Talk:Shogun

Generally, though not technically,

it is used in reference to western military leaders of past and present from, for example, Carl von Clausewitz and Erwin Rommel, to Tommy Franks. Shogun Japan 🎓🎓 Is that so? We don't have to cover minor usage of an English word shogun. -- Taku 02:29, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Terminology

I think the word "overcomes" (in "great generalissimo who overcomes the barbarians" ) sounds too passive to be a translation of "征夷"). "Raids" might be more appropriate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.128.229.43 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 15 November 2003.

Conquering?84.13.51.52 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Section

In the article there is a subsection "Conquest of the Ainu", and it is described that they were conquered by the earliest shogun.

They may have been the Ainu, but the people who lived in today's Tohoku region may not have been necesarrily the Ainu, or more accurately, it is not known who they were. The only person whose name is known is Aterui, which doesn't sound like Japanese. (I don't know if this can make sense in the Ainu language.) There are some place names in Tohoku region which some claim are of Ainu origine, but it's not enough evidence that proves the people conquered by the shogun were the Ainu. Aniway we could modify this paragraph. -222.15.81.187 11:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Dates in article

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras states, "Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE." For that reason, I removed "c.e." from the header. Fg2 00:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

European styles

Were shoguns addressed by a standardized European style? Would European diplomatic missives have been addresse to "Son Altesse le Shogun de Japon," or some such? One would imagine that, at least between Perry's opening of Japan and the end of the Shogunate, this would have been addressed. (My hours in the archives full of formalized usage of styles is driving me mad, I fear.) john k 21:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Most European documents of the time referred to the Shogun as "King of Japan" or whatever the equivalent may have been in the English/Dutch/Portuguese/Spanish/German/Russian of the time. The Europeans seemed for the most part quite confused, or oblivious, of the presence or role of the Emperor, or for that matter of the very deliberate efforts on Japan's part to not be called "King" in communications with other Asian nations. LordAmeth (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 19, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: interesting prose, no big beef.

2. Factually accurate?: this is the crux. Whole sections have no refs, some POV statements are unsourced, and some refs are incomplete (or in the case of #4, have no content).

3. Broad in coverage?: a good explanation and history.

4. Neutral point of view?: seems good.

5. Article stability? no rapid changes being reverted, fine.

6. Images?: all are free domain/GFDL, pass.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm... at some point, somebody moved a large chunk of the references down into the "further reading" section (including the contents of the now-fixed 4th ref you mentioned) -- perhaps that wasn't the best idea, in this light. Live and learn. I've restored a few of them to their previous positions, and will hope to find a few more I can move up again. I'm not sure which unsourced POV statements you're referring to, though? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"He became the practical ruler of Japan, and received the title sei-i taishōgun.", the entire Heian period section... normally I wouldn't complain about that except the main article doesn't cite references. David Fuchs ^(talk) 13:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

while I still think that in order to get FAC more statements will have to be sourced, I feel confident it can at least merit a GA. David Fuchs ^(talk) 14:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What does Sho mean?

