Talk:Tanegashima (gun)

Hello TheLightDeveloper

Please be specific: Explain how adding the swordsmith's full name and number of sailors aboard the ship, supported by the source and page number is not constructive to the article? Now to add Editor Materialscientist; please explain why you're deleting this talk page discussion(s) with out explaining why?

Lead Section

I have re-written and expanded the lead paragraph. The older version was inadequately written, and the first sentence failed to define the subject of the article (see WP:LEADSENTENCE). The new Lead mentions, I think, most of the high points of the text. That is, after all, what a lead section should do. See: WP:MOSINTRO. For a body of text of the present size, the present Lead section is of an appropriate length. See WP:LEAD#Length. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thats your personal opinion, the lead section seems to me to completely explain the subject of the article, the other sections contain the appropriate information and are inline with similar articles.

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many other comparable articles which are also lacking in the quality of their Lead sections, that doesn't mean we should this one to the same low standard. I'm not sure why you are against the improvement of this article, but at least you are not fighting the single-line definition in the lead, which is an improvement over the previous version which started talking about origins before informing the reader of what he was reading about.

On the issue of definition, the actual matchlock is the firing mechanism of the weapon; see Lock (firearm). Referring to a weapon as matchlock, versus wheellock, or flintlock, is simply a shorthand method of reference. For further explanation, see the article arquebus. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

So I was looking at sources, and I came across the very authoritative book, Tanegashima: The Arrival of Europe in Japan by Olof Lidin, and it quite plainly refers to the weapons in question as an "arquebus" (pp.4, 157, others), with note that referring to the arquebuses as "matchlocks" is acceptable in English. I was going to put this reference in the article, but I see it's already there. You stated in the edit summary that you don't know of any sources that calls the weapon an arquebus. Perhaps you forgot, or perhaps you did not actually review the source. Do you still have an objection to the term? Boneyard90 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Of course not, I do not object to any properly referenced information.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• You could also add harquebus and the Japanese term "hinawaju", the references I have use "matchlock" and tanegashima. Here is one reason that the term "matchlock" is used, this is from the arquebus article.

"In the early 16th century, the term "arquebus" had a confusing variety of meanings. Some writers used it to denote any matchlock shoulder gun, referring to light versions as caliver and heavier pieces fired from a fork rest as musket. Others treated the arquebus and caliver synonymously, both referring to the lighter, forkless shoulder-fired matchlock. As the 16th century progressed, the term arquebus came to be clearly reserved for the lighter forkless weapon. When the wheel lock was introduced, wheel-lock shoulder arms came to be called arquebuses, while lighter, forkless matchlock and flintlock shoulder weapons continued to be called calivers. In the mid-17th century, the light flintlock versions came to be called fusils or fuzees".

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, in the 16th century, it had "a confusing variety of meanings", but this isn't the 16th century. The term is now used as an inclusive term for those small arms with the various lock mechanisms. From the same article, Mechanism section: "The arquebus was fired by a matchlock mechanism." If you look at the photos, all the re-enactors, the arquebusiers, appear to be using matchlock weapons.Boneyard90 (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Butting in here, I'd appreciate an explanation (in the lede) of how the term tanegashima came about, since this is also the name of one of Japan's southern islands.

Kortoso (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this birthdate correct?

"[...]in 1543. The lord of the Japanese island, Tanegashima Tokitaka (1528–1579),[...]" A 15-year old lord? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.13.249.245 (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

In the article, there's also a 15-year-old Oda Nobunaga ordering 500 guns for his armies. --Sobol Sequence (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"Rifle"?

Is it correct to call the tanegashima a kind of "rifle"?

As I understand it, the barrel was smoothbore, without any rifling — which by definition would make the tanegashima not a rifle. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)