Talk:Japanese martial arts/Archive 1

Creation of article

Turns out that there is no central article about Japanese martial arts such as with Chinese martial arts. There are excellent articles about various aspects and also specific martial arts but really nothing to tie them all together. I realize the first attemp is a bit sloppy but hopefully it will provide a germ.Peter Rehse 07:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jujutsu section is nearly as long as the jujutsu article itself. Should be trimmed I think.Peter Rehse 06:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Took a stab at the Jujutsu article. Hope it helps. 72.77.156.82 01:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It did - thanks.Peter Rehse 01:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Caution as article develops

The article is developing very nicely but things we should watch out for (and I guess we already are) is 1) not to include the detail that would and usually is covered in the main articles on the subject. 2) careful not to repeat the same ideas within the article itself. Describing how old jujutsu is when you have already described how old Japanese martial arts in general is does not really serve a purpose.Peter Rehse 01:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If info is removed without an explanation, esp by unregistered users I tend to revert it but I see your point. is this info in the main JJ article? --Nate1481 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I also tend to be less forgiving for the anonymous but he did mention the changes in the talk section which was why I took another look at it. If the info is not in the Jujutsu article perhaps it should be put in but I think it is.Peter Rehse 02:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also there is now a huge white space beside the table of contents - we need an appropriate pici.Peter Rehse 01:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Blank sections

Are the (blank) sections on Kusarigamajutsu, Tessenjutsu, and Oshikiiuchi really necessary? Kusarigamajutsu is definitely a martial arts niche (how many sickle-wielding schools have you heard of?), as is Tessenjutsu. I've never even heard of Oshikiiuchi.Joe routt 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I also added a pic. Not sure if it's exactly what we're looking for, but it's better than nothing for the moment. And, quite honestly, I think it looks pretty cool. I replaced the term "Swordsmanship" with Tojutsu due to the broad scope of Japanese swordsmanship and made several minor modifications regarding Hiragana spelling (those long "u" sounds are a killer). Joe routt 02:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions, but check out WP:MOS-JP for romanization guidelines. Only non-loanwords get macrons. Also, I'm not sure the separate sections are necessary, either, but the original concept for this page was to act as a hub for Japanese martial arts. In that sense, it provides context for all those obscure weapon arts. Finally, according to its own page, "Tōjutsu" is not a word that is actually used to describe swordsmanship. Bradford44 16:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All the words I've added macrons to (jujutsu, tojutsu, etc.), I only did so in the section title and the first occurance in their sections. I understand the need to cover obscure weapon arts, but maybe they could all have their own section ("Other Armed Systems"?). Tojutsu was my attempt at helping, but if you'd prefer, I'll switch it back to "Swordsmanship."Joe routt 18:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me to do a combined section for "Others" (or whatever the title should be), I was just experimenting with doing subsections until someone had some other input. Regarding macrons, if you'll check out No. 11 under WP:MOS-JP#Body_text, you will see that the macron for a loanword such as jujutsu, kendo, or sumo, should never be used, except in the context of WP:MOS-JP#Japanese_terms, which explicitly provides for loanwords where the article is taking time to provide the kanji and/or kana. Regarding Tojutsu, I personally have never heard the term used, and its own page likewise states that it is essentially unused, but I was never exactly thrilled with Swordsmanship being the section title, either. Maybe someone else has a suggestion? Bradford44 20:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'd taken a look at the MOS before, but I hadn't noticed the "accepted romanization" part. Thanks. But shouldn't "budo" also be stripped of its macron, too? It's used commonly enough. I'm open for a title change from tojutsu, but I just don't know what to put there. If anyone changes it, I won't mind, but I'm leaving it alone for now. I think Archery and Naginatajutsu (there may be better titles for these) could be made into full sections (2.4 and 2.5, respectively), while "Other Koryu Martial Arts" could be remade to include all those obscure weapons arts (making it section 2.6). If someone disagrees, please let me know on this talk page. If not, I'll make the change sometime Thursday.Joe routt 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Promotion to B-class

I'm promoting the article to B - a bit premature maybe but it really has come a long way. I think the most important addition will be an expansion on Karate mentioning the Okinawa connection.Peter Rehse 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of aikido?

