Talk:Japanese sword/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Shinkendo

the sentence about Shinkendo is inaccurate. there is no "helmet cutting ceremony" in shinkendo. it is not practiced by "shinkendo masters". toshishiro obata, shinkendo founder, did perform kabuto-wari once several years ago and this is what is documented on the shinkendo website. it is misleading and just plain wrong to suggest that several different folks ("masters") in shinkendo perform this ritually as part of a "ceremony." if you went to the trouble of contacting mr. obata, i'm sure that he would take issue about this sentence. unknown user

Whoever insists on inserting this bit, please discuss its importance and significance here beforehand. Kabuto wari IS a real thing, but rare and unusual. Stories about it seem to show that, while helmet riving strokes have been performed, such attempts have resulted in many more broken blades than cloven helms. In particular, the tale of Sakakibara Kenchiki points out that his succeeding at the feat was exceptional and that only formidable resolve (he was ready to commit sepuku if he failed) enabled it. Furthermore, how is kabuto wari peculiar to shinkendo, and why add the link? if there is a shinkendo page, put it there, otherwise, it smells of spam. --Svartalf 13:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just vandalism. A veriety of different IPs, never any explanation given. It's this kind of stupidity which leads to so many good articles being sprotected. Chris Cunningham 17:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The article is trash. a) excessive emphasis on this stunt by a mr Obata and that shinkendo style that seems to be a pretty obscure branch of Japanese sword arts, if authentic at all; b) article is purely anecdotic, with names named and facts quoted without any sort of context or lighting on significance; c) article is written very sloppily, with the stories set in no real order, but leading to the Obata stunt, and a number of inexactitudes and whatnot that could hide some huge falsehoods, and at least a heavy POV bias. --Svartalf 17:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You two above have done no more than go into several vague attacks against the shinkendo link and our anonymous editor(s), without giving any solid reasons why neither is valid. By what I see the article seems to be endorsed by the International Shinkendo Federation, and aditonaly there are several documented incidents from the Sengoku era of the katana’s predecesors the tachi and Uchigatana cuting through armored infantry. Further more the naming of editor(s) as vandals when they have not yet broken any wikipedia rules borders on a violation of NPA and will only contribute to an escalation of the edit war.Freepsbane 00:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My interest is in making the article read better. The deleted sentence and reference adds nothing to the article and is deceitfully labelled as per the discussion above. This article still really needs to have superfluous information trimmed if it's to deserve FA status. I am disinclined to believe that anonymous reverts from random first-time IPs are improving the article. Said cowards have broken 3RR already, so they certainly have broken rules. Chris Cunningham 02:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've grouched against that article in vague terms because I did not want to spend the time and take up the space for a full review of why it's bad. My point is that it's such a bad source information about kabuto wari in general that it's essentially irrelevant and amounts to an ad for the shinkendo website. If you really want a full review, ask, and I'll do it next weekend. Honestly, I can's see how that thing is relevant here, at best, it might be worth mentioning on the tameshigiri page, though, even there, I'd rather have more serious and informative sources, but I can't see how it belongs with the katana main article. And just who are the shinkendo federation, and what is their endorsement worth? Because I can vouch that the article won't win endorsements for its scholarship. --Svartalf 08:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the sentence superfluous? Yes is it factually flawed? Probably not the Shinkendo federation (if I am not mistaken) has ties with the Kendo federation one of the largest martial arts groups; this along with previous historical incidents means the “helmet splitting” is almost certainly true. That said if the spontaneous editing from anons is bothering you so much then request sprotection. And for god’s sake don’t go calling people cowards either that’s only going to provoke them! Now that said by what I’ve seen in the page history I’ve found no 3rr violations in recent times by anons or any thing that could qualify as “vandalism”. Sorry if I sounded condescending but this is just my opinion.Freepsbane 11:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

