Talk:Chiburi
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
The article Chiburi is the same subject, based on a more common pronunciation. --Leo Laursen TALK⋰CONTRIBS 00:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was no consensus. —harej (T) 07:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Chiburi → Chiburui — The page Chiburui was merged with this one, but it should have been the other way around. As explained in note one of the article, the term chiburi, while in usage, is not the correct term and cannot be found in Japanese dictionaries. The only term found will be chiburui (example [1] from the Daijisen at dic.yahoo.com. I have also checked Sanseido and Kenkyusha Japanese-English). Some may say that it is the same word with a different pronunciation, but it is not so. Furui 振るい comes from "furuu" 振るう, which is cognate with "furu" 振る of course, but which is more closely related to other verbs pronounced exclusively "furuu", like 震う which means "to shake and tremble in cold or awe". In fact, the original kanji is not 振 but 揮 (see [2]. "Furuu" means something more than "furu". One of the defintion in the last link says "to wave or swing (furu) in a forceful or energetic manner". I can understand the desire to keep the usual name of "chiburi", but it is hard to argue against the fact that this term cannot be found in any dictionaries, whereas "chiburui" can. Bidouleroux (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Japanese themed articles are covered by their own convention, located at WP:MOS-JP. That guideline specifically recommends using Revised Hepburn romanization, so the first question is what version is the correctly "Revised Hepburn" romanization?
— V = I * R (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)- You don't seem to understand the problem at hand. It doesn't matter what romanization it is, it's a terminology problem. The romanization I use is already Revised Hepburn. If you can't read the Japanese in my original post, don't bother answering or voting. Bidouleroux (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Take it easy and assume good faith. If your arguments depend on reading or knowledge of Japanese, I suggest you saunter over to ウィキペディア and edit there. The primary concern here should be the name commonly used in English. — AjaxSmack 01:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did assume good faith, I just pointed out that he didn't understand the problem and that his assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about is quite rude considering I'm ja-3 and a long time contributor. Other than that, the problem here is like this: do you use the term "kleenex" for the name of the article on "facial tissue" because it is the usual term in English? No. "Facial tissue" is the descriptive term, whatever else people call them usually. Kleenex soft-redirects to facial tissue (because it is a trademark). The same is true here of chiburui vs chiburi. Chiburi is the usual but incorrect term. Chiburui is the dictionary term, even in a Japanese-English dictionary like Kenkyusha. Thus I argue the name of the article should be Chiburui. Bidouleroux (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't disputing the underlying need move but I was disputing it being predicated in knowledge of Japanese (which is irrelevant) and your dismissal of another user's argument (if you think she or he didn't understand the problem, address it politely or ignore it). I will say that your nomination, though well-researched, is not really relevant to the issue. Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia, not a Japanese dictionary and title and content decisions should be made on the basis of what English-language reliable sources say, not what a user's interpretation of correct Japanese is. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive and, if "chiburi" is the usual term in English sources, then it is "correct" by the standards of Wikipedia. Please review WP:NOT, WP:SOURCES, WP:UE, and WP:UCN for further info. Cf. casserole, entrée, sortie, or lasagna which have spellings or uses not entirely congruent with the dictionary uses languages of origin. — AjaxSmack 16:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but none of your examples apply here. Chiburi/chiburui is not an English term. You cannot find it in any English dictionary. All the terms you gave are spelled correctly from the original language, they simply gained different meanings in English. Casserole is used in the same sense in French too (I know, I'm french), only it also means a "saucepan". Entrée also has double meanings in French, one which agrees with the English one. Same thing with sortie. This is not the point. English imported these words and their specific meanings because the original English words did not have said specific meanings. Here we are talking about a technical term in a foreign language. The closest here is lasagna/lasagne. In Italian, the word is always plural, like jeans or pants in English. But in English, it's not. That's the difference, and it is correct because lasagna and lasagne are the same word, only used differently in two different languages because of different grammar rules and whatnot. Here, chiburui and chiburi are not the same word, and while they refer to the same technical action they do not have the same meaning, as I explained. A relevant example would be tatehiza vs. tachihiza. Everyone in English calls it tatehiza, yet in iaidō the correct pronunciation is based on the old reading tachihiza. But the only item in Japanese dictionaries is "tatehiza". Thus an article should be named "tatehiza" after all, not "tachihiza". Other example: Elizabeth II redirects to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom because of naming conventions. No one uses her full name and there is only one person called "Elizabeth II" in the world (famous enough to get a wikipedia article anyway). Shouldn't the article be named simply Elizabeth II because that's what the vulgar expect? No. Naming conventions exist to keep them at bay. In the case of technical terms, reference works (dictionaries, other encyclopedia, etc.) should take precedence over the common usage when two equivalent-and-close-but-not-the-same terms are in usage. For example, dog is fine because it adequately describes canines and is thus found in reference works, but "fat people" is not because it is derogatory and imprecise. "Chiburi" is not found in real reference works (the kinds that would be in the reference section of a library), only in works by individuals. That is why it is slang. Slang should not be used to name an article where it can be avoided. Especially when the term has not yet passed into the general language. The Google test for "chiburi" ≈ 40,000 articles, for "chiburui" ≈ 1,000. You may think the discrepancy is overwhelming, but the top results for "chuburi" are from facebook, myspace, individual dojo, etc. whereas for chiburui they include an English translated Japanese book by an authoritative master recognized both in Japan and in Britain (Iwata Norikazu, who has a better google test than "chiburi"!) and a post on IAIDO-L, the iaido mailing list.
