Talk:Tokugawa Ieyasu/Archive 1

Untitled
The discussion of the use of the given name was moved to Manual of Style for Japan-related articles.

Kowatari Castle
User:Lacrimosus changed Kwatari to Kowatari, which appears to be correct. The Japanese Wikipedia article on Oda Nobuhide contains the sentence "その後も勢力の拡大にともなって1539年に古渡城（名古屋市中区）、1548年に末森城（名古屋市千種区）を築いて居城を移している. " The text in bold could be read kowatari. (Lacrimosus wondered whether Japanese has kw; it once did, and it lives on in the occasional Kwannon, Kwansei University etc.)

Toranaga?
Could sb explain in article why Toranaga redirects here? Was it some bastard westernization of his name? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's because of James Clavell. In his Asian Saga (and most notably Shogun) he has characters with the surname Toranaga.  These characters are closely based on the Tokugawas and there are many similarities between what happens in his books and what actually happened. -- MordredKLB 13:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. I will add a note on this to the text. Oh, I see you already done it - tnx. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Monto
Should the wikilink to monto be deleted (4th paragraph of rise to power) ? The link is to an area of Ireland. I don't know if the Japanese definition (close to 'zealot'?) deserves a disambig link or not. Neier 06:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed it to Mikawa Monto. Fg2 07:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE
Did someone just wipe the entire page clean in the most recent edit? —This unsigned comment was added by Framed0000 (talk • contribs).

Tokugawa and the Korean war
How did Tokugawa manage to stay out of the Korean-war? He was a vassal of Toyotomi wasn't he? —This unsigned comment was added by 217.209.26.241 (talk • contribs).

Cat lover?
I commented out a portion of text regarding Tokugawa's love of cats. I only commented out one sentence, because the other two seem plausible. I seem to recall some story about the sleeping cat at Nikko Toshogu and its relevance to Tokugawa; but, I'm somewhat leery of the recent addition to the text, given the comparison to Hello Kitty. Does anyone have any more concrete info? Neier 15:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if he were a cat lover, is it important enough to include in his article in Wikipedia? (Even if the spelling of his name were modernized...) Fg2 20:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture details?
Removed all details that belong in the articles about the individual works. This article is about Tokugawa Ieyasu and should not have details about the works.

Is this correct? The details that used to be given in the popular culture section were about Ieyasu's portrayal in each work. These weren't just random details about works that happen to reference Ieyasu, they were all about Ieyasu within the work.

On the other hand, all of the works in the list are fiction, and so the details about Ieyasu within the works are quite possibly fictional, and so are of no value to someone aiming to study Ieyasu. In fact, the entire section about popular culture is of no value if we only want to learn about Ieyasu himself.

I find the section interesting for its own sake and anyone who finds Ieyasu fascinating in the manner that I do must appreciate seeing him in works of fiction. If you are looking to this article to learn about where Ieyasu appears in works of fiction, then not only is the popular culture section the most valuable, most of the details that have been edited out are of great importance. They explain the role that Ieyasu played in the movie, TV show, game, etc.

If we do not want to include the popular image of Ieyasu in this article, then perhaps the entire section should be moved to separate article, rather than merely crippling it by removing all the relevant details. -- Lilwik 09:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been almost a month since I pointed out this issue, and no one seems to care. If I still get no response in a little while, I'm going to go back and save all that great stuff that was reverted out and put it in its own article that I think I will call Tokugawa (Fiction) where we can put information about how this classic family was represented in works of fiction. Since it is the only source that I have direct access to, I will expand the section about how Ieyasu was portrayed in the anime Basilisk and put a "main article" link in the In Popular Culture section of this article. -- Lilwik 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the December edit was wonderful. If Tokugawa was important to a particular work, then, the details are more appropriately placed in that work's article.  Linking to the articles with a brief description is sufficient.  If Tokugawa is not important enough to be mentioned in a particular work's article, then, it definitely falls below the bar for inclusion in this article.  For a new dedicated article, then, the bar for inclusion is set significantly lower, and you may be able to build an exhaustive list.  But, in the interest of keeping the section of this manageable, there is also no good reason to link to every single article that has a mention of Tokugawa in it.  Some references are more meaningful than others, and for the rest, google search site:wikipedia.org is sufficient (or, the link to your fiction article).  I think that the references which are still in the article are a good selection.  Neier 00:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Lilwik,


