Talk:Nanboku-chō period

Controversial sentence

Before the following sentence can be re-integrated into the main article, the substance needs to be expanded, and it needs the support of an additional in-line citation:

• "According to one source, the current Imperial Line is northern."

-- <.ref>http://www.east-asian-history.net/textbooks/172/Rest%20of%20the%20Story.htm<./ref>?

I would have thought that this blunt assertion would need a context. A reader unfamiliar with this subject needs more information in order to evaluate the validity and possible consequences of this controversial claim. --Tenmei (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Major revision

I have put in an entirely new article covering this time period.--K.H. (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC) I will be integrating footnotes into the body of the text in the next few days.

Ideological and economic basis of war

Nihonjoe was unquestionably correct in deleting the following sentence:

Both the ideological and economic basis of the Nanboku-chō War, and the rise of the Muromachi regime will be examined.

However, I have moved the sentence here as a reminder -- this overview/concept needs to be re-integrated into the article when a relevant source citation can be appended.

Personally, I guess I've been so focused on parsing the political aspects of the Nanboku-chō period that I almost forgot about its ideological and economic genesis. When I read this deleted sentence, I was struck by my curiously narrowed perspective -- when did that happen, I wondered?

My sense of personal surprise in reading this otherwise unremarkable sentence was the motivation for creating this odd thread. I'll get back to this in due course; or someone else will follow-up, I suppose. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Japan & MilHist Assessment Commentary

This is without doubt an excellent article. However, I rated it as "Start" by WP:Military history, and C-class for WP:Japan. Here are some points for improvement:

• References: This is the weakest point. There are plenty of sources, but most of them are not in the accepted Wikipedia format of in-line citations. Some are, many aren't.
• Style: I'm a little surprised that there aren't more blue-links in the article.
• Supporting Materials: Some images of some kind would be helpful; battle scenes, paintings of major players, something. I'm sure there is plenty on Wikimedia Commons.

Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Who is this 'I'?

The second sentence of the Consolidation of Ashikaga power: 1360-1370 section starts with "I will cover the following points". What is this doing there? Who is this I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmab (talk • contribs) 00:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I eliminated the "I" which is myself and replaced it with a clearer alternative to emphasize what follows.--[ K.H. 05:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Why begin at 1334?

The article states that this period began in 1334, but does not list any reasoning why. -- 188.192.223.211 (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

1334 is the year the Emperor Go-Daigo is restored to the imperial throne as part of the Kemmu Restoration which was very short-lived.--K.H. (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC) However, 1333 is the year listed in the article as the beginning of the Kemmu Restoration even though 1334 is when the Emperor Go-Daigo gets fully established in Kyoto. This is George Sansom's interpretation how he breaks down the periods of Japanese history in his three volume set: A History of Japan to 1334 vol.1, and 1334 to 1615 vol.2. a chronology that is not reflected here in this article --K.H. (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

De facto vs de jure

There is no need to restore "de facto" rule. De facto means that power is already in practice. Only de jure means that the power exist only in the books and needs restoration. Thanks. Facto means fact and jure means law in latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1530:1010:816:F8DC:364A:1045:79E (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Renaming proposal

Since this was a period of civil war, it might be worthwhile to rename the article War of the Northern and Southern Courts, so that we can use the military conflict infobox. Anyway, "Nanboku-chō period" isn't the common name in English-language sources, which are most important on English Wikipedia. Far more of them designate it as a military conflict, often referring to it as the War of the Northern and Southern Courts.Talrolande (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of content

This is just to notify any watcher that I will be removing (when I have time) a lot of redundancies and opinion writings in 3 more sections of this article. Care will be taken to only remove repetitive and unnecessary writeups. I say this, since the 'view history' will show a large chunk of bytes being removed. I won't add any new content so this is just a very long copy edit process. Hope there is no conflict with this. Danial Bass (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Why removing the ‘Nanboku-chō Wars’ article?

What’s wrong with having a proper page detailing opposing belligerents of this period as with other war pages out there? 2001:FB1:E3:AD72:CC73:46B5:4AC8:8FA3 (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)