Talk:Saigō Takamori

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WPMILHIST 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Saigō Takamori is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]


Saigo Takamori is one of the most interesting samuarais . He stands out head and shoulders(literally) above the others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twoplus2 (talkcontribs) 21:51, 14 November 2003.


Hmm... some confusion about the kanji for his name. The wiki and other sources indicate (西郷 隆盛), but a book I have here labels his picture as (西郷南洲). Can anyone shed some light on this?

Magus 03:35, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Takamori (隆盛) is his real or formal name (Actually it was his father's). Nanshu (南洲) is his pseudonym. Hans castorp81 15:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


This phrase caught my eye: "The imperial palace had recruited new guards who were nothing more than glorified rice peasants and armed them with modern weapons."

Isn't there a way to say this that isn't so strident? After all, Japan was just doing what other industrialized societies (i.e. Europeans) had done centuries earlier: taking the sword (literally and figuratively) out of the hands of an elite warrior class and putting it into the hands of a conscript army drawn from the masses. I don't think the current phrasing rises to an NPOV issue, but it does sound like an editorial swipe at the modernization of Japan as typified by its army. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of room for that, but not until the 1920's. --Monupics 19:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, the tone of the article snaps at that point. I think it deserves a small revision.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.81.172 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 2 August 2005.
This has been rectified. --MChew 02:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)