- Anyway, if you think the page should not be moved, you should just vote instead of explaining to me ad nauseam what I already know. But first read the article and the source I included, which is an English translated Japanese book (of the previously mentioned Iwata). It says both "chiburui" and "chiburi" are correct — meaning "useable without reprimand", not "technically correct" — in iaidō (iaidō is itself a technical term that Iwata uses to refer strictly to three particular styles of Japanese swordsmanship). So while both are "correct" in iaidō, it doesn't mean that both are correct on a technical standpoint or in other styles of Japanese swordsmanship. Thus the Japanese dictionaries should have the final say (because they are the only widely respected authorities that can be called upon here), and they all say "chiburui". The Japanese dictionaries are of use here because, again, the term is a Japanese transliterated one, not an English loanword (hence the infobox with the kanji and all). Bidouleroux (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- When you put up a movereq you should expect at least some third opinions, since that's primarily what the mechanism is for. Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised to see an AfD for this crop up now, based on what you stated above... Regardless, I don't particularly care about the actual article. you asked for opinions, and I attempted to provide mine. If you don't want to answer questions on the issue then that's OK by me.
— V = I * R (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)- Your mention of an AfD request per WP:NOT (WP:DICT) and WP:NOTABILITY doesn't seem out of bounds. At a minimum, the article should probably be merged with Iaidō. — AjaxSmack 14:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- You say, "...If you think the page should not be moved, you should just vote instead of explaining to me ad nauseam what I already know." I don't oppose a move. I was questioning your rationale. Two different things. I am still questioning your rationale. Please present evidence of the name commonly used in English to make a better case. If the subject is really so obscure that such information doesn't exist, consider a merged with Iaidō. — AjaxSmack 14:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- When you put up a movereq you should expect at least some third opinions, since that's primarily what the mechanism is for. Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised to see an AfD for this crop up now, based on what you stated above... Regardless, I don't particularly care about the actual article. you asked for opinions, and I attempted to provide mine. If you don't want to answer questions on the issue then that's OK by me.
- I wasn't disputing the underlying need move but I was disputing it being predicated in knowledge of Japanese (which is irrelevant) and your dismissal of another user's argument (if you think she or he didn't understand the problem, address it politely or ignore it). I will say that your nomination, though well-researched, is not really relevant to the issue. Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia, not a Japanese dictionary and title and content decisions should be made on the basis of what English-language reliable sources say, not what a user's interpretation of correct Japanese is. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive and, if "chiburi" is the usual term in English sources, then it is "correct" by the standards of Wikipedia. Please review WP:NOT, WP:SOURCES, WP:UE, and WP:UCN for further info. Cf. casserole, entrée, sortie, or lasagna which have spellings or uses not entirely congruent with the dictionary uses languages of origin. — AjaxSmack 16:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did assume good faith, I just pointed out that he didn't understand the problem and that his assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about is quite rude considering I'm ja-3 and a long time contributor. Other than that, the problem here is like this: do you use the term "kleenex" for the name of the article on "facial tissue" because it is the usual term in English? No. "Facial tissue" is the descriptive term, whatever else people call them usually. Kleenex soft-redirects to facial tissue (because it is a trademark). The same is true here of chiburui vs chiburi. Chiburi is the usual but incorrect term. Chiburui is the dictionary term, even in a Japanese-English dictionary like Kenkyusha. Thus I argue the name of the article should be Chiburui. Bidouleroux (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Take it easy and assume good faith. If your arguments depend on reading or knowledge of Japanese, I suggest you saunter over to ウィキペディア and edit there. The primary concern here should be the name commonly used in English. — AjaxSmack 01:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand the problem at hand. It doesn't matter what romanization it is, it's a terminology problem. The romanization I use is already Revised Hepburn. If you can't read the Japanese in my original post, don't bother answering or voting. Bidouleroux (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
From an iaido student
editMartial Arts classes are full of jargon people think are foreign words but actually are not. Words are inevitably corrupted when used by people who do not speak the language and correction is difficult because the words are often archaic to begin with. So, "chiburi" is commonly used by English speakers, "chiburui" is better Japanese (I have been told this by Japanese speakers).
But, it gets worse. I have also heard "chiburi" used to refer to actions that wipe the blood away. This should really be called "chinugui" (blood wipe) but the distinction is lost because of ignorance of the root meaning of shaking.
I think the article would be better if it was about blood clearing actions and then mentioned that different terms were in use.
Additional information:
The reason for these action is to prevent the blade sticking to the inside of the scabbard.
Blood removal must not be confused with cleaning the blade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Efficiency at removing blood
editIt should be noted, that while chiburi can be used to symbolically remove the blood from a katana, any and all attempts to actually remove blood from a sword, with a chiburi, have failed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.53.13 (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Omori-ryu Chiburui.ogg Nominated for Deletion
edit
|
An image used in this article, File:Omori-ryu Chiburui.ogg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
|
| A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC) |