and, out of habit, not cite any sources.  Another reason may be that the sources are in Japanese so they feel like they shouldn't be listed in the English versions of the articles.  I found one way to fix this today.  After checking the history for the Shigeyoshi Inoue article, I went to the main contributor's talk page on the Japanese wikipedia and asked him/her (in English since I can't write in Japanese) to list his/her sources in the English version of the article which the editor did immediately. Cla68 05:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a very large proportion of the smaller ones were done by User:Darin Fidika, who seems to have a troubled history in this regard. I don't suspect asking him to cite sources will get far - but when I come across other people's articles, I will do so from this point on. Also, do "we" consider Further Reading as a list of references? --Kuuzo 05:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, thanks Kuuzo for seeking these out; whenever you've tagged an article I've contributed to as unreferenced, it has spurred me to go back to my sources, add more, revise the article, and reference it. I don't think we should automatically assume Further Reading or External Links to be references, but should simply ask the editor(s) involved, and allow them to sort it out. On the other hand, when an article's primary source is the Japanese Wikipedia, OpenHistory, the 1911 Britannica, or something like this, it may be mentioned at the bottom of the article, but not under a "References" header; in that case, I'd suggest you simply add the header, or ignore it entirely, rather than tagging it as "unreferenced." LordAmeth 08:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've noticed on some that the original editor marked as "stub from openhistory", but then numerous editors after them go through and add all sorts of info, but it isn't clear who added what, and therefore who to ask for sources... I guess in that case it just stands as "needs sources" until someone finds some. --Kuuzo 09:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and references? 

message: This article needs some serious expansion and help. It is difficult to walk the fine line of objective neutrality when it comes to these sorts of topics sometimes... I am hoping that one of you who might be more of a serious scholar of WWII Japanese ideology might be able to help with this. The article as it stands isn't too blatantly or drastically anti-Japanese, and of course we do not wish to be too pro-Japanese in our treatment either. As it is written right now, however, it essentially identifies the concept of the Sphere as a front, as a falsity created simply to justify "evil" fascist/imperialist/militarist actions; and while this is certainly not entirely untrue, I think it would be quite enlightening (and important) to discuss the subject within the context of Japan's rise to militarism, it's views of imperialism in light of trying to be a modern country ala their perception of the Western model, etc etc. To what extent was this simply a front for militarists to extend an exploitative arm over supposedly inferior people, and to what extent did the Japanese people/soldiers/politicians genuinely believe they were acting nobly, to the benefit of all of East Asia? (I do apologize to simply leave it open to you all, but this is truly not my field of expertise... maybe once we discuss it in class in the next month or so I'll feel more prepared to write on it - in the meantime, as I am sure at least one of you must be more experienced, knowledgable, and interested in this subject than myself, please go ahead and do what you can, if you are so inclined.) LordAmeth 21:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an area I'm going to work on eventually, but right now it's far down on my "to do" list.  Thus, if anyone else can help out on it I'm sure it would be of benefit for the article.  The background section for the Attack on Pearl Harbor article contains some applicable information and references. Cla68 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere]] 

message: After creating the article on the Battle of Yawata, I learned that there is very little information on the battles of the Muromachi period. Please take a look at it. --Ineffable3000 03:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sources have surprisingly little on this particular battle as well, but I shall keep it in mind in case anything pops up. I have a strange feeling that this "Yawata" is likely the same as what other texts or sources refer to as "Yahata", so take a look if you can find anything on Yahata... In the meantime, I hope you don't mind if I change a few stylistic things to make it more consistent with other Muromachi battles. Thanks. LordAmeth 14:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Yawata]] 

message: There's a new peer review request for Battle of Edson's Ridge that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Battle of Edson's Ridge]] 

message: There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Edson's Ridge that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle of Edson's Ridge]] 

message: Did the battle of Battle of Shijō Nawate occur in 1348 (stated so in Kusunoki Masatsura) or in 1339 (as stated in the main page)? --Ineffable3000 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: George Sansom gives 1347, while Turnbull gives 1348. I would think, therefore, that 1339 is less than likely; but as for which date to stick to, I'm not sure... Thank you, though, for writing this article which I've been putting off for so long. LordAmeth 10:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Google sources say 1348, so I suggest we stick with that for now. --Ineffable3000 05:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date check