Talk:Armour

Personal: History: Early: Japan - possibly nonsensical sentence

The following sentence "Japanese lamellar armour (keiko) passed through Korea and reached Japan around the 5th century." seems to indicate that something Japanese left Japan, traveled to Korea, then was brought to Japan for the first time without any indication that it was modified while in Korea. Furthermore, following a google search of that exact quote the following item was found that may be worth looking into:

"The warriors of early Japan bore only a passing resemblance to the later samurai. Weaponry and armor were of a distinctly Chinese flavor, and the earliest warriors carried shields, a device evidently out of vogue even before the Heian period. Some of our knowledge of the weapons and protection the early Japanese warrior carried comes from artifacts excavated from the tombs constructed in the 4th and 5th Centuries to house departed royalty. Another, just as valuable resource are the haniwa, which were clay statues evidently used as grave markers (as opposed to guardians or servants, as in China). A good number of these haniwa depict warriors, and these provide us some insight into the nature of 'home-grown' Japanese armor of the time. The influence of China and Korea on early Japanese armor is evident, but may in part be explained by the large numbers of Koreans who settled in Japan prior to 562. The primary armor of the Yamato period seems to have been the tanko ('short armor'). Apparently designed for use by warriors on foot, the tanko was constructed from iron plates and vaguely resembled a corset, with an open top and an effort at body contouring."

It should be noted that none of the original sources for the quote in question or it's possible contradiction were vetted due to personal time/work constraints.

References

Armoured Fighting Vehicles. Removal of appalling section, 8 July 2015.

I counted 5 mistakes in the first sentence of this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour#Armoured_fighting_vehicles After that it's downhill.

It is riddled with errors and omissions. I would rather someone go and find an authoritative reference work - even Wikipedia - than they imagine they might learn something from this garbled, badly researched, ill-informed account. I haven't got time to sort out this mess, but at least it can be removed and any interested party referred to the other articles, where they might read something at least approaching a credible and accurate version of events. Hengistmate (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to include "incomplete and Anglocentric." Hengistmate (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Amour

Amour. 112.201.8.170 (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Language Tags

This talk page says that this article uses four different spelling conventions (British, British Oxford, Canadian, Australian). Which is it?  Mysterymanblue  02:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That's odd. It might, perhaps, be in reference to just the subject itself? All of those engvars spell it 'armour'. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The article itself is tagged for British English, and so was this Talk page until an IP editor added the others in 2019 without any explanation. I've removed those additions. --RL0919 (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Owain Glyndwr Siegel 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)