User talk:Exiled Ambition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sources

Welcome back. It's great to see so many topics becoming covered once more, which had been left untouched for a long time. I'm wondering if you might be able to get access to any other sources, though, besides Samurai Archives. Those guys work hard and do serious research, and I trust what they write to be reliable, but even so, at the end of the day, you're still citing only one source, and it's a website. The best practice on Wikipedia, as in real professional scholarship, is to cite from books and articles which are published, supported, and verified by the academic community, and from primary sources. In addition, the more sources the better. Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is an honor to speak with you once again, Lord Ameth. The only general reasoning as to why I consistently use Samurai Archives as opposed to other more potentially reliable sources in the form of literature, is simply due to its ease in accessability. Nonetheless, I do possess The Samurai Sourcebook as an additional means and will concentrate on such sources whenever I may have the time or see it as being justifiably needed. Thank you for your suggestions, and I assure to you that I will act upon your words in due time. User:Exiled Ambition, 27 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Templates

Thank you for all the articles you are producing. For ease of categorization, though, when you add articles, can you add the {{needkanji}} template to the article's main page and the {{WPJ}} template to the talk page? Doing so will make it easier for others to collaborate and help expand these articles. Douggers (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for your suggestion, and I will ensure that this is carried out whenever possible. User:Exiled Ambition 11 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Your edit to Henry V of England

It seems a bit unfair, given the weight in the article to Shakespeare's fictional Henry V, but I don't believe the fictional game character from Bladestorm is closely enough linked to the real man to warrant including the image on the article. If you disagree strongly, please take it to the talk page, with wikilink to the game to help other editors decide for themselves. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose your correct. In such a circumstance, I suppose it will be more fitting for me to simply create a title that will differentiate King Henry from Shakespeare's literature and the video game character -- prefferably dubbing the entire section as "Cultural Influence".User:Exiled Ambition 18 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. Why not use the full title of the game: Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War in the caption as well as the text (but perhaps without the link as it's already in) to put the image into context with the man? I still don't think the picture adds to the topic, but somewhere on Wikipedia (I can't now remember where) there's advice to broaden the reach of articles, so let's see what happens. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use

I dispute the rationales you have given for fair-use of Image:Hawkwood.jpg, Image:PrinceEdward.jpg, Image:HenryV.jpg and Image:KingofEngland.jpg, among others. I've added the reasons to the pages. Essentially, these seem to match the unacceptable uses described at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 items 2, 7 and 8. I also believe that these images do not meet a number of the criteria at WP:NFCC. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can simply think about it in this manner: Will the article look better with an image that supports its representation, or no representing image at all? The conclusion to this answer is relatively obvious, and it seems that the only piece of evidence that each respective article needs is to slightly expand its context of the information it tells. The only thing that matters is that any user who opens the page, realizes the fact that the image is appropriate to the person being represented and has enough information to justify that the image should, in fact, exist as one of its representations. Therefore, the matter will be resolved as long as I add more information to justify why it should exist, considering that the article will look better if the image is present, as opposed to not being present. User:Exiled Ambition January 18 2008 (EST)

Well, not really. Non-free images need to meet all of the criteria. Please have a read at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2. Some of the disallowed uses seem to describe how these images are being used, so these would be disallowed too ... If you disagree, and it seems that you do, you can ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to get a 2nd/3rd/4th opinion. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that simply removing the tags doesn't do any good. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to delete my images will not do any good towards the situation. According to the criteria of Wikipedia's image policy, if an image is to be represented into its respective article, it needs to be a variable item of importance--such as being a lead from controversy--so all that I need to do is to elaborate more in-depth as to why Koei thought that such a character should be added to its respective game, and therefore following with the image that represents the depiction, forcing it to be an item that will lead to controversy -- considering that it is there own image, after all. Therefore, I will act in this manner, and no additional trouble should result from it.

Either way, this matter doesn't need to get so difficult; as long as the image looks fine on the article and represents it to the extent that it shows propriety, what difference does it really make? We all know that Wikipedia is a society that ensures that ludicrous regulations like this are established just so that they can save a few pennies from their pocket just to survive, but to what means should it become such a detriment to me -- especially when the difference will be hardly noticeable and only provides evidence that certain users of Wikipedia will always uphold regulations even if it greatly causes the resentment of another. If you want this done your way, then expand the context of the image with me; attempting to delete them will only result in revision, and therefore your time will be wasted, as well as my own. User:Exiled Ambition 21 January 2008 (EST)

I raised the question of fair-use and replaceability here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philip the Good

Well, I don't think we agree on why Wikipedia has problems - actually I think it's because of people like you, who think "culture" and "video games" have anything to do with each other. I guess I can accept a popular culture section, but your paragraph and the image are way over the top. "Philip appears in such-and-such video game" is sufficient. Anyone playing the game will already know he is in it, and will hopefully be searching for the article to learn something about the actual person, and ayone who is searching for the real Philip will not care if he makes an appearance in some random game. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


You do realize that video games, in all actuality, are an integral part of a culture, do you not? I suppose that your argument is somewhat reasonable, but why would you wish to avoid expanding information that has the potential to expand? Wikipedia already suffers an enormous amount of criticism and mockery by means of its generalization of the articles that it distributes, so naturally I am taking the correct course of action. Even though the information itself is not that important, if it has the ability to expand in a manner that obviously does not border irrelevancy, then I can't see how it could harm the article's propriety and thus be regarded as something that should be removed. Therefore, there is no harm in expanding the information, for why would anyone ever wish to minimize the amount that is told -- such an action would be ludicrous and irrational according to the circumstances. User:Exiled Ambition 24 January 2008 (EST)

