Talk:Kendo

Comparisons with Western Fencing Section

I've done kendo for about 8 years and fencing for about 7. Someone is requesting that I cite sources, which I would do if I were back at home in Canada with my home library, but I can't since I'm in Korea studying Kendo and Korean right now. My comparisons are from my own experience, which is extensive in both sports/arts. They are helpful for explaining kendo to people more acquainted with fencing and vice versa. If someone is kind enough, could they perhaps throw in some references for me, perhaps from "This is Kendo" or "The Definitive Guide?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozushi (talk • contribs) 13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this section is needed - Do the Rugby or Football articles have a section comparing the two to each other? I feel that if this section is kept short it will invariably be leading to the reader, implying conclusions that are more suited to a comparative essay for enthusiasts than a general encyclopedia article on Kendo. 71.182.160.180 (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, while it's an interesting study of the comaprison, it's not really needed. Kendo 66 01:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

I would prefer to keep it unless it gets moved out to its own page (like the comparison of rugby union and league). It is interesting and useful information, which helps situate Kendo in the larger field of sword training. Francis Bond (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say keep it because it doesn't detract from anything and it's somewhat useful and interesting information, especially since kendo and fencing are "rivals" of sorts. As a kendoist myself, and having done a tiny bit of fencing, I can't disagree with any of the content, but it still definitely requires citation. Quillaja (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be taken out. It's just not necessary as it doesn't really add any knowledge about Kendo for the reader. If they were really interested in learning the similarities and differences between Kendo and Fencing, then it shouldn't be a problem to look at each respective article. The only similarity between Kendo and Fencing is that they use swords as a basis for their arts and the differences should be quite apparent when looking at both articles.Dark Kendoka (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a pity that this section containing interesting & useful information, written in a very balanced way was removed. I do hope that somebody will create a separate article on this topic. Ulrich von Lichtenstein (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

References for editors to read

• 1 http://books.google.com/books?id=aRQoz5S_OhIC&pg=PA144&dq=The+Regulations+of+Kendo&hl=en&ei=vkIwTeCdOY7AgQfn3Oy8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=The%20Regulations%20of%20Kendo&f=true
• 2 http://books.google.com/books?id=qJ4tXYnttP0C&pg=PA200&dq=The+Regulations+of+Kendo&hl=en&ei=vkIwTeCdOY7AgQfn3Oy8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Regulations%20of%20Kendo&f=false
• 3 http://books.google.com/books?id=9PgWBhKrg00C&pg=PA68&dq=The+Regulations+of+Kendo&hl=en&ei=vkIwTeCdOY7AgQfn3Oy8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20Regulations%20of%20Kendo&f=false
• 4 http://books.google.com/books?id=oUBWuqMWsE8C&pg=PA108&dq=The+Regulations+of+Kendo&hl=en&ei=vkIwTeCdOY7AgQfn3Oy8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The%20Regulations%20of%20Kendo&f=false
• 5 http://books.google.com/books?id=TyJ8ebnS1HMC&pg=PA332&dq=The+Regulations+of+Kendo&hl=en&ei=vkIwTeCdOY7AgQfn3Oy8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=The%20Regulations%20of%20Kendo&f=true
• 6 http://books.google.com/books?id=VDkQpt-WCRYC&pg=PT17&dq=The+Regulations+of+Kendo&hl=en&ei=vkIwTeCdOY7AgQfn3Oy8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=The%20Regulations%20of%20Kendo&f=false
• 7 http://books.google.com/books?id=-_Fyr_GYdkEC&pg=PA90&dq=The+Regulations+of+Kendo&hl=en&ei=vkIwTeCdOY7AgQfn3Oy8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
• 8 http://books.google.com/books?id=MW4kO7SCx2gC&pg=PA54&dq=The+Regulations+of+Kendo&hl=en&ei=PkcwTeznFondgQfDxLn0Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=The%20Regulations%20of%20Kendo&f=false
• 9 http://books.google.com/books?id=8ZG1tmt7nmkC&pg=PA62&dq=The+Regulations+of+Kendo&hl=en&ei=PkcwTeznFondgQfDxLn0Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=The%20Regulations%20of%20Kendo&f=true
• 10 http://books.google.com/books?id=T9ATHNwHpa8C&pg=PA180&dq=The+Regulations+of+Kendo&hl=en&ei=PkcwTeznFondgQfDxLn0Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=The%20Regulations%20of%20Kendo&f=false

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks to user Samuraiantiqueworld, for the links. I dono't think most of them are relevant. My reasoning is that they are not published by kendo orgnisations. Some seem to be outdated in the terminology used and not reflective of current understanding.