 * Your decision to separate the two subjects (the historic person and the cultural references to him) into appropriately named and focused articles has many advantages. When the new article is in place we can, as Neier suggested, select only the most important links for this article, and refer readers via your Main Article link to the article that has the details, as well as links to the articles on the modern works. Fg2 00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This sounds like sufficient support so that a new article for Ieyasu in fiction will be appropriate. I should point out that almost all of the works listed in the "In popular culture" section have articles that mention Ieyasu, but the main article of a work often do not provide full details of the characters in that work, especially for a television series. Moving all the information on Ieyasu into the main article for a work where most characters are represented by links to their own articles seems inappropriate.


 * When one character appears briefly in as many different works as Tokugawa Ieyasu, providing an article on his portrayal in various works seems appropriate, especially when characters who appear in just one work are often given their own articles. -- Lilwik 06:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have pared down the fiction/popular culture references again. I think that if someone can read a major work (novel or manga) and understand a bit more (context; not necessarily 100% accurate facts) about Tokugawa Ieyasu, then, it can be considered for listing here.  Things like "appears in xyz game" are not helpful to gaining an understanding of the subject.  There is a video game link remaining, simply because it sounds like the game is based on historical context, and might pass the most lenient of requirements along these lines.  Tokugawa (fiction) might also currently need cleanup, but, that is another matter.  Neier 12:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please keep Tokugawa crest image
There seems to be some discussion over whether or not to keep the Tokugawa crest in the article. This person strongly recommends keeping the crest. It is often seen in Japanese crafts such as maki-e and obi, for example. Its presence here serves an educational function. Writtenright 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

Inaccuracy of dates
The article currently states that "Tokugawa Ieyasu was born on January 31, 1543."

Later on we have:

"In 1556, Ieyasu came of age.... One year later, at the age of 16, he married his first wife...."

Can these entries be reconciled?

Markkellner 17:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The pre-Meiji Japanese construe time and dates a little differently than we're accustomed to doing. For example:
 * 1. Consider the infant born in Amsterdam in 1555: In 1558, the mother would identify her child as being 3 years old.  Simple, right?
 * 1558 - 1555 = 3?
 * 2. Consider the infant born in Nagasaki on the very same day. The mother would identify her child as born in the first year of the Kōji nengō (or Japanese era name which corresponds to the year 1555 in the Gregorian calendar).  In 1558, the Japanese mother would identify her child as being 4 years old because she construes the time a little differently than her Dutch counterpart:


 * Someone else could explain this better than I ... but I just wanted to give it a try. Your query actually raises an important point. Good question.--Ooperhoofd 17:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article, East Asian age reckoning. Not sure it explains it any more clearly than what Ooperhoofd wrote. But it does place it in the context of East Asia. Fg2 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the Japanese system, but I'm afraid I still don't understand the math: 1556 + 1 year later = 1557 - 1543 = 14 + 1 for the Japanese system = 15. Am I missing something? Markkellner 01:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Aha, you're right: that does not answer it. These would be his East Asian ages in each year:


 * 1) 1543
 * 2) 1544
 * 3) 1545
 * 4) 1546
 * 5) 1547
 * 6) 1548
 * 7) 1549
 * 8) 1550
 * 9) 1551
 * 10) 1552
 * 11) 1553
 * 12) 1554
 * 13) 1555
 * 14) 1556
 * 15) 1557
 * 16) 1558
 * 17) 1559