Deadly viruses also have the potential to expand, and we don't celebrate that. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Writing

Hello again. I feel bad to criticize when you obviously feel wronged and persecuted already, but... It's great that you're recreating so many articles that were deleted, and continuing to expand Wikipedia's coverage of pre-modern Japanese history. But I'm afraid that every single article I've looked at of yours has had grammatical or stylistic problems. To begin with, though I fully recognize the appeal of cool samurai battles and all that, "Feudal Japan" is not a proper noun, and professional historians these days are in fact very hesitant to use the word "feudal" at all. Personally, I think it looks much nicer and more professional to write "the Sengoku period" of Japanese history." Still, that's something of a stylistic choice, and I won't press you on it.

To take just a few examples, picking articles at random from the list on your front user page:

  • Ryūzōji Takanobu begins with "Ryūzōji Takanobu (龍造寺隆信, Ryūzōji Takanobu? 1530-1584) the eldest son of Ryūzōji Chikaie and the 19th and final head of the powerful Ryūzōji clan during the Sengoku period of Feudal Japan." Where is the verb in that sentence? It should read "Ryūzōji Takanobu was the eldest son of..."
  • Taira no Chikazane has numerous grammatical and spelling mistakes, and just reads poorly overall, nearly every sentence written awkwardly. For example, instead of "This action would eventually give birth to a selected few individuals of great ability as like that of Oda Nobunaga who rose with such a family line flowing through his blood; although Nobunaga suggestively preffered to be known as a descendant of the Fujiwara, occasionally seizing many circumstances with such a ruse of authority and prestige" you could write "This would result in the creation of a new clan lineage, which would eventually bear the likes of Oda Nobunaga, a warlord of the late 16th century who united the archipelago." Excessively flowery language like "rose with such a family line flowing through his blood" is excessive and inappropriate on Wikipedia, where we are seeking to tell things in an objective and professional tone, not a literary or legendary one.
  • Iio Tsuratatsu begins with "Iio Tsuratatsu (飯尾連竜, Iio Tsuratatsu? ? - December 20, 1565) was a senior retainer under the presently powerful clan of Imagawa during the late Sengoku Period of Feudal Japan. Showing great valiancy in the art of the sword, during the Battle of Okehazama of 1560, Yoshimoto would die in the former conflict..."
    • The presently powerful clan? As in powerful in the present, in 2008? I think not.
    • Use of the phrase "the former conflict" would imply that you are denoting one over the other, the former as opposed to the latter. But only one battle is mentioned here. It would be much better I think to say "Yoshimoto would die in that conflict".
    • The overall phrasing of this sentence is again a bit too flowery and making Iio out to be a hero, a great fighter, rather than simply a historical figure who we should view objectively. Some historical figures are indeed renowned for their prowess in various things, but to describe every samurai warrior we come across as valiant and a great warrior is.. just not good. Please take a look at WP:Avoid peacock terms.

Other editors should not have to clean up after you, and yet I find myself recently coming across more and more articles (not all of which are your fault, of course) which need attention. You say yourself on your user page that we should contribute with "an above average sum of writing ability", an awkward sentence in and of itself, and that we should work to "to be seen as sophisticated ... to prove to others as being an above average user." I applaud your noble intentions, your perseverance, and your passion for the subject, and for the work. I truly sincerely do. But your work does not, I am afraid, reflect "above average writing ability" nor does it reflect the kind of sophisticated, academic, professional approach which would help to prove to others that you are an above average user.

This may seem harsh, and I apologize for that. I say this out of a sincere desire to help you. A number of other editors have their eye on you, and have added a great many of your articles to the "needs cleanup" list. This is not the kind of attention you should wish to attract, I think, and if you want to dispel it, you need to show that you can contribute well-written articles, with a minimum of spelling and grammar mistakes, and an objective and professional tone. I look forward to working with you in the future, as we continue to improve and expand Wikipedia's poor coverage of pre-modern Japanese topics. Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


I thank you for your suggestion, Lord Ameth. I can't agree with the fact that I have gone wrong with my spelling, but surely some issues with my grammar are evident in many earlier articles that I have created throughout the past. Even though a more understandable and professional tone to my grammar is something that is essential, a good majority of the articles that I have created within the past week or so justify a more sophisticated level of grammar, and therefore they are nothing that should be considered as needing any form of ammendment in their presentation. Regardless, your willingness is gratifiable, and I will act upon your words whenever any more information is produced and distributed by my hands. I thank you once again. User:Exiled Ambition January 27 2008 (EST)

[edit] Your user page

I have removed the attack paragraph from your user page per WP:NPA. You can be angry all you want, but you and I both know the reason those articles were deleted is because you plagiarized the material from another site. This was very clearly shown, and you obviously still have no remorse about it. You are treading on very thin ice here, Darin, and any future plagiarism will likely result in much longer blocks than you previously enjoyed. If you want to reopen this, we can bring out the evidence again and get even more people involved.

