Talk:Samurai!

Fair use rationale for Image:Samurai(Book).jpg

Image:Samurai(Book).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reads like a commercial

This article reads like a commercial for the book. It needs a lot of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.65.245 (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 10:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest Revision

The latest revision included sloppy english and unclear statements. The references stated were not official records, but a cited reference work. That book is also not a review of "Samurai!" as implied in the section title. Please improve your english editing skills before undoing grammatically - and factually - correct work. I am not the first editor to make that recommendation. ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You look like you have not read the Sources. Your editing has changed the contents. If you think you corrected it, you should improve your english editing skills. Please do not forcibly edit by the word of "improve your english editing skills". You need to specifically point out the part of the problem. "28" is the number Sakai was honored by Japanese Navy. It is not "an analysis of official records by a particular researcher". It is the introduction of the official record. And other official records support it. Sakai admitted that "64" is a fiction in Interview,too. --Sicmn (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources, sources! Verifiable english sources for the english Wikipedia site, not your own translation. That constitutes original research. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. For information on how to handle sources that require translation, see WP:Verifiability § Non-English sources." Wikipedia:TRANSCRIPTION Fangz (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)