The intro to the article says that sho means commander or general, yet there is also a page called "sho" about a japanese wind instrument. I think that translation may be wrong?  The Robot Champion  talk to me  01:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens of kanji with the pronunciation "shō," including a wind instrument and the first character of "shogun." Fg2 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And to answer your question more directly, yes, the kanji 将 in 将軍 does have the meaning "commander" or "general." Fg2 (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The word 將 (jiang in Chinese and sho in Japanese) originally meant "Commander". Therefore, 將軍 or (jiangjun or shogun) meant Commander of an Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.51.52 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Japanese is one of the hardest languages to learn because of these many syllables all representing different meanings. This is mostly due to the limitations of the language itself, only a handful of options (about 80, modernly). A lot of the words were taken from Chinese where shò and shó are totally different but said by a Japanese speaker (or English speaker in this case) is just sho (in the case of "shogun" it is actually shō, a long o which in Japanese Romaji usually written shou) so that the word "sho" in Japanese can mean a few different things, more precisely, more than a few kanji can have the same "sho" as it's reading or yomikata. - (笙 - shō) (将 - shō) (少 - shō) -- Billy Nair (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's one of the easiest in my opinion, since there aren't nearly as many different verb conjugations as in most Western languages, there's only two irregular verbs, and no masculine/feminine agreement issues. The kanji do a far better job than spelled-out words in other languages of relating their meaning and etymology upon a quick glance. It is also far easier than any tonal language to pronounce, and doesn't even have the strange accent of French or the accent issues of many other languages. Not only that, but unlike English, the basic grammar forms are quite straightforward and logical, and have very few exceptions. Talk to a Japanese (or just about anyone who doesn't speak English as their first language) and I can practically guarantee that they have tons of trouble with spelling - that doesn't happen in Japanese, as *everything* is pronounced precisely the way the kana spelling indicates. LordAmeth (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess in those ways it is a pretty easy language. Maybe more like, easy to learn, hard to master? Yeah it doesn't have tones or weird influxes so the initial get up and go might seem easier, but the number of near native speakers of Japanese vs most other languages is a lot smaller, like Spanish for example. BUT, that wasn't the point of my post, i was just saying that Japanese uses the same "word" (if you can call it that: "shō" or "kyō") for multiple meanings. -- Billy Nair (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I know what you meant. When writing in romaji or in kana, or for that matter, in speaking, it can be really difficult to distinguish between different words. Didn't mean to jump down your throat... LordAmeth (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobunaga and Hideyoshi mistook as Shoguns?

I have removed the line "Even though westerners mistook them as shoguns,[citation needed] they were not actually shoguns at all." which has gone uncited since August. Western documents from that period, almost without exception, refer to Hideyoshi, Ieyasu, and the other Tokugawa shoguns (and perhaps Nobunaga as well) as "King of Japan", or possibly as Taiko or Kwampaku in the case of Hideyoshi, but not as Shogun. LordAmeth (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobunaga and Hideyoshi were indeed shoguns. They were military dictators who wielded as much power as any of their predecessors or successors. While the shoguates of Nobunaga and Hideyoshi were not elective, the latter designated his son to be his successor while still a child. As "de facto" shoguns, they must be mentioned. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

de facto and formally recognized are two different things in Japanese history - a commoner like Hideyoshi had no chance of ever becoming Shogun - hence, he was 'chief advisor' or Kwampaku, later Taiko 'retired regent.' Nobunaga never had supreme power, but he made a great effort. 50.111.19.178 (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Article name

Should the name of this article be "Shōgun"? Torsodog (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, I mean the novel by James Clavell uses "Shōgun" and so does the article title for the Wikipedia article for the novel. Also, it says Shōgun throughout the article (admittedly, there are some areas that don't use it.) This article needs to be moved. An administrator would have to do it because Shōgun already redirects here. stevenrasnick (talk) 14:24, November 20, 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The English word is "shogun" and it is found in reliable dictionaries with no macron. It is a loanword of Japanese origin, but is now part of the English language. It is the correct title according to the relevant naming convention, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). The macron is for the romanization of the Japanese word. It is inappropriate when writing English if an English word exists, as it does in this case. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#English words of Japanese origin, which says "An English loan word or place name of Japanese origin should be used in its most common English form in the body of an article, even if it is pronounced or spelled differently from the properly romanized Japanese . . ." This article should stay with the present title. Fg2 (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Shogun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will be doing the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found this article to not meet the GA Criteria. Here are my concerns:

• There are several sections that either have no citations or only have one citation. The article should be better references. I've added a couple of templates to help identify some of the areas where citations are needed.
• Comprehensiveness is also an issue. This is a huge subject with the potential for a lot more information to be added. The history section is fairly minimal and should be beefed up with more facts. The impact of imperialism on the Shogunate is an interesting subject that has no coverage here. Also expanding on that is the influence of Europeans in general is also not explored in this article.
• The lead is to be a summary of the article yet there are sections of the article not mentioned in the lead.
• There is also a clarification needed tag that has been on the article since November 2008 with no apparent action.

Overall I can't keep the article as GA as it currently stands. I will hold it for one week and see if work can be done to improve it. H1nkles (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been a week with no apparent work done on my suggestions. As such I will delist the article. Should editors disagree with this decision please bring the issue to the WP:GAR page for a community reassessment. H1nkles (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting accounts need fixing

The inconsistency between the following two articles needs fixing:

The Tokugawa clan article tells us: The Tokugawa clan ... nominally descended from Emperor Seiwa (850–880) and were a branch of the Minamoto clan (Seiwa Genji) by the Nitta clan.