I have also removed the fair use image from your userpage as fair use images are not allowed to be used in user namespace. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Well we cannot exactly conclude that I shouldn't consider you as a figure of general dislike, Nihonjoe. It is clear that the actions you took against me were out of the irrational intention to be seen as a figure of higher social standing within Wikipedia, and this in itself is an inexcusable factor, even if the articles that I created previously deserved to be deleted according to their lack of propriety. I suppose barking against your name on my talk page will not result in anything more than void resentment, but attempting to dissuade me from further attacks with no better reasoning than blatant threats is not something I specifically see as sophisticated by any means, nor does it assist the circumstances that justify my case. Regardless, I will never benefit by conversing with a man that makes situations more detrimental for the masses at every turn of his hand, nor do I wish to make the present circumstances worse by providing reasoning against a person of irrationality, and therefore I, out of respect to the circumstances, will ensure that the former attacks against your name shall never reoccur, simply because there no longer exists any rational reason to further possess a grudge against an insect like you. User:Exiled Ambition 3 February 2008 (EST)
You can dislike me all you want, for whatever reasons you see fit, but the aforementioned actions were taken to legally protect Wikipedia from accusations of supporting plagiarism. That's the only reason those several hundred pages were deleted (and not just by me, as at least one other admin was involved in sorting through the pages and determining if they were plagiarized or not). I don't have any general (or other) dislike of you personally. The only issue I have ever had with you is the plagiarism issue. Outside of that, I'm happy for any contributions you make here. In fact, I strongly encourage good contributions to Wikipedia. As LordAmeth mentioned elsewhere on this page, please try to use more than one source, though, as that reduces the chances of the text too closely matching the single source. If you can use at least 3-4 sources, then you likely won't have any issues at all. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Koide Hideharu

Hi there, I see you have for second time removed the copyedit tag from Koide Hideharu, this time with the edit summary "there is no need for copyediting; the article will not be changed regardless". Leaving aside any issues over ownership I thought it might be helpful if I explained that the reason that the article has been tagged for copy-editing is that the English, both spelling and grammar, needs some attention. I am going to replace the tag, please don't remove it again and please don't take it personally. Good luck with your editing, kind regards, nancy (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing here is that this respective article does not need any ammendment in its grammar, let alone any of its spelling -- in fact its presentation is better than any of the average articles that I have written. This is the rationale behind why I was not hesitant in removing the copyediting tag, for obviously it does not serve any general basis for being present. At most, the style at which the article's information is stated could be ammended, but I hardly doubt anyone would be able to write it as well as I have shown, and therefore this tag should indeed be removed; but I suppose it shall remain solely as evidence that nothing is ultimately changeable. After a set period in time, however, I will remove it. User:Exiled Ambition 3 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Ei Hisatora

I added the refimprove and OR tags to that page, as well as a few others, because they do constitute original research. For example, on the Ei Hisatora page, you list only this link as a reference. That page has two sentences on it, yet the Wiki article has a full paragraph. Perhaps you could explain to me how two sentences gets turned into a paragraph without the use of unverified claims or original research. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also reverted your removal of the templates on the other pages I marked. Every single one of these pages contains unverified claims, and your argument about "verification" not being needed is just flat-out wrong. You really need to take a look at Wikipedia policy. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be wrong with the circumstances that are presently in play. Please compare one of my verified sources with its respective Wikipedia article, and you will generally see that "original research" or "unverified claims" are not an issue, and that the article itself was simply elaborated in a more sophisticated tone, as opposed to it being more generalized and poorly written, which is the general case for the sources that I use. Only at selective times do I add anything that may constitute speculation within "original research", but such contributes to the presentation of the article and elaborates a greater degree of understanding with the circumstances, which would obviously be better for the article, as opposed to not being stated at all (EX: I state that Yokota Takayoshi was fervently trained in the martial arts before initially going into service under Takeda Shingen, which is the only justifiable reasoning behind how his archery was so much more advanced than other generals, and why he was considered as a man of note from the very beginning. This was obviously not stated, but as it is highly denoted, it becomes added.) In resolution to this, I cannot see any reason to keep these tags, for obviously no one will change the article even if such tags justify your case and indeed remain, and the article will initially lose its ultimate quality and presentation if it is ammended by a less capable writer, so I believe pretentiously upholding one regulation or another really won't provide anything beneficial to these circumstances. Either way, whatever I may state is based upon a rational conclusion to the circumstances that each respective person is present within; Its not as if I am simply distributing information that is relatively useless and would be better off by being removed, for to what reason would I ever add it if that were the case? Obviously my time would be wasted, and that would be nothing less than irrational and blatantly stupid. User:Exiled Ambition 3 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] POV

You may have noticed my edits to the article on Chōsokabe Nobuchika today. This article suffered from serious POV problems, and I am sorry to say it seems that this is innate to your writing style and extends across most if not all of your articles. As Wikipedia editors, and as historians, we are obligated to strive for objectivity in our writing. That means viewing historic figures in an objective manner, and not as exemplars of bravery and heroism; I appreciate your passion for the subject, but your writing style reflects a romanticized, idealized view of samurai history and not the down-to-earth historical reality. More to the point, we are not meant to take sides as historians.

To illustrate my point, I hope you do not mind if I go through some of the words I removed from the Nobuchika article, nearly all of which are Peacock terms or represent a non-neutral point of view.

