Talk:Seikanron

Untitled

I included a bit more historiography. I think the same needs to be done on the Satsuma Rebellion and Saigo page. As of now they all contain orthrodox arguments, stated as facts, and not opinions.

I know little about wiki, however, it'd be great of someone can help clean it up. -RoSeeker 12:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment

"...although revisionist historians argue that Saigo's statement was an attempt to win over the support of Itagaki[2], and that Saigo's condemnation of Meiji's provocation against Korea in 1876 suggests that Saigo had always been to "establish a firm relationship"[3]. In any case..."

I don't know anything about the subject, but I feel that the above segment is subjective and seems to contain personal opinion (whether right or wrong - I make no argument there). The use of the term "revisionist historians" carries a negative connotation that implies that the writer feels that these historians are wrong. Just a thought. Ormiss --164.10.46.62 (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

POV Orthodox and revisionist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.106.25 (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

{POV} and {Original research} are added because there are descriptions such as "While orthodox historians" in no source sentences.--Maa13 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)