But the Shogun article tells us: Tokugawa Ieyasu ... received the title sei-i taishōgun in 1603 after he forged a family tree to show he was of Minamoto descent.[11]

11.^ Titsingh, I. (1834). Annales des empereurs du Japon, p. 409

Unless one of these versions is purely an eccentric fringe theory, then both versions need to appear in both articles, due to WP:NPOV. If one of them is fringe (something which I'm in no position to decide), then the non-fringe version needs to appear in both articles. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ogosho

A redirect has recently been created from the above to this article, though the word doesn't occur in the article as far as I can see, so there's no evidence why it's a useful redirect. Any thoughts? PamD 07:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The term Ōgosho (大御所) is what's used to refer to a retired shōgun, such as Tokugawa Ieyasu, when he stepped down and passed the reins to Hidetada. There's a subsection on Ieyasu's time as Ōgosho at Tokugawa Ieyasu#Ōgosho (1605–1616). There should defintely be something in the shōgun article about this. There's a ja.wp on the term (ja:大御所). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Curly Turkey: I hope that you or some other expert will add that info to the article. Otherwise the redirect is heading for WP:RfD as an unexplained redirect. But I'll leave it for a while. PamD 09:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"Listen" File not found

Problem inside the server or connection? Firman.Nst (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Translate from Spanish

The Spanish article goes into a lot more detail than the English article. Any Spanish speakers up to translate? WitherOrNot (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Shōgun → Shogun – See reasoning on Daimyo requested move. "Shogun" without the macron is the form found in every English dictionary (e.g., [1], [2], the Oxford Dictionary of English built into macOS, etc.) The manual of style specifically says that the accepted English form is to be used, even if it does not match the Japanese: [3] Bueller 007 (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support for reasons stated. --Jfruh (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support Agreed. Standard dictionaries and scholarly works spell it this way, without the macron. Worldlywise (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support Shogun is almost identical and widely used.Artanisen (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support for reasons stated. Noahfgodard (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Shōgun vs. Shogun

Now that the article has been moved to Shogun (without the macron), should instances of "Shōgun" within the article be changed? Should the macron be kept in phrases like Seii Taishōgun and Chinjufu Taishōgun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahfgodard (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have now updated the article in line with the edit that I reverted before the RM had concluded. The Category:Shōguns tree probably needs a CfD to follow suit. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

should instances of "Shōgun" within the article be changed? No, and I think another RM should take place; the previous RM saw a pitifully small amount of participation, mostly from non-specialist editors and based on a dubious reading of dictionaries that also list the macronated spelling, without any regard for how the word is most commonly spelled in English-language reliable sources on the topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hijiri88 I added an explanation for the droppable macron in the etymology section. I feel like this is uniquely necessary for this article, because most articles are either internally consistent with their spelling or pertain to a word with an overwhelmingly more common English spelling. Kaotao (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Etymology

Why is the "Bakufu" discussed in the Etymology section if its etymology is not mentioned? Where would be the best place to relocate this information? Noahfgodard (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Pre historic times

Such an interesting read. 2A01:4B00:BF01:7000:32BB:375D:BC58:BE9D (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

sei-i taishōgun (ぶどうは紫色)

The Japanese following this phrase means "grapes are purple" (budoh wa murasaki-iro). Someone has a sense of humor. 240D:1A:A42:1100:CC6B:9DE3:8C61:BFCB (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Minamoto

Right now the third paragraph opens with a note that it's often thought that the shogun must be descended from the Minamoto, but that this isn't accurate. There are citations for non-Minamotos like Nobunaga becoming shogun later in the paragraph, but I think the initial claim (that some say you have to be Minamoto) needs to be substantiated. So far as I can tell, this claim didn't appear on the page until after the airing of the 2024 Shogun series where the claim was made, but if it only/primarily appears there, I don't know that it deserves to be in the introduction to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:22:4000:105:3FD8:781:5E07:1E8F (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)