  • "reputed" - "the eldest son of the reputed warlord Chosokabe Motochika" - you use this to mean that Chosokabe Motochika was a warlord with a strong/good reputation, but it comes across as meaning that he was reputed to have been a warlord; that he was said to have been, or believed to have been a warlord. See the Wiktionary page for reputed.
  • "considerately" - "Oda Nobunaga--at which the latter considerately provided to Nobuchika the 'Nobu' in his name" - putting aside the awkward structure of this sentence, you imply a heroic status to Nobunaga which is not objective/NPOV. To say that he granted Nobuchika these things is enough, as the relationship between Nobunaga and the Chosokabe is already described. To say that he did so "considerately" is to introduce an emotion, an attitude towards Nobunaga and an image of him which is romanticized and comes more from video games, fiction novels, manga and the like than from history.
  • "unfortunate" and "treacherous" - "Nobunaga's unfortunate and sudden death in 1582 by the hands of the treacherous Akechi Mitsuhide." - To describe Nobunaga's death as "unfortunate" is perhaps the most grievous problem in this article. Unfortunate for whom? You are taking a side, describing Nobunaga as a hero, as a protagonist, and the "treacherous" Akechi Mitsuhide as a villain, an antagonist. This is inappropriate. It is not our place to decide who are the good guys and the bad guys; more to the point, there are most often in history no good guys and bad guys, but only opposing sides. You cannot choose to view historical figures as "good guys" purely because you think they're cool.
  • "respectively" - "his body was respectively sent to Motochika" - First of all, the word you're looking for is "respectfully", as in "with respect". Respectively is used to describe lists of things, assigning elements of one list to elements of another. For example, "In their respective feudal periods, the warrior classes of England and Japan were known as knights and samurai, respectively." Of course, you should not be using the word "respectfully" anyway, as it again adds emotion into what is meant to be an objective historical treatment.
  • "sympathetically" - "who was sympathetically allowed retreat to Shikoku" - again, emotion. First of all, do you have primary source evidence that the Shimazu felt sympathetically towards Motochika? I doubt it. This sentence again implies that you are taking sides, yourself sympathizing with the Chosokabe.

History is not made up of good guys and bad guys. Hundreds of individual samurai from tens of different clans are not all heroes, honorable, brave, and exceptionally skilled in battle. Your passion for history is admirable, but I am afraid your approach is flawed. Please focus on the facts - who, what, where, when, how, why - rather than on making sure that your favorite video game/manga/anime characters are represented as honorable, brave, sympathetic heroes. LordAmeth (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


Whenever I added any romanticizations to the articles that I create, it is not an immature attempt at promoting one figure or another in a representative manner that many would deem as unjustified and completely innapropriate -- it is a means at which that figure is looked upon in a manner that he should, for surely the circumstances involving Mitsuhide's betrayal was unfortunate to Nobunaga and could have been ultimately avoided if more rationality was involved. That is the reason as to why I declare such circumstances as being "unfortunate", as opposed to simply emphasizing that Mitsuhide betrayed Nobunaga, for it wasn't something that should have happened. I agree that many of my earlier sentence structures were wrongly stated, but adding additional conjecture here and there doesn't harm the articles presentation as long as it is verified as being a conjecture, as opposed to an evidential claim. Additionally adding reinforcing emotions is not what I elaborate in my articles any more, and I do agree that such would represent biasism and uneeded dribble, over anything else that is more fitting to state. Nonetheless, I respect your consideration; but you should analyze many of my newly created created articles that do not possess such romanticizations, but are more emphasised with needed conjectures and elaborate words that are more fitting for their topic. User:Exiled Ambition 10 February 2008 (EST)

I see. Well, I am really happy that you are taking people up on their advice and making efforts to improve. Your contributions are truly crucial to an extensive coverage of samurai topics here. Just be careful to not violate WP:No original research, and in your word usage ("respectively" and "reputed" do not have the meanings you use them for; and "conjectively" is not a word). Cheers. Ganbatte! LordAmeth (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my same regards to you as well. I will be sure to make the best of the advice that you have shown to me for the sake of further expanding samurai era figures of note. User:Exiled Ambition 10 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] "Hoshino"?

Hello and welcome back to Wikipedia. It is good to see you again after such a long time. I would like to ask you something regarding your recent redirect of "Hoshina Masatoshi" to "Hoshino Masatoshi." His Japanese Wiki article, located here, lists him as "Hoshina" Masatoshi (same guy, "Yari Danjo" and all). The prominent kamon-related website Harimaya.com also lists him as "Hoshina" (found here). That being the case, what reason is there to redirect his page to the seemingly misspelled "Hoshino"? If his name was "Hoshino," then you'll have to redirect the pages of his descendants, Masayuki, Masasada, Masakage, and Masaari, as well-- and these are names which are known (in print sources) as being "Hoshina" and not "Hoshino." I am not trying to be accusatory, I am just trying to understand the logic behind your action. Thank you.-Tadakuni (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S.- Also, why blank out an already extant article on Masatoshi and create a totally new one? If this move really is justified, why not just improve on the extant content? Again, I am just trying to understand.-Tadakuni (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


The reasoning behind why I redirected the original "Hoshina Masatoshi" to "Hoshino Masatoshi" is because I received higher results for the latter on google, and the Tokugawa clan article on Wikipedia has his name listed with an o instead of an a. My source--Samurai Archives--also lists his name as possessing an a, as opposed to an o; but as I see that your sources provide greater evidence against my claim, I am sorry to have redirected the former article, and will move it back to its rightful place immediately. Now for the reasoning behind why I chose to create a new article named "Hoshino Masatoshi", as opposed to simply moving your original article and adding on to it, is justified by the fact that the original article did not possess any reference to back its information, and I knew that I couldn't simply add information from a reference that did not hold many of the former claims, so therefore I decided to create a new article that was based upon a fixed reference and had what I believed to be his proper name. However, as I now see that I am wrong in my course of action, I will move my article back to "Hoshina Masatoshi", at which you can expand it with any additional references that you forgot to claim, along with the appropriate information that had been previously stated. User:Exiled Ambition