The section on Aikido is shorter than the other established sections. Either Aikido should be expanded or the other sections (Sumo, Jujutsu, Swordsmanship) should be shortened. Judo is a bit short too, but Aikido's the one I'm more concerned about.Joe routt 03:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly aikido can be expanded but since aikido and judo are really classes of jujutsu I think the latter can be much longer than the frist two without destroying balance. Same with swordsmanship (ie a broad class). Sumo can be cut down a bit. The detail should be found in the actual articles. Just my opinion.Peter Rehse 04:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's looking good, I'll try to put in some time on the empty sections. Regarding "budo", from a couple of posts up, I don't think it qualifies as a loanword. It may be common enough among martial artists and anime fans, but I'm reasonably certain I could ask all of the people in the office where I work and they would have no clue what I'm talking about (that might not work at Peter's office ;), but for anywhere here in the U.S., I bet you'd get a similar result). Additionally, it fails the dictionary test, where words like kendo, judo, and aikido pass. However, I'm happy to wait for some responses before putting the macrons back in. Bradford44 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anything against budo being written with macrons, if it fails the dictionary test. One thing I am wondering about though: in this article so far, we see references to "gendai budo." Should "koryu" then be specified as "koryu bujutsu"? Just a thought.Joe routt 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What to include and List of martial arts

I think its time to be a bit selective as to what goes in to this page. In my opinion things like Kusarigamajutsu and Tessenjutsu don't really belong since they are not the primary skill (even secondary) around which a particular school is built. If we start listing every skill than the whole article will loose focus. Similarily I think the Japanese section of the List of martial arts could do with a bit of trimming along the same lines. The weapon themselves are listed under List of martial arts weapons. I've made what I think are appropriate changes.Peter Rehse 03:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Content: How to have not too much, but also not too little

I'd like to propose a basic format that all of the entries in this article should follow, because I think some of the sections are getting trimmed down too much. The following suggestion only applies to subsections dealing with a specific martial art, and not the generic sections such as "koryu" and "gendai budo":

• Each section should address only topics
• Those topics are 1.) origins and development of the martial art, and 2.) a general description of its techniques, methodology/philosophy, and/or practice (whatever best, and briefly, describes the practice and purpose of the martial art).
• Each of the two topics should be spread out over no more than two paragraphs, and only one paragraph if possible.
• Thus, each martial art would have no more than four paragraphs, and of course, each paragraph should be a reasonable length (say, 3-8 sentences or so).

I'm going to go ahead and rewrite the sumo article (which currently only contains information about the history of sumo, and not the practice of it) to be consistent with this, and we can discuss whether it is better or worse for it, and come to a consensus regarding my suggestion.Bradford44 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

martial arts, karate --> tang dynasty hand

I added this part to the karate section. "Originally, it meant "Tang Dynasty Hand," Tang Dynasty being a dynasty during 7th-10th century China. However, the name was changed during World War 2 during Japan's war with China."

-intranetusa —Preceding unsigned comment added by intranetusa (talk • contribs)