sprotecting is specifically not recommended for this kind of thing, that's the problem; there have been numerous constructive edits from anon sources so far and it's only this one sentence which seems to be causing problems just now. Nobody is denying that the helmet splitting occurred: the problem is that a) this doesn't add anything to the article, and b) as noted above this isn't some regular "ceremony by Shinkendo masters", but a one-off demonstration several years ago. Rewriting it to match reality would appear to condone its inclusion, which isn't necessary when it doesn't add to the reader's understanding of the article. Chris Cunningham 11:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not protesting constructive anonymous editing. But this is a case of somebody repeatedly pushing a given element in an article where it does not add anything useful, coupled to a link that is not good information and pushes POV and the agenda of a certain organisation that lays unfounded claims to said element. In other words, it pushes POV, and could be regarded as spamlinking. So the best thing to do is to get rid of it, since even serious improvement would take the information to another article.

Well I just cut out the sentence in question (hopefully it won’t restart the edit war.) at any rate after an examination it seems that the editing is done by at least two users. One of the addresses is constant and belongs to a public school[1] the other is a rotating address that follows similar numerical patterns (possibly belonging to a AOL user.) at any rate as they haven’t done any intentional vandalism the best long term solution I see is to bring them to the discussion page, and settle this through negotiations (edit wars can be quite unpleasant.) I will try to reach our friends through their user-talk pages and bring them to the talk. If you have any objections to this course of action please let me know.Freepsbane 00:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

On a update shortly after I took out the sentence in question and used the talk page to call the anon editors, the katana page was hit by minor vandalism from an IP similar to our friends [2]. This isn’t exactly a good sign. Freepsbane 01:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was the one that attempted on many occasions to remove the sentence about Shinkendo, and who wrote the opening paragraph of this discussion explaining why. I am not registered in Wiki, thus "anonymous" and would prefer to stay that way. I think this article could use some work on the whole, but mainly I took issue with the Shinkendo sentence for the reasons already stated above. It is (was) simply inaccurate on a number of different points and I therefore appreciate its removal (something I attempted on many occasions) and that it hasn't reappeared. Thank you.

Not to be casting aspersions

...but I seriously don't like the phrase, "Kokan Nagayama states that the "Japanese warriors had never before encountered such an enemy (the Mongol), who was protected by leather armor and wielded a very stout sword — clearly superior to theirs — in a unique style of fighting."

This is flatly contradicted by most every source on the conflict and on Chinese swordsmanship in general that I've ever bothered to look through. Kokan Nagayama being a Living National Treasure sword polisher, I'm sure he has his reasons, but seeing as how this quote is (as far as I've seen from poking around a bit) generally the singular linchpin in many arguments for the Sino-Swordsmanship-Superiority crowd and is phrased VERY strongly, I would like to see independent confirmation outside of Nagayama's claims for this land mine.

It would hardly be the first time that someone otherwise very knowledgeable has made bizarre claims or simply had his words twisted well out of their original context. Kensai Max 07:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You’ve got a good point, however I am not that great at writing. And from the archives it seems you’ve helped in the past when rewriting was needed to filter-out POV statements. So if you don’t mind my asking could you rewrite that paragraph and post it in here. Thank youFreepsbane 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And yeah it seems that all the editors stopped editing after this article made it to GA status. Maybe we’ve grown to complacent thanks for reminding us.Freepsbane 15:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll get to work on that one. No reason the katana article shouldn't get featured eventually. Kensai Max 23:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I owe you one. Freepsbane 20:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking forever to get back here. In any event, the original paragraph goes as so...

"The Mongol invasions of Japan marked another point of evolution for the Japanese sword. [Kokan Nagayama states that the "Japanese warriors had never before encountered such an enemy (the Mongol), who was protected by leather armor and wielded a very stout sword — clearly superior to theirs — in a unique style of fighting."] He added that certain Japanese swordsmiths started to adopt thinner and simpler temper lines due to their belief that "blades with wide temper lines reaching near to the ridge line look gorgeous, but tend to break."[1] Other Japanese scholars had also highlighted that certain Japanese swordsmiths of this period began to make blades with thicker backs and bigger points, as a counter-response to the Mongol threat."