The kendo article, could indeed benefit from more references, but to use such, that are not current or accurate is to be avoided. If no-one objects, I'll start to remove and or replace some or all, with more current refs.Kendo 66 06:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

Creator of Kendo

According the article:

"The introduction of bamboo practice swords (shinai) and armour (bōgu) to sword training is attributed to Naganuma Shirōzaemon Kunisato during the Shotoku Era (1711–1715)."

Maybe the above is correct but it is not the same as Naganuma Shirōzaemon Kunisato was the creator of Kendo because Kendo is a result of the Japanese culture and warfare over time. No person or organization can be credited for the creation of Kendo. - Kontoreg (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why?Kendo 66 05:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand you but if you have another interpretation of the history of Japan I will suggest that you describe FIK's official interpretation of the creation of Kendo. I do not believe that it is FIK's official position that Naganuma Shirōzaemon Kunisato was the person in the history of Japan who created Kendo. That is why! - Kontoreg (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the challenge, I'll see what I can find.Kendo 66 03:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

It looks as though we have two competing stories in this one article as to the origin of kendo.

Kunisato inherited the tradition from his father Heizaemon in 1708, and the two of them, until Heizaemon's death, worked hard together to improve what would become Kendo training armor.[5][6]

Chiba Shusaku Narimasa, founder of the Hokushin Ittō-ryū Hyōhō (北辰一刀流兵法), introduced gekiken (撃剣) (full contact duels with bamboo swords and training armor) to the curriculum of tradition arts in the 1820s.

Kortoso (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Official website in the text under the image

International Kendo Federation (FIK) is an official organization like other organizations which organize Kendo. Therefore it is wrong that only the web site of FIK is mention under the image. What shall we do about that? - Kontoreg (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No suggestions? Okay, I have replaced the text with: 'Several federations organize Kendo.' - Kontoreg (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Kontoreg, you don't seem to understand what 'organize' means.Kendo 66 04:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There exist several international federations which organize Kendo. Two of these international organizations are Dai Nippon Butoku Kai (DNBK), official web site: http://www.dnbk.org/ and International Martial Arts Federation (IMAF), official web site: http://www.imaf.com/. As you are not satisfied with my neutral suggestion ('Several federations organize Kendo') I have added the web sites of DNBK and IMAF the same place as International Kendo Federation (FIK) because it is not only FIK which organize Kendo. - Kontoreg (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course the FIK is under the All Japan Kendo Federation.

Kortoso (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

International Martial Arts Federation (IMAF)

International Martial Arts Federation (IMAF) is a international martial arts federation which organizes Kendo. This organization is a official body for Kendo just like International Kendo Federation (FIK).

• IMAF is a worldwide organization, established in 1952 in Tokyo, Japan. Reference: http://www.imaf.com/faq.html FAQ.

• IMAF is dedicated to the promotion and development of the martial arts of Kendo. References: http://www.imaf.com/faq.html FAQ and http://www.imaf.com/divisions.html Divisions.

• IMAF is comprised of seven divisions representing the various Japanese martial arts. One of these divisions is Kendo. Reference: http://www.imaf.com/divisions.html Divisions.

• IMAF defines Kendo as: Kendo, the way of the sword, is a modern martial art based on ancient kenjutsu (the art of swordsmanship). Reference: http://www.imaf.com/kendo.html.

- Kontoreg (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Dai Nippon Butoku Kai (DNBK)

Dai Nippon Butoku Kai (DNBK) is a international martial arts federation which organizes Kendo. This organization is a official body for Kendo just like International Kendo Federation (FIK).

• DNBK was established in 1895, Kyoto, Japan, under the authority of the Japanese Government and the endorsement of Meiji Emperor. DNBK authorizes and certifies the martial arts credentials in Kendo. Reference: http://www.dnbk.org/honbu.cfm.

• Among the representatives of DNBK International Division is Mr. Kim Baylor who is Renshi in Kendo. Reference: http://www.dnbk.org/representatives.cfm.

Furthermore are Mr. Manabu Adachi, Hanshi, 9th Dan Kendo, and Mr. Masakatsu Tsujino, Hanshi, 9th Dan Kendo advising counsellor of the board. Reference: http://www.dnbk.org/hofficials.cfm.