The key is that his birth year is different in the Japanese and Western systems. By the Japanese (lunar calendar) he was born at the end of the previous year. The Japanese Wikipedia gives his date of birth as the 26th day of the twelfth month of the eleventh year of Tenbun (or Tenmon). Most of Tenbun 11 was 1542, not 1543, according to the Western calendar. So at birth he was in his first year by East Asian reckoning, and within a week he entered his second year. This adds an extra year to his age. Fg2 01:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to research this :) Markkellner 17:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In a tangentially-related thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#East Asian age reckoning (permanent link), a constructive comment by HelloAnnyong seems worth posting here. It could be that the best answer to questions like this one may be found in the "fuzzy logic" of an approximating template -- Death year and age ...? --Tenmei (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The hiragana spelling of Ieyasu
Why is I forbidden to put the hiragana spelling of Ieyasu's name in the article? /83.249.97.252 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The kanji is in the article because it is how his name was written; and, the romaji is there to give the 99% of the population who can't read Japanese something to focus on. There is no point in listing the Hiragana, since Wikipedia is not a Japanese-language study aid.  Neier (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anybody has a good reason to remove it. You'll get, when reading it, a good picture how Ieyasu's name was written in the 17th Century with hiragana. When it takes such little place in the article, why can't it just be in the article? /83.249.97.170 (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It’s not just that it’s redundant to information already supplied in the article or that the hiragana would not have been used too often in his time; the hiragana in question are incorrect, even! Still, it is NOT forbidden to put it in the article. It just doesn’t look good and doesn’t adhere to the Wikipedia style guidelines; it is not irrelevant, in fact, but the hiragana don’t need to be there, and most certainly not as a prominent part of the introductory paragraph. -BRPXQZME (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Death poem
Maybe we could include his death poem in the article:

Whether one passes on or remains is all the same. That you can take no one with you is the only difference. Ah, how pleasant! Two awakenings and one sleep. This dream of a fleeing world! The roseate hues of early dawn! 

--Gwern (contribs) 03:23 13 March 2008 (GMT)

When born?
The article claims that Ieyasu was born both on Jan 31 1543 and in December 1542. Could someone check this? 92.8.136.240 (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, this glaring mistake was so obvious, it's a wonder that someone else didn't correct it before now. A quick check of the edit history reveals that this error was introduced in a two-step process by an anonymous editor on April 2nd; and the misinformation is easily remedied. In this context, perhaps a couple of points bear repeating:
 * 1. See Talk:Tokugawa Ieyasu above -- especially the next-to-last paragraph contributed by User:Fg2.
 * 2. There are sometimes different ways of saying the same thing. In this instance, there is no discrepancy in stating that Ieyasu was born on January 31, 1543, according to the Gregorian calendar, or in stating that he was born on the 26th day of the twelfth month of the eleventh year of Tenbun, according to the Japanese calendar -- see Japanese era name.
 * Japanese date: 天文十一年十二月二十六日
 * Western date: 31.1.1543 (Wednesday)
 * I hope this helps to clear up any remaining misunderstanding. --Tenmei (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus format for identifying this birthdate using both the Gregorian calendar date and the Japanese era date would be: January 31, 1543 (Tenbun 11, 26th day of the 12th month). The Nengō (Japanese era date) is italicized in the same manner as non-English words would be italicized -- as in the following sentence from the article about East Asian age reckoning:
 * The traditional system of age reckoning, or kazoedoshi (数え年), was rendered obsolete by law in 1902 when Japan officially adopted the western system, man nenrei (満年齢).
 * Perhaps this codicil might be seen as helpful? --Tenmei (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Succession box
An interested editor "tweaked" the succession boxes in articles about the 15 Tokugawa shoguns; and the change became a thread topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Although a corollary thread topic was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty, no comments or suggestions were elicited.

Aumnamahashiva substituted "regnal" succession boxes; and an plausible rationale for those edits was offered, focusing primarily on the functional sense in which the Tokugawas were hereditary autocrats. In contrast was an argument that the regnal succession box is, by definition, misapplied. Although the terms "reign" and "rule" are conventionally used by scholars, neither the Tokugawa, the Ashikaga, the Hōjō nor the Minamoto shoguns were "royalty" as that term is defined in Japanese history and culture.

