| Revision as of 04:26, 18 February 2005 editMackeriv (talk | contribs)2,670 edits Factual accuracy← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:33, 18 February 2005 edit undoPer Honor et Gloria (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers53,031 edits Factual accuracyNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| The discussion pertaining this can be carried here.--] 04:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) | The discussion pertaining this can be carried here.--] 04:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) | ||
| Recent edits by anon user 203.62.217.146 sound dismissive and POV: "Bushido was the supposed warrior code of the samurai." "In reality, however, bushido was an invention of frustrated samurai", "Today it is dismissed by serious historians" "Bushido re-emerged during World War 2 as Japanese propaganda" etc... Maybe a line could be written on such alternative views (with "serious historian"'s reference please), but isn't organizing the whole article around this theme quite excessive? ] 10:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:33, 18 February 2005
I corrected the characters for "loyalty", they clearly must be "忠義" and not "尽忠", which cannot be pronounced as "chugi".
Thanks, bye''
Factual accuracy
It looks like some people have different beliefs regarding the bushido, and this is reflecting on the previous edits of this article. Something must be done about this, and until that happens, the {{disputed}} tag should remain there. Me, I don't know enough about the subject, so I can't really stick my finger on this. I hoped I could find something more reliable here. As for my opinion, I've always thought their code of honor was indeed real in that past. Something that was common sense, followed by a large part of the samurai. Now I don't know anymore, though.
The discussion pertaining this can be carried here.--Kaonashi 04:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Recent edits by anon user 203.62.217.146 sound dismissive and POV: "Bushido was the supposed warrior code of the samurai." "In reality, however, bushido was an invention of frustrated samurai", "Today it is dismissed by serious historians" "Bushido re-emerged during World War 2 as Japanese propaganda" etc... Maybe a line could be written on such alternative views (with "serious historian"'s reference please), but isn't organizing the whole article around this theme quite excessive? PHG 10:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)