• Milestones in the history of DNBK are:

1895: The Dai Nippon Butoku Kai (DNBK) was established in Kyoto, Japan. Reference: http://www.dnbk.org/history.cfm

1942: DNBK controlled All Japan Kendo Federation and promoted Kendo. Reference: http://www.dnbk.org/history.cfm

1998: The official participants demonstrated the discipline of Kendo. Reference: http://www.dnbk.org/history.cfm

2011: Kendo was conducted in the Kyoto Elite Budo Seminar. Reference: http://www.dnbk.org/history.cfm

- Kontoreg (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The article speaks of DNBK early on, but does not define acronym, nor does it speak of the group's origin. Perhaps that was mistakenly removed at some point?

Kortoso (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sport Accord, doping and weight

I think the new additions on International Kendo Competitions and doping, while relevant are very unbalanced. In particular, I don't think we need to add so many sections. Currently, in the competition section there is basically one section per sentence, which is unbalanced. The long section on SportAccord also seems to be giving it undue weight. It is an extremely peripheral part of Kendo with zero effect on most Kendoka. I propose losing the subsections, combing the doping section here, and shortening the section on sport accord to one sentence on the world combat games (basically the changes I made which Kontoreg reverted). Any objections? Francis Bond (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree. Also, the issue of doping would need an own section, if there was controversy about it, like the Tour de France. As it is, there is no need to make any mention of it, other than maybe one single sentence. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, after all. The information needs be notable in some way.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

While I too agree, I think that the kendo article is becoming cluttered with other stuff. Kontoreg seems to be on a mission to prove that he or she sees AJKF/FIK mainstream kendo only as a sport. I suggest that we move the 'other stuff' to relevant pages. For example, the SportAccord stuff can go on the SportAccord article, likewise with drug testing etc. Kendo 66 07:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

That other parts of the article are also cluttered (I quite agree that, that is the case) is a separate issue. Speculations on Kontoreg's motivations isn't really relevant or important, IMO.

...but out of curiosity: "mainstream kendo only as a sport"? As opposed to what? What else are you saying that kendo is, other than a sport?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is perhaps relevant to any discussion of Kontoreg's editing that he believes that the ZNKR is not a reliable source of information about Budo/Kendo: "Send my regards to All Japan Kendo Federation and International Kendo Federation theirs books and websites are wrong" (from his comments at Wiki:Shinbudo:Talk). He is pushing a fringe agenda and I think we should take this into account. In answer to ZarlanTheGreen, I think a standard definition of sport (from Wikipedia :-) "all forms of competitive physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability and provide entertainment to participants" has less emphasis on moulding one's mind and cultivating one's spirit than Kendo does --- there is a strong argument that martial arts are more than just sports. I personally consider Kendo to be a sport, just not "only a sport". Francis Bond (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course. Certainly I must agree that, the whole cultivating ones "spirit"/mind thing, is a valid thing, other than sport, to say that kendo has. (I would argue that other sports can also have some elements of that, more or less, though not quite in the same official and written down way, as with kendo and the like) I would disagree that it is a martial art though, as I see nothing martial about it, other than it's origins (not that I'm saying that, that's a bad thing.

I would certainly agree that rejecting the All Japan Kendo Federation and the International Kendo Federation as a sources is clearly an issue. Unless, of course, one can provide evidence to show why certain other information trumps what they say, on a specific issue (there is pretty much no way at all, in which one could legitimately dismiss them entirely, though). Still, I don't really think Kontoreg's motivation, as long as he/she is editing in good faith (which seems to, very much, be the case), is really relevant. Why he/she rejects them is not an issue for us, even though that he/she does so may be. The motivation(s) would be an issue in attempts to debate the issue with Kontoreg, but not otherwise.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

SO what do you think about the kendo article becoming cluttered with other stuff and moving the SportAccord stuff to a/the SportAccord article, likewise drug testing etc.?Kendo 66 12:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

Well, this topic is specifically about the doping section, but it's probably just as well, to look at the general problem, I guess. I'd say that this article needs a general clean-up. A lot of stuff, including the whole section on doping and the such, which isn't really all that notable, should be shortened or removed.

