Talk:Bakumatsu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

Contents

[edit] Possible copyvio

This page seems to steal text directly from http://www.jref.com/culture/edo_period_era.shtml without any credit 138.130.247.141 13:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Rhys

  • Cases like this frequently turn out to be the other site copying Wikipedia, however, this is not obviously the case here. Site says "Copyright © 1999-2006 Japan Reference All Rights Reserved"
  • We may be able to revert this page to a non-problematical version. -- 201.78.233.162 23:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I contacted the user who apparently copy-pasted this. Ashibaka tock 16:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

He says they took it from Wikipedia, which seems evident from the other pages on the site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PHG&oldid=62283334

Removing copyvio tag. Ashibaka tock 00:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks! -- 201.78.233.162 12:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

  • Despite the length and depth of this article, I know that there is a lot more to be added. There are quite a number of historians who've devoted their entire careers to this period; there are scores of books on the subject. We're off to a wonderful start, but I think we can do more. LordAmeth 08:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

April 25, 2006, Abe Masahiro in "End of seclusion" section was replaced by an entirely spurious name "Ouesuke Tenchigo Sargia" in "The chairman of the senior councillors, Abe Masahiro". The name "Ouesuke Tenchigo Sargia" seems to be invented. The vandal's IP is traced to a school at Scott Air Force Base -- Tiphareth 11:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Late Tokugawa shogunate → Bakumatsu period

Might I suggest that we move this to Bakumatsu or Bakumatsu period, as those are the most common and most accurate names for the period? Whereas "bakumatsu" is a fairly commonly used term, and is generally applied to a fairly fixed period (c. 1853-1868), "late" Tokugawa shogunate is awfully vague, and isn't necessarily a synonym for bakumatsu. I see "late Tokugawa shogunate" and I think it could mean 1800-1868, as so much of the important events and developments of the Edo period had already passed by then; or it could mean 1750-1868, simply because it's the latter half, roughly, as compared to the 150 years preceding. Or, it could even mean 1700 onwards, since the period of 1600-1700 was one of great growth and development in a wide range of economic, political, social, and cultural ways, and sometime around 1700 all of these developments reached a climax in their acceleration, and slowed down dramatically or even reversed course.

Basically all I'm trying to say is that this article is obviously about the bakumatsu (幕末, lit. "end of the shogunate", not "late shogunate") period, so why don't we call a duck a duck? LordAmeth (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Bakumatsu period would be the best (and fit in with the other articles covering other periods in Japan history. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree. I think that we had best move to Bakumatsu period. --W/mint-Talk- 11:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a close call. We want English titles, but I don't think bakumatsu qualifies. On the other hand, "Late Tokugawa shogunate" has a Japanese name and a recent English word coined on a Japanese basis, so it doesn't seem a whole lot more English.
Consideration of what we want in the article can help guide the choice of a title. If we want to discuss a historic period, including political, military, cultural, economic and other history of all of Japan, "Bakumatsu period" might be best. Alternatively, if we want to discuss the events leading to the end of Tokugawa rule, we could consider "Downfall of Tokugawa shogunate" or something along those lines. Fg2 (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I am late in responding. I agree that the previous title was too vague and had misinterpreted on several occasions in the past. In that regard, this is an improvement. However, "Bakumatsu period" now sounds like another period (時代) on par with Nara, Heian, Kamakura etc. That is not the case. Thus, I think that plain old Bakumatsu may be best. Bendono (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it doesn't rank with the Nara and other historic periods. Fg2 (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Bendono and Fg2
Bathrobe (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm. Yes. That is probably an important distinction to make. LordAmeth (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it in the same league as the Azuchi-Momoyama period? Fg2 (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It is a period in its own right. Bakumatsu, on the hand, it just the end of the Edo period. Nothing more. Bendono (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Just as the Bakumatsu is simply the end of the Edo period, and not a full "period" in its own right, the Azuchi-Momoyama period is simply the end of the Sengoku period, and is also not a full period in its own right, on par with Nara-Heian-Kamakura-Muromachi-Sengoku-Edo-Meiji ... LordAmeth (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That is incorrect. The Azuchi-Momoyama period is not the "end of the Sengoku period"; it follows after the Sengoku period comes to a conclusion. It is the Sengoku period that is the end of the Muromachi period. Please review ja:日本史時代区分表. I can provide other resources in multiple languages if needed. Bendono (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Bendono is right. --Aphaia (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So... are people agreeing that it would be best to move the article to Bakumatsu? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me Fg2 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)