Participation in this thread was limited, but I construed it as sufficient justification to restore the previous (non-regnal) succession box. This explanation and the links to soon-to-be-archived threads may prove to be helpful in the future? --Tenmei (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Date and Age confusion
There appears to be some confusion about years in the Early Life section of this article.

The paragraph beginning "In 1548, when the Oda clan invaded Mikawa....." ends with the information "Ieyasu was just six years old at the time." Yet Ieyasu would not have turned six till Jan 1549.

The next paragraph contains the information that ".......Nobuhide chose not to kill Ieyasu but instead held him for the next three years at the Manshoji Temple in Nagoya". Which would presumably take us to 1551 or 1552........

Yet the last paragraph beginning "In 1549, when Ieyasu was six....." contains the information that "At about the same time, Oda Nobuhide died during an epidemic." If this is correct, it can't have been Nobuhide who held Ieyasu for three years at the temple in Nagoya, as stated in the previous paragraph. Presumably it must have been one of his sons who was responsible for the decision to keep Ieyasu in Nagoya for this time.

I suspect that this might be resolved by tightening up the writing, so that the flow of information between the paragraphs appears less disjointed. I have put the suggested text below, but did not want to put this into the article itself till someone with a better knowledge of the period in question has a chance to review it - in case I am making a wrong assumption or assumptions! I have removed the last sentence of the first paragraph, about Ieyasu being six - which even if strictly correct in terms of the dates when things happened, is confusing in a paragraph beginning "In 1548....". I have also rewritten the second paragraph so it does not appear that a dead man kept Ieyasu at the temple for three years. This has allowed me to leave the third paragraph untouched:

"In 1548, when the Oda clan invaded Mikawa, Hirotada turned to Imagawa Yoshimoto, the head of the Imagawa clan, for help to repel the invaders. Yoshimoto agreed to help under the condition that Hirotada send his son Ieyasu (Takechiyo) to Sumpu as a hostage. Hirotada agreed. Oda Nobuhide, the leader of the Oda clan, learned of this arrangement and had Ieyasu abducted from his entourage en route to Sumpu. ' Ieyasu was just six years old at the time.<:ref name="screech85">Screech, Timon. (2006). Secret Memoirs of the Shoguns: Isaac Titsingh and Japan, 1779-1882, pp. 85, 234; n.b., Screech explains "Minamoto-no-Ieyasu was born in Tenbun 11, on the 26th day of the 12th month (1542) and he died in Genna'' 2, on the 17th day of the 4th month (1616); and thus, his contemporaries would have said that he lived 75 years. In this period, children were considered one year old at birth and became two the following New Year's Day; and all people advanced a year that day, not on their actual birthday." '''

Nobuhide threatened to execute Ieyasu unless his father severed all ties with the Imagawa clan. Hirotada replied that sacrificing his own son would show his seriousness in his pact with the Imagawa clan. Despite this refusal, Nobuhide chose not to kill Ieyasu. Instead, he had him sent to the Manshoji Temple in Nagoya, where he spent the next three years.

In 1549, when Ieyasu was  age 7,<:ref name="screech85"/>  his father Hirotada died of natural causes. At about the same time, Oda Nobuhide died during an epidemic. The deaths dealt a heavy blow to the Oda clan. An army under the command of Imagawa Sessai laid siege to the castle where Oda Nobuhiro, Nobuhide's eldest son and the new head of the Oda, was living. With the castle about to fall, Imagawa Sessai offered a deal to Oda Nobunaga (Oda Nobuhide's second son). Sessai offered to give up the siege if Ieyasu was handed over to the Imagawa clan. Nobunaga agreed and so Ieyasu (now nine) was taken as a hostage to Sumpu. Here he lived a fairly good life as hostage and potentially useful future ally of the Imagawa clan  until 1556 when he was age 14.<:ref name="screech85"/> 

Solaricon (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that a few small changes might be helpful in the proposed text above. My suggestions are added in  bold green  above. I've inserted these edits in the current text.  I'm reminded that something a bit like this has been discussed in reference to other aspects of the article, e.g.,


 * Talk:Tokugawa Ieyasu#Inaccuracy of dates


 * Talk:Tokugawa Ieyasu#When born?


