Scholars disagree on the appropriateness of the term "Warring States period" (which is the Chinese term borrowed by the Japanese in calling this period "sengoku jidai"). Many argue that since Japan was essentially intact, the Emperor and shogunate remaining at least nominally in command of the whole country, and that it really wasn't a "warring states" period at all, but a "warring warlords" period. Others such as Mark Ravina, Mary Elizabeth Berry, and Conrad Totman argue that the "kuni" (provinces) were not unlike quasi-independent states, and that the term is thus more or less appropriate.