Merge suggestion

I have suggested a merge from Budo into this article because both are on the same topic. Actually the budo article was created first, but this title seems more accessible and this article is in a more developed state as well. If the merge is completed, it would be helpful to look into a history merge as well, because there have been no real edits to that article since this one was created. Dekimasuが... 10:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. It has been a significant challenge to make the Japanese martial arts article short enough to be accessible, but long enough to be useful. The information currently contained in the Budo article is much more detailed and specific than the information on this page should be. The Japanese martial arts article works well as a hub, where each section has a brief overview of material covered in depth in a main article. But that's just my opinion... anyone else? Bradford44 16:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What actually needs to be merged can, of course, be discussed here. It doesn't need to mean that the entire budo article is added to this one, and this is a great improvement over how things stood before November. However, since the terms are equivalent, one should redirect to the other, and most of the links which are currently aimed at budo due to the fact that it used to be the pipe target for general "Japanese martial arts" links would be much better off aimed here. Dekimasuが... 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You have just raised an interesting point of contention. Namely that "Japanese martial arts", and "Budo", are equivalent terms. It is certainly the case that they are very frequently used interchangably, and you are definitely correct that many links that point to the Budo article should be changed to point here. However, if in fact these are not truly interchangable terms, doesn't that indicate that the articles should not be merged? Also (and a little off the point), someone who was really picky could point out that "bugei" might be a more direct translation of "martial arts" than "budo". Nevertheless, this is definitely worth discussing, and I'm glad you brought it up. Bradford44 19:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides Budo and Japanese martial arts not being equivilent the focus of the articles are also quite different. Japanese martial arts refers to the breadth of arts available while Budo refers more to the philosophical construct used by some of the Japanese martial arts. As it stands now there is little repetition between the two articles and they stand alone quite well. I would not merge.Peter Rehse 05:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Bradford44 04:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All the points I can think of made already another vote against merge. --Nate1481 09:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been two weeks, and no votes in favor of merging - I'm going to pull the tag. Note however, that I am going to include "budo" as a subsection under "philosophic and strategic concepts", with a link to the main page. Bradford44 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Les autres langues

Anyone who reads other languages should link the appropriate foreign language counterpart page. I'm going to look for the French one. And...it might be helpful to have the Japanese one ;) Joe routt 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...looking at most of these pages, they seem to have articles only titled "Budo" but not "Japanese martial arts."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe routt (talk • contribs)

Suggestion to shorten article

I think this whole section is too bloviated. You have too much detail in the sub-topics that, at times, does not line up with the the content on that topic's main page. We should remember that the topic to be defined in this page is "Japanese Martial Arts." That would include origins, history, evolution, concepts, etc. As far as specific Japanese martial arts, there should be a list of arts with links to each art on its own page. This would stream line this page, remove excessive duplication, remove the burden of synchronizing information found in multiple locations, and and make navigation much easier. Kyoshinko 16:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but your suggestion has merit. A great deal of work has been done to get the article to this point, and to keep the content concise but compelling and interesting. Therefore, I would request that you wait, and submit these criticisms at peer review, and get as many points of view on your suggestion as possible. I anticipate submitting for peer review before the end of the year. Bradford44 14:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Kaizen Ju Jitsu should be added as it is a new breed of all the old versions put together—Preceding unsigned comment added by Magennis (talk • contribs)

Sumo Wikiproject

I have made a proposal for a WikiProject Sumo Proposal . Yesterday I spent part of the day sourcing Akebono with a few other people. Most sumo articles are not well sourced. Though under two WikiProjects already, I think it would be to the advantage of both the articles of sumo and wikipedia as a whole if Sumo is placed under its own WikiProject. If you would like to join or have any comments, please go to the Project proposal page. Thanks! XinJeisan 17:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

New category, need articles

I have created a new category called Category:Fictional elderly martial arts masters and I'm sure some people on here know of some articles that are applicable. Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ninjutsu

Does Ninjutsu belong in the Koryū list? I think not but wanted to get some more views before I moved it. --Nate1481 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes. The earliest koryu to claim it as part of their curriculum is Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto-ryu. On a related note, I've been thinking a lot lately about how this article is organized (with respect to splitting koryu from gendai budo), and I'm less and less satisfied that its the best way to address the topic. If I can come up with a better organizational scheme, it may soon become irrelevant where ninjutsu shows up on the list. Bradford44 (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, my only concern was that what is commonly taught a ninjutsu isn't anything recognisable from Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto-ryu, i.e. the Bujinkan etc. --Nate1481 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required

I have recently cleaned up the Asian martial arts (origins) article. I added a section for Japanese martial arts, but the information available on the page does not even come close to being definitive. If anyone is knowledgeable on the subject of the origins of Japanese martial arts, please feel free to add cited material to the page linked above. You can mention legends if you want (referenced of course), but please try to restrict your edits to verifiable material, preferably found in scholarly publications. Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)