Talk:Taira no Masakado

Untitled

From Japanese Wikipedia.

Reversions

I originally wrote "A.D." but it was changed to "C.E." Please do not change this under the name of "tidying up the English."

Also, Masakado's father was a general, not the barbarian-subduing generalissimo and military ruler of Japan that the word "shogun" connotates in English. So although he was a shogun in Japanese, he was not a shogun in English. For that reason, I reinstated the word "general" in place of "shogun." Both words were in my original text; "general" more accurately conveys his position in English.

1. I'm not sure who this is (please sign messages), but you seem to be under the impression that articles are owned by their creators. It's important to realise that Wikipedia articles are collaborative.
2. If you have a reason for insisting that an article about a non-Christian country has an overtly Christian reference in its dates, please explain.
3. If the term 'shogun' is (as you imply) more accurate, but apt to be misunderstood by stupid non-Japanese, the solution is to explain the accurate terms, not to use inaccurate ones. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On number 2, there's no real need for either AD or CE to be used (I personally prefer AD myself, but that's neither here nor there)

For number 3, "general" is the usual translation of the Japanese term shōgun. The English term "Shogun" is actually short for taii taishōgun (I think that's the right term). Thus, "general" would be the correct translation in English

(Clarifying, I am not the original poster here) Nik42 02:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 21:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I upgraded the ratings to a start class of mid importance. --Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Attention needed + Small new section and image reorganization

I added this to the category of "Japanese military history articles needing attention to structure" because while I was able to clean up a lot of the bottom portion and clarify the relevance of one of the page images, the top portion, titled "History", is just...a huge wall of text, to the extent I get a headache just trying to read it (though that could have something to do with the late hour - another reason I chose to tag it rather than suffer through it for ya'll). Since he is in fact a historical figure period, I'm pretty sure - just guessing - that "History" can probably be broken down into several sections.

Now, regarding my other changes, to the bottom of the article proper. It may seem odd to some (not everyone, I'm sure, but some) that I would add a section on the man's daughter. There are reasons for this that I feel are valid, however, and I would appreciate anyone thinking of removing it to hear me out on my reasoning before they do so.

It did make sense to me to add a small section on Takiyasha-hime to this article since the image (a woodblock print depicting her in the weird folklore version) was originally already put here, but inserted rather oddly into the middle of the "History" section and with no mention of her relation to the main subject of the article outside of the caption; investigation showed that her own name - originally a bluelink in the caption of said image - redirects to an art print that features her, rather than an article on her. Which is annoying and confusing BUT. Honestly the information we have on her (from what I can tell?) is not sufficient to form more than a stub article at best anyway at current. So, you may ask, "why not just put this information on the article for that one print? That would make sense."

It would, if it were the only print featuring her, or say, it was based off a specific legend which happened to be the only legend she featured in. Then it would make perfect sense to have it there instead, and there is where I would have put it. BUT.

BUT there is also more than just the one print featuring her even in Wikimedia Commons alone, and said print is by a completely different artist and was made during a later era and obviously (just from looking at it/reading the description) is a quite different depiction (in one, she is outdoors somewhere carrying a sword and bell and torch and has a "frog familiar"; in the other, she is inside of an old palace, using some sort of magic spell read off of a scroll to summon a decidedly humanoid skeleton spirit). So, you cannot possibly lump the other print into the "Takiyasha the Witch" print's article, or the artist's article (since there's two completely different artists), and since her own name is a redirect, creating an article about her is a pain in the butt and possibly has already been tried and then shifted into a redirect because some editor somewhere decided it was too short or "too similar in content to something else" (I saw this happen recently with stuff that got changed into redirects to "werewolf" in lieu of a proper merge, so it wouldn't surprise me).

So, logically speaking, since this guy is her father, and since the amount of information we have on her is small but the number of depictions/artists depicting her was more than one, and since on top of that, it appears that the depictions all relate in some way to her father and his legacy (in the one pictured in the article, her father's image also appears up on top, and in the one that has its own article, she's in their palace fighting off the emperor's agents who are looking for "conspirators", i.e. people like her father who had participated in rebellion)...well, it just makes sense that if she isn't going to be covered in an article about the historical/folkloric figure herself, then she might as well be on the very bottom of her father's article here, with a nice bit of clarification as to why the subject is relevant (i.e. "the historical version of her was his daughter, and they both have had an impact on Japanese folklore"). Took a while to get the formatting to not be wacky-looking, but it looks like I managed.

The other logical option I could see is starting another article on her anyway (presumably with a "See also" from here?), and moving the information in that section to there; it's nice and compactly contained in a single area, so if that is the option anybody wants to mess around with, it should be fairly easy.

Now, since it is about 2:30 in the morning where I live and I am at my "sooo cannot edit anymore without my head pounding and eyes crossing" stage, I leave it tagged in the hopes that people will be able to clean it up further. If you got all the way through this explanation, thank you very much for your patience and if you choose to help out, then another big thank you. :) 71.47.209.145 (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Large chunks of the text have been directly copied and/or lightly paraphrased from Karl Friday's book The First Samurai, stemming, it appears, from this edit] of January 11, 2012 by 118.109.32.252 (talk · contribs). You can go to the book's Google Books page to confirm. I have a physical copy of the book, if anyone needs me to manually look things up. --Calton | Talk 07:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that, Calton! It's now been removed (see below); the article may need some work as a consequence. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: The First Samurai by Karl Friday, published 2008. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

alleged haunted

His grave is allegedly haunted . CycoMa (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)