Taking a look through the article I'd say:

• The "History" section need a lot of work. If nothing else, the amount of "citation needed"-tags should make that clear.
• The "Techniques" section should be removed. It's hardly all that notable, and doesn't really tell anything to anyone other than a kendoka or similar. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a textbook. It should give a summary of the subject, not in-depth information (though linking to sites that provide it, is fine and indeed to be encouraged).
• The doping section should be removed, for the various reasons cited in this section.
• The "Advancement" section should be shortened to a few sentences, and put into another section, rather than having one of its own.
• The sections "International Kendo Competitions" and "National and international organisations" should be merged into one.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ffbond and Kendo66 (members of FIK),

1) It will be interesting to know why the users of Wikipedia cannot be informed that the modern kendo is a sport-oriented discipline when both of you consider Kendo to be a sport?

2) It will also be interesting to know why the user of Wikipedia must not know that International Kendo Federation (FIK) has committed itself to the definition of Sport provided by the organisation SportAccord? SportAccord is an VERY important organisation that led FIK in the right direction concerning international sport without doping!

3) At least it will be VERY interesting to know why the user of Wikipedia not must not know that doping is used in sport (incl. kendo?) and SportAccord is fighting this problem. Is FIK not interested in this anti-doping policy?

The article 'kendo' is a big article and the above informations do not take up much space in the article! If you remove the information the users of Wikipedia will see your agenda!

A) Sorry, it is not my theory...the modern kendo is created after the Meiji Restoration (1868) and is based on shinbudō (新武道) or gendai-budō (現代武道). The modern kendo is not a 'martial art' kendo is a 'martial way'! Send my regards to International Kendo Federation and All Japan Kendo Federation that I have read their websites!

Have a nice day! - Kontoreg (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I applaud your passionate efforts, intending to improve this article. However...

1) Could you point out where anyone has claimed, that it should not say that kendo is a sport-oriented discipline?

2) Could you explain how any of that is notable? Has there been a lot of doping in kendo, perhaps?

3) If doping has occurred in kendo, could you point to any sources that would verify that it has (as wikipedia requires verifiability), and that is has been a big issue (as wikipedia requires notability)?

A) What would it matter, if it is referred to a "martial art", or a "martial way"? To use the term "martial way", is more close to a literal translation from Japanese, but I'd say that "martial art" is a more proper translation. Either way, this seems more like pointless semantics, than anything else. Besides, how does any of that support your view? How would it even be relevant? Please explain. (naturally, I object to both terms, given my above mentioned point about kendo not being martial, but that's beside the point, and has no bearings on wikipedia)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we have a general consensus here. Thank you everyone for your input. I will clean up the page. Francis Bond (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A bit hasty IMO, but I don't disagree. We have consensus. I like the cleaning up you've done :) --ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Modern kendo is a 'Martial Way' and is based on shinbudō (新武道)

I will like to separate the subject above.

Sorry, it is not my theory...the modern kendo is created after the Meiji Restoration (1868) and is based on shinbudō (新武道). The modern kendo is Not a 'martial ART' modern kendo IS a 'martial WAY'! - Kontoreg (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

To ZarlanTheGreen

The whole concept and the history in the article 'Kendo' is a big advertising for All Japan Kendo Federation (AJKF)! This article does not distinguish between other budo systems within Kendo. Kendo is NOT Kendo. Members of AJKF teaches that Kendo IS Kendo. This is only true for the AJKF's Kendo! All the books published by the friends of AJKF (and there are many) make one belief that there only exist one form of Kendo and one form of Budo. This form of Kendo is the 'modern Kendo' created after the Meiji Restoration (1868) and is based on martial art (budo system?) if you read the website of AJKF.

This is wrong!

'Classical martial art' prior to the Edo period (-1603) means ko-bujutsu. 'Martial art' means bujusu (1603-1868) and the 'modern martial art' means modern bujutsu (1868-). All these systems of 'martial arts' are NOT based on a budo system. Here you can see that the concept is wrong. Kendo is NOT a 'martial art'. Kendo is 'martial ways' ('do' means 'way').

The history of Kendo as a do-form can be traced back to the early Edo period and this form of budo was kobudo. Kendo in the Edo period was not only Kenjutsu. It is not the weapon which decides how far the system is Kendo or Kenjutsu it was the system of education. One of the education systems in the Edo period was Kobudo. Kobudo is the oldest budo system.

These informations are new for all the members of AJKF because these informations are not in theirs books. -And if these informations are not written in the books published by AJKF it must be a lie!