Thanks for understanding...I have said sources in hand, will upload hopefully most of them today. -Tadakuni (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yokota

Hi, I have another question: I see the two articles Yokota Takatoshi and Yokota Takayoshi-- it seems to me like they are one and the same person (横田高松 in Japanese). How could two people with nearly identical names have served the Takeda clan at the same time and died in the same year? Are you sure they are two different people? It seems from all the websites I can find, that the proper name is Yokota Takatoshi. See the following sites, which all mention a Yokota Takatoshi and not Takayoshi-

See also the following pages from Google Books:

I hope we can get this discrepancy cleared up. Thanks for understanding. -Tadakuni (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for this analysis. According to the circumstances involving both of these articles, it does seem that everything is ultimately identical; and it seems that Samurai Archives accidentally listed his name as being Takayoshi, as opposed to Takatoshi, when considering the sources you have shown to me and the Stephen Turnbell reference that I used previously. In consequence to this accident, I will be sure to merge the two articles immediately, and you have my generous thanks. User:Exiled Ambition 19 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Another Question

Hi, I have another question about your articles. Why is it that on many of the articles I've seen you create, you write something like "nothing is known of him beyond this point, but he died in..."? For instance: Honda Narishige. You said After entering into the Edo Period with initial service during the 1614 and 1615 Sieges of Osaka, Narishige's life is recorded to no extent following this point, other than his death in 1637, speculatively through natural means. After checking on the Japanese Wikipedia and checking on a couple of websites (here and here) I can tell you that for instance, he became a daimyo with 43,000 koku of income, starting in 1624. That's after the Osaka Campaign-- and right in the middle of the period that you say his life is "recorded to no extent." This is only one case among several that I have noticed in the articles you have created. I admire your zeal in creating these articles, but a little bit of double-checking wouldn't hurt. If you can use Japanese sources, that would help. -Tadakuni (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reasoning behind such a question isn't too deep: the source that I used simply ended at the point in time at which Narishige served in the Osaka Campaigns, and didn't note anything about later daimyoship in 1624. In consideration to what you have told me, I suppose it would be quite reasonable to check up on other Japanese sources, for it seems that many of the Samurai Archives articles that I distribute from are sometimes too generalized in their presentation. Thank you for informing me of this, and I will be sure to act upon your word. User:Exiled Ambition February 22 2008 (EST)

I appreciate hearing back from you so soon, and that you're willing to have a good, open discussion on this issue. But I wanted to ask you regarding something you've just said-- the source that I used simply ended at the point in time at which Narishige served in the Osaka Campaigns, and didn't note anything about later daimyoship in 1624. To be honest, is that a good idea? Just because your usual source doesn't say anything, doesn't mean that no other record exists. I'm not trying to invalidate the work done by SamuraiArchives; from what it sounds like, those guys really do work hard-- but my point on this matter is the following--
Suppose you had one source on George Washington and it ended with the end of his presidency in 1797-- it didn't say what he did between being president, and dying in 1799. Does that mean you can say that "nothing more is recorded of his life"? There is, of course, no set rule of what to do in such a circumstance, but it would seem, at least to me, that the thing to do would be either to check with other sources, or just to leave the approximately 3 years between the presidency and his death (1797-1799) blank-- one would just end with the presidency, and then close with "George Washington died in 1799." In a nutshell, what I think this comes down to is writing what we know, as opposed to "speculating" what we don't.
Again, I appreciate your desire for discussion, and I hope that you, as with everyone on Wikipedia, will continue to try to improve the quality of their work, and continue to contribute to this monumental effort. -Tadakuni (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my jumping in here, but the fact is that all of these articles are filled with original research. Speculative claims should not be included in a Wiki article, plain and simple. I've been going around tagging all of the articles with refimprove and OR tags for this reason. I agree with Tadakuni, and I'm probably going to start going paring down the articles to remove all of this cruft. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point Tadakuni, and I believe it would indeed be a very beneficial resolution to possess multiple sources in order to counter any such detrimental circumstance as that. However, I am personally shamed at the fact that I cannot read Japanese, and therefore such an ideal becomes a very difficult matter to reinforce. Concerning this, I am willing to ask if you know of any advanced translator that I could use in consideration to such a matter; for GoogleTranslate is quite flawed and doesn't provide to me a clear translation by any comprehensible means, resulting in my being unable to provide a secondary source that could be used for verification. If you could provide me assistance in such a matter, then I can ensure to you that speculative romanticizations will no longer be an essential for any article created. User:Exiled Ambition 23 February 2008 (EST)

First of all, use http://books.google.com/ to look things up in English. Even a citation from a book only partially viewable there, will be a great improvement-- and there's a lot more there than you might think! Secondly, as far as Japanese mechanical translators go, I used to use http://nifty.com/globalgate for Japanese to English. Since then I have actually gone and learned Japanese, so it's of not much use to me anymore. It'd at least give you the rough gist of the source, and of course you'd have to try to correct the grammatical and logical errors therein...but it'd be a start.
But in addition, I'd like to suggest that perhaps you might want to start learning Japanese. There are plenty of resources you can find and use online; just check them out through www.google.com. If these historical figures mean that much to you, then why not go to the extra effort to be able to read about them in their own language? To be frank, this is what drove me to learn Japanese, and I have yet to regret having done so. -Tadakuni (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. If that is the case, then I will be sure to use such a translator whenever possible, and of course understanding Japanese kanji will be of my benefit regardless how difficult. I thank you once again in consideration to what you have shown to me, and be ensured that it shall be used in a means that will benefit each article that I create, including those that already exist. User:Exiled Ambition 24 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Continuing from Talk:Itō clan

User:Exiled Ambition- Thanks for your response, but I want to continue this discussion just a little bit, and offer my two cents as it were. You say- I suppose citing sources would prove of more benefit when considering the unreasonableness of people such as Annyong, who unconditionally tag my articles even if the information within my references justifies any such claim that I make.

