contributor
523
edits
Changes
→Sengoku?
What do you all think? I really don't see why Sengoku should be singled out like this as not quite official enough or whatever, particularly when Azuchi-Momoyama is included. [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 01:48, 21 June 2007 (PDT)
What do you all think? I really don't see why Sengoku should be singled out like this as not quite official enough or whatever, particularly when Azuchi-Momoyama is included. [[User:LordAmeth|LordAmeth]] 01:48, 21 June 2007 (PDT)
Did you read the link above? The footnotes in the article are a direct result of that discussion.
Kitsuno and ltdomer talk about why the Sengoku Jidai is not an official period. Also, of the chronological schemes of 5 scholars given in Nelson's Dictionary, all have Azuchi-Momoyama, but only one gives "Sengoku," and he includes it within Muromachi.
Aside from that, this is an outline, and it cannot deal very well with a "period" that is 40 years broad both in the beginning and end. I am hardly a Sengoku denier--in the page I wrote on the [[Osaka Campaign]] I put it in the Sengoku category, though I would certainly call 1615 Edo. But the issue and many of the people were Sengoku. That is the advantage of categories. But for an outline you have to make a choice and stick with it.--[[User:Bethetsu|Bethetsu]] 07:49, 21 June 2007 (PDT)