This article is not a matter of 'Kendo'! The article is a matter of policy. It is the AJKF's way to figthing the minority and the minority is NOT synonymous with Notability. As you write above: "The information needs be notable"

- Kontoreg (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Saying that the AJKF's perspective is too narrow, and that one should not rely on that, only, is fair enough. That does NOT, mean that AJKF sources should all be dismissed, on all counts. You can argue for why some things that they say, specifically parts that imply an overly uniform nature, aren't reliable. Why other sources show them to be wrong, on those specific points.

As to what you said about ko-bujutsu/bujusu/bujutsu (bujusu? Are you sure that is spelt right? Could you give me the kanji, for that?)... Well Kendo, at least mainstream kendo, isn't either of those, but rather budo. I fail to see how any -jutsu is relevant, other than looking at kendo's origins. Either way, none of that explains anything about why kendo isn't a "martial art", but a "martial way". In fact, I'd argue that there is no such thing as a "martial way", in the English language. Please do explain why the term is real, what it means and how it differs from "martial art".

As to omitted information in books, meaning that it is a lie... That is wrong, for two reasons:

1. Lying is saying something you don't believe to be true, intending to make people believe that you consider it true. Not saying something, cannot be a lie. It can be dishonest/deceptive, but not a lie, as such.
2. Saying something erroneous, or omitting important information, is most often NOT intentional in the least! Please remember to always assume good faith. Not just on Wikipedia, but in general. Most people who write those books you scold, honestly believe what they are writing, and honestly don't know about the details you are talking about (and why would they, if none of the books, or sensei's, make any mention of it?). To quote Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Thus there is no basis for thinking that there is dishonesty, malice, or attempts to exclude minorities.

As to your note about notability: The non-mainstream forms of kendo do deserve mention on the article. Not as much mention as the mainstream form, certainly, but it would be wrong to have no mention of them. This does not, however, change the fact that the subject of doping isn't notable enough to be on the article. Also, all other points I mentioned previously, still apply. If you think they don't, please do correct me.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear ZarlanTheGreen,

Kendō, after the Meiji Restoration, is a spiritual system, called budō. - Kontoreg (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this article I can understand that your definition on Kendō is: Kendō is a modern Japanese martial art., please do correct me? - Kontoreg (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Kendo is NOT budo. That is like saying that tennis is sport, which would mean that sport is tennis. Those who practice judo, are practising a form of budo, but they are certainly not practising kendo, by any stretch of the imagination. Also, while it has spiritual elements, to say that it is a spiritual system is going way too far. You can practice kendo, without any of the spiritual bits. That you edited the article, whilst we are discussing this in the talk page, is highly inappropriate and can be viewed as vandalism or edit warring (though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, this time).

As to my definition of kendo, nothing in the article could tell you anything of that. The definition on the article, is not written by me, nor have I had any influence on it. As you can see from what I have written above, however, I have clearly stated that I do not think that you could validly use any term, including the word "martial", to refer to kendo. The word "martial" refers to something relating to war or combat, and while kendo originates from swordsmanship, it is no longer about swordsmanship nor does it teach one how to handle a sword. Kendo teaches you how to fight in kendo matches. That and the spiritual bits. Neither of those are "martial". It's a fine sport (you shout and hit people, what's not to like *tongue-in-cheek*), but it has nothing to do with swords, war or combat. Thus it is not a martial art, nor is it a martial way. It could perhaps be called a "combat sport".

BTW: I note that you have not answered any of my questions, or requests for explanations or clarifications.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Kontoreg is basing his arguments on the categorizations made by Donn Draeger. Drager makes interesting distinctions and they should be mentioned in the kobudo/shinbudo pages (I just did), where they are relevant. They are not, in my opinion relevant here. Further, they are not standard uses of the terms at all, but specialist definitions. There is a nice essay about whole naming issue here: [1]. Francis Bond (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So... if I understand you correctly, you are saying that Kontoreg is saying -justsu=art and -do=way? (...and yes I know that justu/do aren't quite consistently divided like that, as the linked article says). Well, whatever Donn Draeger says, I still say that "martial way" is not a term in English.