Do you see what the problem is? The problem is not that you're not citing yourself-- because you are. The problem is that when you do cite yourself with books, you don't indicate pages. Now to be fair, sometimes for a simple stub, I guess all one needs to do is start out with just a citation of the reference, but when you start getting into a lot of detail the way your articles tend to do, you have to indicate what page the fact came from, so that people know that it's in the book, and so that they can locate it if they want. That's what I mean by page citation. I readily admit, this is something I need to do more of myself, and I will-- but I have plenty else in my life that takes up my attention now, and so I will have to learn to do it more gradually. Secondly, I'd like to make a suggestion- could you please simplify and shorten your sentences? For example-

As the Ito consistently conflicted against the rivaling power of the Shimazu around the beginning :of 1570, as consequence would have it, they were eventually overwhelmed by the capability wielded by :the present head, Shimazu Yoshihisa, and the power that he controlled over Kyushu, causing the Ito's :initial submission by the year of 1578, including the subsequent loss of all of their land.

Your wording is superfluous and you seem to use a lot of indirect phrases. I know what you're talking about in the above passage, but that's because I can read Japanese and I've studied this history. But someone who doesn't understand the history or know Japanese could get easily confused. You would do better to say something like The Itō fought with the Shimazu clan during the Sengoku period. They were overwhelmed by the forces of Shimazu Yoshihisa, and were forced to submit in 1578, after losing all their land. That's why, in my opinion, other people seem to tag your articles for "copyedit." I think that if you kept your sentences more simple, short, and direct, you'd get a lot less complaint from people. This advice about simplicity is advice I also intend to follow, myself. There is nothing wrong with putting "flavor" into history writing, but I think that a writer of history also has to try and make himself/herself as easily understood as possible. Thanks for listening, User:Exiled Ambition, and I hope that I can continue working with you to improve the quality and quantity of the Japanese history articles on Wikipedia. -Tadakuni (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


I see your point Tadakuni, and be ensured from this point onward that each of my references shall be specific to their fixed page of origin. For the case involving the wording of many of my sentences, I suppose that a higher amount of simplicity could be enforceable, but only if it still elaborates a sophisticated presentation to the information being told, thus not ultimately following Wikipedia's pretentious views on generalization. Nontheless, your words are very reasonable to the present circumstances, and I shall therefore ensure to follow them for the sake of expanding the quality of my articles. You have my thanks. User:Exiled Ambition March 3 2008 (EST)

[edit] Dynasty Warriors images

Before you go too much further, I thought you should know that they were removed and probably will be again. We're moving all DW-related media and information away from the historical articles. It's too difficult to control and monitor, and many have become quite angered at how pop culture takes up more room than the factual content. As much as I like DW, I can't say that I blame them. Cheers. Gamer Junkie T / C 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that the circumstances do not justify why such an image should be removed, aside from the fact that it obviously denotes trivia and may not directly compliment the historical figure it is meant to represent. Nonetheless, these images are better off existent within their respective articles, for even with the 'List of Characters in Dynasty Warriors' page, only direct information of that person can be entitled according to Wikipedia's rules on propriety, as the images themselves would otherwise consume too much volume. Knowing this, my course of action is more proper than not, as of course adding support to already existent information is not something that will bear reasonable detriment. User:Exiled Ambition 21 February 2008 (EST)
The question is, are the images really necessary to begin with? Particularly considering they're copyrighted, we shouldn't be using them unless we have no other choice. And, as I understand, Koei have released free press images that should probably be used instead, if at all. Gamer Junkie T / C 01:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well even if those images are copyrighted, the rationale behind its distribution is straightforward and defines why it is safe, mind a selective few who may state it as being an advertisement for the game in an attempt to provide any variable reason for its removal. Ultimately, there isn't anything to worry about; and the only factor that needs any true consideration is simply whether the article will look better with an art representation to back its historical figure than not. User:Exiled Ambition 22 March 2008 (EST)

Actually, there are several things to worry about. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all where we can post copyrighted images on pages just for the heck of it. In general, screen captures of video games or artwork from video game packaging can be uploaded for fair use if used on the game's article. Fair use is fairly stringent, and does not cover depictions of historical figures like you are posting; especially when there are other freely available images (which are also more accurate). WP:FAIR is a good read, if you have the time. Neier (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading what information you have provided to me, it seems that the minimal usage rule of fair use is the only factor that should be applied to the articles that I undid your former edits. Ultimately, I simply can't replace those representations with a video game screen capture supplement: artwork is something more favorable in appearance and still carries the same level of weight on its copyright than would a screenshot substitute. Knowing this, such an action would be a waste of effort altogether; and all that needs to be changed is simply the use of a single representing image for the video game culture instead of two, making every regulation set forth by Fair Use accurate. User:Exiled Ambition 19 April 2008 (EST)

Well, that is one way to read #3. But, #3a's last clause one is used only if necessary is what I'm debating. I also question the fact that a free equivalent is not available per #1, and the images' significance per #8. But, I also think it is unlikely that we are going to reach an agreement on this page; so, I will bring the topic up to a wider audience. Please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Fair use of copyrighted drawings of historical figures for further discussion. Neier (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hiraoka Michiyori, etc