 * The questions raised in this thread caused me to restore the "See also" section with a useful link: East Asian age reckoning. --Tenmei (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In a tangentially-related thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#East Asian age reckoning (permanent link), a constructive comment by HelloAnnyong seems worth posting here. It could be that the best answer to questions like this one may be found in the "fuzzy logic" of an approximating template -- Death year and age ...? --Tenmei (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Leyasu vs. leyasu
Please, someone kindly provide here definitive explanation with references for why this fellow's name is written without a capital letter when written in English. In fact there should be a section within the article just on this. Thank you. Bull Market 06:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's written in a capital letter. It's "I" (capital letter of "i"), not "l". Please take a good look at the character. Oda Mari (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

More citations needed
Personally I feel this article has a distinct "anti-Tokugawa" pov. Mainly in wording choices when describing the history. I will not remove any information that is properly sourced, but bits like this: "He was not very well liked nor personally popular" really need to have at the very least one reference, although more would be preferred.

I am considering working on a major revision using A.L.Sadler, Conrad Totman, Mary Elizabeth Berry, and others as references. But before I do I would like to judge the communities support for it. Colincbn (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflict with Siege of Terabe article
The first paragraph of the Rise to Power section says he won his first battle, but the article linked to describes it as a decisive Oda victory. Anybody know which is correct? Eggmann (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This line needs adjustment ...
Re: Sekigahara - "This battle was the biggest and likely the most important battle in Japanese history." - Well, it was ONE OF the biggest/important, but it certainly is not comparable with some of the battles Japan waged in World War II, and "most important" is a POV - many historians consider the repulsion of the Mongols as the most important battle in Japanese medieval history - had they been able to come ashore and gain enough ground to (eventually) conquer Japan, that would have changed Japanese history immensely. I suggest "biggest battle of medieval Japan, and one of the most important." HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

About all those names...
Saying he was first named X, then named himself Y and then Z and got name P is pretty meaningless if you don't specify the reasons behind that. If he named himself, there must have been a meaning to it or a reason why he chose that name in particular. And possibly it was customary to rename oneself on certain occasions? I don't know and the article isn't entirely clear. But without explanations they're just meaningless sounds that are of no use to us since we just call him Tokugawa Ieyasu anyway. Noise in other words, and the article would be better of without them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Having only read the early years section, I'd say I was already very confused by the seemingly random alternation between names used in the narrative. One could easily imagine that two different children are being talked about. This is a critical problem with the text and its readability. zadignose (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Following up on this, I edited the early years section to use the name Takechiyo only once, as it is explictly given as his original name (almost a point of trivia, but not useful for identifying him throughout the article). The rest of the section uses only Ieyasu. In the next section, rise to power, it states that "he" changed his name "from ... Takechiyo...." I hope this is clear. If there is a better way, then implement it, but randomly sprinkling two different names throughout the section is not a solution. zadignose (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

fortune smiled?
"Fortune smiled on Ieyasu a year later when Takeda Shingen..."

Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derwos (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

How is this ever ironic?
In paragraph Shogun Ieyasu (1603–1605) there is a paragraph:"...He claimed descent from the Minamoto clan by way of the Nitta family. Ironically, Ieyasu's descendants would marry into the Taira clan and Fujiwara Clans. The Tokugawa Shogunate would rule Japan for the next 250 years." Why is marrying into Taira clan and Fujiwara Clans ironic, given that those clans have a wide range of descendants, and that kind of marriage do happen over the history?--Inspector (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)