I've bracketed the bits that I consider objectionable for reasons explained above. A better version would be more like...

"The Mongol invasions of Japan in the thirteenth century spurred further evolution of the Japanese Sword. Often forced to abandon traditional mounted archery for hand-to-hand combat, many samurai found that their swords were too delicate and prone to damage when used against the thick leather armor of the invaders. In response, Japanese swordsmiths started to adopt thinner and simpler temper lines due to their belief that "blades with wide temper lines reaching near to the ridge line look gorgeous, but tend to break."[1] Japanese scholars have also highlighted that certain Japanese swordsmiths of this period began to make blades with thicker backs and bigger points as a response to the Mongol threat."

The article also ignores the influence of the Nambokucho wars in the fourteenth century (In fact, it skips over the ENTIRE SENGOKU to the Momoyama period! The whole section needs rewritten!) in Japanese sword design, specifically with cementing Japanese swords and melee weapons in general as primary weapons over the traditional bow, as well as driving the development of no-dachi and proto-katana forms and so on. Kensai Max 05:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

History problem

I just noticed the following passage in the history section : "By the twelfth century, civil war erupted. While many good swords were made during this period, the vast need for swords and the ferocity of the fighting caused the highly artistic techniques of the Kamakura period (known as the Golden Age of Swordmaking) to be abandoned in favor of more utilitarian and disposable weapons." . Something is dead wrong there, but since I'm not expert enough, I'm not sure about the best way to correct the flaw. I'm not sure just when the "Golden Age of Swordmaking" took place, but what I do know is that the civil war of the twelfth century (the Gempei wars, c. 1150-1185) took place before the Kamakura period, since it was that war that led to the creation of the Kamakura shogunate. Now, I don't know if the "golden age" full of "artistic techniques" mentioned refers to Heian period tachi making, or if everything is misplaced, and the golden age refers to late Kamakura period (early 1300s, coincides with the lifetime of Masamune), and the civil wars would be the Nanbokucho, those that led to the instauration of the Ashikaga shogunate (Muromachi period), and ultimately to the civil wars of the Sengoku jidai ... (mid 1300s until c.1600). Could somebody help clear the matter and correct the passage? --Svartalf 08:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The History section is a mess. I should get on rewriting significant chunks of it. Kensai Max 13:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line cites for an article of this size and currently wouldn't pass criteria 2b
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Links

I was looking through this article and I believe that the "Youtube video of a katana splitting a bullet" is not a source that needs to be listed. If someone reads this article and then goes to Youtube.com on their own, that is fine by me.

User_talk:Ricklloyd re-inserted the link to a site that has a diagram of a katana, but is also a commercial site ("we'll beat anyone's price by $10", etc). Since this is fully covered by the Japanese Sword Index site (and far more in addition), I don't see a need to link to the SwordsOfTheEast site. If you want to argue for reinstatement of the link, please do so here first. Thanks! jesup 20:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• A quick google check shows Rick Lloyd is a managing partner of the site linked to: "He is a proud Managing Partner of Swords of the East, LLC" jesup 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Trimming the historical users list

The list of "famous historical katana users includes such figures as

• Saigo Takamori (rebel leader and samurai, yes, outstanding swordsman?)
• Toshiro Mifune (kendô practitioner, but is he famous for his sword skill, or only as an actor?)
• Kawakami Gensai (notable as a swordsman, or just as an assassin?)
• Akechi Mitsuhide (general and traitor, but outstanding swordman?)
• Tokugawa Ieyasu (statesman and general, but outstanding swordsman?)
• Uesugi Kenshin (extremely warlike and brilliant general, but a master of the sword?)
• Sanada Yukimura (ferocious fighter and skilled tactician, but really a swordmaster?)