Stop removing the nofootnotes tag. Your articles contain no footnotes, so the tag should be there. Footnotes look like this - info[1] Once you start adding some in, then we can talk. Read WP:FOOT for more on this. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Even though your argument is reasonable, articles such as Hiraoka Michiyori possess only one reference; and seeing that this reference is straightforward and not part of a greater piece of literature, there isn't anything that essentially must be cited, as obviously everything referenced is right before your eyes. I can easily conclude from this that you do not take the time to read my articles, but I will nonetheless ensure that if footnotes are required in any future article that retains more than one reference, your guidelines will be followed for the sake of propriety. User:Exiled Ambition 24 March 2008 (EST)

[edit] Some comments

User:Exiled Ambition-- I just wanted to express my pleasure in the improvement in your citation style that I noticed in Kakizaki Kageie- you used in-line citations, and this will, I think, reduce the amount of complaints people have about your writing. Keep it up, and best regards. -Tadakuni (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Well in all justification, the only true complaints that I have received are Annyong's theoretical original research claims, but I regardlessly express to you my utmost regards in consideration to the work you have contributed, and I shall likewise continue to support such a cause. Exiled Ambition 28 March 2008 (EST)

The article still has original research problem.
“ Following this conflict's conclusion, Kageie supported Kenshin throughout the battles that were to ensue with the Ashina and Hojo, but at the same time coming under the suspicion of conspiracy and treason. For unclear reasons, Kenshin began to strongly suspect Kageie of plotting together with Oda Nobunaga; and without taking a complete understanding of the circumstances, he rashly ordered his immediate execution in 1575. In an evident showing of despair and resentment, Kenshin regretted his decision at a later time, even informing others that he had been visited by an angry spirit of Kageie prior to his own death. ”

This is completely unsourced. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That information is a part of the greater whole that I referenced from Kageie's respective page on the SamuraiWiki of Samurai Archives, and for that reason I did not use it directly as a footnote. The additional two references are only meant to correspond to two sentences, while the rest is directly from the wiki page. User:Exiled Ambition 28 February 2008 (EST)

User:Exiled Ambition-- first of all, I don't know if you realize, but the date after your name is an entire month behind-- it says February rather than March. Just thought I'd point it out. Secondly, I think I can explain what User:Otolemur crassicaudatus's problem is with what you wrote. The issue is not that you're making things up-- because as you said, you indicated your source. The problem is that while this text comes from a specific source, it retains the errors of that source. When someone writes something historical, they have to back it up with multiple sources. Do you see what I mean? I know that you have very few sources; also, by your own admission, you cannot read Japanese-- so I understand, you are rather limited in terms of what you can do. Regardless, I think the problem is two-sided-- People like User:Otolemur crassicaudatus and User:HelloAnnyong don't seem to accept your source; but on the other hand, I think that your continued use of this source, and very often only this source, is what's bothering them. Could you perhaps reduce the number of articles you create, and focus on creating ones that you can get multiple sources for? This also begs the following question, which I ask with the utmost sincerity and respect- what are your motivations in transferring this content from the SamuraiArchives Wiki onto the English Wikipedia?
Furthermore, I have to ask you something else, which I think I've asked before. Note the following quote from your edit to Miyake clan-
The Miyake clan was a Japanese clan which claimed descent from the famed Kamakura era warrior Kojima Takanori, evidently established by the hands of one of the former's sons during the 14th century.
Why are your sentences so seemingly...awkward? And not just here-- pretty much all of your articles have grammar issues of some sort. In this case, why not say that the Miyake clan "was a Japanese clan which claimed descent from one of Kojima Takanori's sons"? Also, your use of "former" is not grammatically correct, in this case you would use "latter"; secondly, a family is not a building or an object, so it would not be established by someone's hands.
Your improvements in citation-- as I noted with Kakizaki Kageie-- are indeed laudable; however, improvements in grammar would also help a great deal. I say this out of a desire to see your work improve, and broaden the scope of Japan-related content here. Many thanks. -Tadakuni (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern that using only a single reference may be a risky course of action in consideration to the verifiability of that information, but I wouldn't enforce such a pre-caution: Samurai Archives is comprised of many members that distribute the historical information that its webmaster had written to SamuraiWiki; and if any of that information were to prove false in manner of its claims, then I would hardly consider that such a site would be alive, considering that it is one of the very few English sources for samurai history and therefore carries a very strong balance on its credibility. I also have the ability to distribute their information onto Wikipedia with the understanding that if it proves false by any means, they will be the ones to receive any length of criticism, while I can continue to use their stated knowledge for the sake of this society's benefit. The only other rationale behind why I choose Samurai Archives is simply due to the fact that it is the only encyclopedia of samurai history that I can find, and the circumstances behind distributing such information is in itself safe. But I suppose that other references could indeed prove useful, even though the Japanese translator can present many errors in its translation, which of course is only resorted to after no other English sources exist.

In consideration to my grammar, I sometimes run into situations at which I wish to combine two generalized sentences from my initial reference into a single sentence, which sometimes has the tendency to construe the understandability of that information. Nonetheless, I will take care to such circumstances and ensure that my articles become more qualified in their manner of talk. You have my thanks for presenting what you have shown to me, and I give to you my same regards. User:Exiled Ambition 28 March 2008 (EST)

[edit] Reliability of "SamuraiWiki"

Your creation of an article on Inaba Masanari seems to to depend on the "SamuraiWiki" site. This site strikes me as problematic at best, and very likely an example of what WP:SOURCE calls "not acceptable". It's possible, though, that I have formed the wrong impression of it. Anyway, I've raised the matter here in the WP Japan talk page. Please contribute to the discussion there.