I think that a lot of the views about discipline and spirituality, in that article, is just a foreign person attributing anything different, to kendo or budo, specifically. A lot of the elements are simply conservatism, or general Japanese culture, rather than anything related to budo or kendo. It's not that "martial arts" and "budo" are two different things, but rather that the Japanese's attitude towards martial arts is different. Not that I disagree that about the presence of McDojo's (though I have differing views on what makes a dojo a McDojo). The comment about people not understanding, if you say "martial arts", so she therefore says "budo", is just wrong. When people talk about martial arts, they usually refer to budo (and kung fu), which has all the elements that she is talking about (anyone who would claim that kung fu doesn't have them, is clearly wrong. Sure, kung fu has a slightly different flavour of spirituality, but...). It's not that budo is different from martial arts, it's that the people are ignorant/misinformed about martial arts.

Still, none of that matters. All forms of budo, including kendo, are generally referred to as martial art. There is no way in which you could deny that kendo is a martial art, that I can see. No way, other than mine, that is, which is to deny the "martial" part (thus also denying the term to such things as olympic fencing, pro wrestling, tai chi and a lot more), rather than any issue with the art bit. In fact, I'd say that the whole "developing oneself"-bit, makes it all the more an art. Besides, the way that the word do or michi is used, it could really be applied to any activity, with or without spirituality, as long as you see it as an ever ongoing process to hone your skills and become better.

Now if this is correct (please do confirm if it is or not, Kontoreg), that does at least explain one thing, about what Kontoreg is saying. Why that should have any relevance to anything we're talking about, however, I do not understand.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As your can see there are two different positions about Kendo after the Meiji period (1868):

1) Kendō is a spiritual system, called budō.

2) Kendō is a modern Japanese martial art.

Budo is not synonymous with martial art just like Ffbond has described.

Budō is a compound of the root bu (武:ぶ), meaning war or martial; and dō (道:どう), meaning path or way.

- Kontoreg (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That isn't how language works. For example: 胃食道 (lit: stomach eat road) = gastroesophagus; 赤道 (lit red road) = equator; 煙道 (lit smoke road) = chimney. 武道 is generally translated into English as 'martial art': not, for example 'war road' another possible literal translation. 'martial art' is used for activities that are not particularly martial anymore --- at least not concerned with war (like Judo and Kendo) and are not especially arty :-). Some practitioners prefer to not call what they do a 'martial art', but rather a 'martial way' but that isn't a standard usage, and should be mentioned, if at all, on the general page about 武道. It is not an important part of Kendo. Francis Bond (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well put. I couldn't have said it better myself. On the point about martial art being used for not particularly martial things... Yes I agree, though I consider it to be wrong, and avoid doing so myself (and would encourage others to adopt this view) ...but that is, of course, irrelevant to wikipedia. Here it should most certainly be referred to as martial art, as that is the standard usage.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, boys the playtime is over...Maybe Kendō is a modern Japanese martial art but Kendō after the Meiji Restoration (1868) is for sure a system based on budō, the "martial ways". This information will be added to the article incl. references. - Kontoreg (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No one is saying that kendo isn't based on budo. We all agree that it is. No one is saying that there isn't a "spiritual" element to kendo. We all agree that there is. There is, however, no such thing as "martial ways", in the English language, and any mention of it will be removed from the article, as it is inappropriate, for the reasons we have stated. It also goes against established consensus. You cannot force your opinion through, just because you think you're right. This is wikipedia. There are procedures, to how things are done here.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You had to accept that Kendo also are practice on the base of budo - So you may mix the two definitions of Kendo in the article. - Kontoreg (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We have already discussed this here, and established consensus. You made your edits, clearly against recently established consensus (with you being involved in the discussion), so naturally I reverted them, pointing out why you were wrong to make them, and that it is very close to edit warring, if not being edit warring, outright. You have chosen to revert it back again, which definitely puts this into the area of edit warring, IMO. Especially as you have been, repeatedly, been warned about this type of behaviour and informed that it goes against policy and guidelines of Wikipedia.

Please cease this behaviour at once and undo your last edit, or I will report this as edit warring. I would consider putting this on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but I rather think that wouldn't be so effective in this case, and reporting this as edit warring seems more appropriate anyway.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear administrators,

The definition of ‘kendo’ in the article is not true because the ‘real’ definition of Kendo is much more complex. Present definition in the article describes that Kendo is ‘martial art’ and only a ‘martial art’ - that is not true. All over the world Kendo is also based on budo and for these people the definition of Kendo is: Kendo (剣道 kendō?), meaning "Way of the Sword", is after the Meiji Restoration based on the system called budo (武道 budō?), literally meaning “martial way”. (please read the references it is not my theory) Since there obvious exist different definitions I suggest to mix these two definitions in the article. - Kontoreg (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Administrators don't go about reading every talk page, on wikipedia. If you wish to send them a message, putting it on a talk page, like this, is pretty much pointless. Now undo the edit warring edit, that you made.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As I read this article and talk page, I can see myself agreeing with both sides of the discussion.