While they are all historical figures and famous, I have some doubts as to whether they were famous as swordsmen, and if mentioning them here is truly warranted. I have trimmed from the above list those whom I know as famous fighters, and whom I fell should be kept in any event. --Svartalf 22:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, though I'm not a true expert, none of them are well-known as swordsmen. Take 'em out unless documentation emerges otherwise. jesup 22:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice Cleanup

Excellent cleanup!

I'd suggest keeping some of the mention of Gassan keeping craft alive, and probably of shin-gunto. But nice work. jesup 15:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to tackle the parts I'm mostly happy with first. The real ogre is going to be what to do with the furnishing section. Chris Cunningham 15:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sub-article suggestions

Right, the technique and furnishing sections really need to go. Both go into inappropriately heavy detail. I'm looking to split a majority of both sections out into sub-articles, what would be the best way to go here? Are there existing articles which could adopt the information contained in these sections? Chris Cunningham 15:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bullets

An anon user re-added the section on splitting bullets. As I mentioned, it's pretty much irrelevant, and to be honest an axe would probably do almost as well. I propose re-removing it. To the anon person who added it (and probably has been the one reverting other edits to it): make the argument here that this is relevant information. I've yet to hear of a kenjutsu-ka going around splitting oncoming bullets... jesup 21:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

that weapon is a M2 Heavy Machine gun with a muzzle velocity of over 3,050ft/s and bullets of a length at nearly 6 inches, no axe could withstand a weapon that in ww2 was used in Africa to put panzers out of commission. that segment is relevant to the article and I vow to revert any removals. either way that video clip was from a notable jap tv show72.145.144.46 04:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter if it was a depleted-uranium round from an A10 Warthog - it's not sufficiently relevant to an article on Katanas - and I'm a long-time nihonto collector and kenjutsu-ka. If it were a video of a katana splitting a helmet - now that would be relevant. (And there are such videos out there.)

Oh, please be joking. Check the edit history for the last thing that kept getting re-added without comment by anonymous editors... :) Chris Cunningham 07:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Or a video of a batto-jutsu (cutting) tournament, cutting through 5 or more tatami at once. (A LOT harder than it sounds.) Dig up a video by Sensei Saruta.

Also, "vowing" to revert any removals is a statement of bad faith. See Wikipedia:Edit war. If you follow through with the threat, the article will probably be [[WP:SPP|protected]. jesup 04:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The bullets are nowhere near "nearly 6 inches". The casings themselves are 99 mm, which places them just shy of 4". The cartridges measure 5 9/20" at maximum, which would even after allowances would put the bullets nowhere close to that exorbitant length. Secondly, while the video quality is suboptimal, it would seem that they lacked the color-coding that would identify them as either AP or API. Additionally, the rounds disintegrated very violently for "armor-piercing" rounds, which would indicate that they're either using ammo that failed every single quality-control check, or they're using civilian ball (since it is highly unlikely that even mil-spec ball would destabilize that badly). Also, no axe has ever been put to the test in such a manner, and such a conjectural argument would seem metaphorical more than anything else. Finally, a show is concerned first and foremost with ratings. They will go with the conditions that will ensure the most dramatic results, and they will never be anywhere near testing-grade. Also, if I recall correctly, that entire show was centered around trivia. CABAL 04:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted twice in the last day, so I won't revert again, but it should be removed. Apparently either JackNicholson is the same as the anon-IP user, or has some other unknown reason to disagree with the other editors here. Jack, if you're listening, please tell us why you insist on re-adding this info that the other editors have pretty much agreed is inappropriate for this article. jesup 19:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

katana= sword?

As i recall katana is japanese for katana, and the japanese for sword was ken (like kenshin means "sword heart"). and i think i read something about there being a sword before the katana, which means that the word katana didn't exist when the sword before it was being used.