After posting the question there, I noticed that the matter of "SamuraiWiki" has already come up on this talk page of yours, and that you defend it above. Without getting into an argument with you here, I'll just say that I'm not persuaded by this defense.

Please don't reply here (or on my talk page); instead, please respond to WPJ. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free images

Can I suggest that when non-free images that you have uploaded are removed from an article, and the edit summary gives a reason that they violate Wikipedia policy, it is definitely not a good idea to revert those changes without any discussion or edit summary yourself. Black Kite 22:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but I thought it nothing less than common sense to remove such an edit in face of what the article would gain in effect. I have already read that policy page, and confirming that the only rule that would apply against my actions would be #3, I will forthwith alter each of the articles so that a single representing image is portrayed for their video game references, as opposed to re-adding two. By doing so their is ultimately nothing left for such controversy, and it need not be considered. User:Exiled Ambition 19 April 2008 (EST)

  • So you believed it to be true, but you believed common sense says that the policy should be ignored? Right. In essence, no significance can be added to an article on, say, Gilles de Rais by an unfree image which is not even of him, unless he is best known for his appearance in the video game, which clearly is not the case. If there is a use for such an image, it would be in the article about the video game itself, and even then it would have to pass all the clauses of WP:NFCC. Black Kite 11:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well either way, we can see that his individual appearances within popular culture retain a small number, and all that is ultimately essential is whether the image that I represent for Rais provides additional controversy to the article itself and contributes a greater degree of information. Knowing that such an image would constitute this credential, it would hardly be an irrelevant contribution for his appearance within such a video game to be elaborated, as the article will obviously be expanded altogether without any Fair Use regulations being able to speak otherwise. User:Exiled Ambition 22 February 2008 (EST)

  • Except that it quite obviously fails WP:NFCC at this present moment because it's in the wrong article. It fails WP:NFCC#8 - indeed, it can never pass that clause, because it's not an image of the subject of the article, it's an image of a video game character that is unimportant to that person's life.
  • Further - the conversation you have linked Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Fair_use_of_copyrighted_drawings_of_historical_figures didn't actually draw any conclusions about whether the images were allowed or not (the correct answer would have been that they're not).
  • Further - removing a free image to push in your own fair-use image (as in Maeda Toshiie), is not even tendentious editing, it's disruption.
  • I suggest very strongly to you now, that you stop edit-warring when policy is clearly against your edits. Black Kite 19:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the image is a part of the video game from which it had been derived, but that does not constitute it as being irrelevant to the historical figure's article simply by means of origin: The image is representing the personage, not the video game. We also know that the image is not a part of his life, and for that reason it is a contribution to the page's trivia, not the actual historical evidence. In all respect, it clearly adds additional controversy to the article and should exist in compliment to the trivia section represented. If my actions were ultimately detrimental to the articles that I have uploaded these images to, would you not consider another besides yourself would have already removed them prior to your present course of action? What I am doing is accurate in accordance to Fair Use's expectations, and the propriety of each article clearly remains unharmed. User:Exiled Ambition 22 April 2008 (EST)

  • I am not entirely sure how many times I have to say this - such a non-free image fails a Wikimedia Foundation policy - namely WP:NFCC#8 because it does not increase the reader's understanding of the article's subject - because it is not an image of the article's subject. Please read the linked policy, and indeed the whole of WP:NFCC because other clauses (notably WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3a) are relevant here too. Black Kite 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have good reasoning to back your argument, but when looking at clause #1, I am already aware of the fact that a free-image replacement is impossible and even a variable screenshot substitute would still carry the weight of its own copyright. For #3, the image will only be representing a single historical personage, so any minimal usage clauses are not recquired. Ultimately, we simply need to look at one simple question: Will the article become more detrimental to the community if this image were to become one of its representations? I hardly could think of anyone believing it to be a random advertisement for the video game from which the image originates, and copyright pre-cautions would be a waste of time and effort altogether. If anything, Koei, the producer of these copyrighted images, are establishing their own respective portrayals of these historical figures, so they would ultimately support any readers' understanding of the subject when contemplating why that person is portrayed in such a manner. Ultimately, no harm will come about by adding these images: convoluted regulations that do not produce a more favorable outcome shouldn't be considered in these circumstances. I hope that you become aware of this. User:Exiled Ambition 24 April 2008 (EST)

I am now even more convinced than before that these fairuse character images do not belong in the biographical articles. The images are either of the character (in which case, fair use does not apply, as the person (not the character) is being discussed), or, are one person's/company's original research of what the article subject looked like. You said it best that they are establishing their own respective portrayals of these historical figures, and that is original research or trying to advance a certain position. Neier (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the images do indeed constitute original research and shouldn't be directly compared with the historical figure that is being represented within the article, but each viewer still understands that such an image is a part of triva and exists solely as a secondary representation that can prove true to the characteristics already stated about that person or not. Original research is bad when it comes to information, but the original research of an image itself already proves not to be an ultimate portrayal of that historical figure, and it would therefore be safe to distribute. In all reality there really won't be anything harmful by adding these representations, and if anything, all that needs to be considered is the amount of volume that such an image will consume; but that itself is not any problem. User:Exiled Ambition 25 April 2008 (EST)