Both parties express valid arguments for their definition with references that confirm their definitions, thereby not making it either party's personal belief or theory.

Just because most users settle upon a simpler definition, does not necessarily make it a correct or adequate definition...

Stating that is the same as saying that we can change history by simply repeating only the opinions of one side, which in my ears sound like propoganda.

I have practiced Kendo for many years and know that the definition is not a simple one, and also that there are many opposing opinions to the definition.

The only sensible thing to do, is to express both definitions with references and let the reader decide which term they wish to use.

You cannot simply hide valid viewpoints, just because they are not commonly used today.

Wikipedia should be a place for educating people. >reSPAWNed< (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you comment, and I find what you say understandable, however you are wrong on three points:

1. Which viewpoint it correct, isn't really the issue here. Wikipedia is not an anarchy. These issues are, on wikipedia, resolved by discussing all the relevant issues, and then reaching consensus (note: consensus doesn't require that everyone agrees). This has happened. Thus Kontoreg's viewpoint has been, for now, defeated. He/she has done further edits, against consensus and reverted back my undo of them. This is edit warring and against wikipedia policy. Kontoreg needs to undo his edits, or be reported as edit warring. Then he/she may attempt further discussion on the issue, but not edit the article on these issues (or at least not for some time). You cannot just bulldoze through your opinions, with utter disregard for others, or the procedures on wikipedia.
2. There are not two definitions of kendo, as Kontoreg would like to claim. The supposed first definition "Kendō is a spiritual system, called budō", is clearly nonsense. Kendo is one type of budo, rather than being kendo (budo isn't kendo. Thus kendo isn't budo. It's a type of budo). I have already explained this. However, if you modify this to "kendo is a form of budo", that would be accurate. The second definition of "Kendō is a modern Japanese martial art", pretty much implies that it is a form of budo, as pretty much any and all modern Japanese martial arts are based on budo. Thus the second definition includes the first. If you wish to be more precise, you can say that Kendo is a modern Japanese martial art, with spiritual elements in it and note that it is a form of budo. However, that is all already in the article, except maybe that it is a form of budo.
3. Most of the things that Kontoreg insists on putting into the article, has nothing to do with these definitions of kendo. All the talk of the definition of kendo is mostly just irrelevant redirections of the issue, distracting people from the actual issues.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

ZarlanTheGreen, you are not fair now. The alternative defintion on Kendo is: Kendo (剣道 kendō?), meaning "Way of the Sword", is after the Meiji Restoration based on the system called budo (武道 budō?), literally meaning “martial way”. And who many times shall I explain that it is not my theory!? We are not agree but we had to discuss this conflict. You can discuss the definition here or on another page I do not care it is your choice. - Kontoreg (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am being very fair indeed.

This needed to be discussed and it was. The discussion has been settled, and consensus reached. I could discuss this with you further, but until you undo your edits, that would be wrong of me to do. You need to undo your edits, and accept the rules on this site. After you have done that, I don't mind discussing this further, even though the decision (for now) is already settled and I don't really have to discuss it anymore, for now. Still, with further discussion, there may develop a change of consensus.

Also, that is just one single line. One single little issue. The edits and issues concerned here, are very many indeed. Your edits were a lot more, than just that single little line. You only speak of about this definition, when we try to discuss the problems, and refuse to talk about any of the other issues. That is quite uncooperative, and I refuse to let you distract me from the other issues, by focusing on this single issue. Not that I will discuss any of the issues, right now, anyway.

Now please undo your edits soon, or you will be reported. (naturally, any further editing on the Kendo article, will reduce/erase the amount of time I'm willing to give you ...and I'm not too sure how long I'll wait. It wont be that long, in either case)

If you comply, we can then try to have a civil, reasonable, discussion about the issues. Forcing your way through, in spite of everyone else, and against the rules, is simply not acceptable, however.

While you do that, there can be no discussion.

Indeed, why should I bother to discuss anything with you, if you are clearly showing that you will disregard anything I say, or anything that anyone else says?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear ZarlanTheGreen,

I have no intention to deleted anything as long the discussion is in order. I invite you hereby to join the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard - Kontoreg (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

You are actually supposed to provide a link to the specific DRN thread (and also inform me on my user talk page), but nevermind. I have been through a DRN before, so I had no difficulty locating it. The real issues with your dispute resolution request are the ones in the request itself, which will be an annoyance to whoever volunteers to deal with it, though not affecting any of us directly involved.

Either way, the Dispute resolution noticeboard is supposed to be used when a discussion is getting too messy, or otherwise not going properly and consensus cannot be reached. I was involved in one before (I put in the request), and it resulted in actual discussion, where the other editors had refused to discuss before the DRN, and it allowed us to properly reach a consensus. In this case, the discussion has already happened (the point about definitions, as well as the many other issues that you refuse to talk about, has been addressed by me and Ffbond) and consensus has been reached. You cannot refuse to acknowledge that, just because the consensus reached isn't to your liking. I shall await a volunteer to open the thread, and then point out what I have told you. Hopefully, the DRN wont take long. It certainly shouldn't. I don't really see anything to discuss there.

If you refuse to accept a consensus you don't agree with here, why should I believe that you would accept a consensus from a dispute resolution noticeboard, unless it is one that you agree with? Even starting off with an assumption of good faith, and keeping Hanlon's Razor in mind, I cannot believe anything other than this being a way to try to get your opinion through, rather than an honest attempt to reach a consensus. I'm not saying that it is a consciously calculated act, though, but still...

Reporting you for edit warring may be seen as inappropriate, whilst a Dispute Resolution has been requested (however illegitimate I find it), so will have to put that on hold, and see what happens at the DRN.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, as you were so incompetent in making the DRN request, it seems it has been closed. I shall make that report now, after all.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I've posted the edit warring report now. The report can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Kontoreg_reported_by_User:ZarlanTheGreen_.28Result:_.29. Naturally I have informed Kontoreg on his/her user talk page, as well.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

ZarlanTheGreen, thanks for making the effort. Following this, I have restored the page to the last agreed on version. I don't think any of the changes since then were significant. Re Respawned's comments, I think the the discussion of whether budo should be translated 'Martial Art' or 'Martial Way' should be on the page for Budo of which we currently have far too many variants. It doesn't seem directly relevant to the Kendo article, and certainly shouldn't be something we foreground in the opening paragraph. But if you can come up with a good way of fitting it into the page feel free! Kontoreg's preferred formulation Kendo (剣道 kendō?), meaning "Way of the Sword", is after the Meiji Restoration based on the system called budo (武道 budō?), literally meaning “martial way”. is incorrect as it is written, and sort of hard to understand exactly e is trying to say: it needs a fuller discussion and that should be on the budo page. Kendo is one of the arts that makes up budo, it is hardly based on budo. We already say in the lede that Kendo (剣道 kendō?), means "Way of The Sword", I don't see why we also need to give an alternative translation of budo here, it just isn't the right place for it. I am not in any way trying to suppress this information, just trying to get it accurately expressed an in the appropriate place, with the limited time I have to work on wikipedia. Francis Bond (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if you're supposed to restore it, until the report is dealt with, but I personally do not oppose it. Besides, it can hardly be seen as edit warring, given that Kontoreg wont be here to edit it back, in any way, for quite a while. Not until the 26:th, according to what Kontoreg has said. As to the definition... Well that's just Kontoreg not understanding the English language, linguistics and how translations work ...or indeed any of our replies to him/her. None of it has any place in the Kendo article. At most, one might say that there should be a mention of Kendo being a form of budo.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe I remember "International Kendo Competition" and "National and international organisations" having been put together, at some time during all this curfuffle. I'd suggest it to be re-done. The section about international competitions is rather small, and should rather be mentioned in the section about national and international organisations, instead of having it's own section.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Due to Kontoreg's absence, the Edit Warring report has been closed, for now (if Kontoreg keeps at it, when he/she returns, however...). Just thought I should mention that. Either way, that won't be an issue for several days, so we needn't worry about it, for now, and just edit as usual.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Japanese words?

Why aren't there clickable buttons that play an audio file of how the Japanese words are pronounced? WPIsTransient (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not an issue concerning this article, i.e. the wikipedia article about Kendo. It is a concern about the use of Japanese words on wikipedia in general ...or rather the use of non-English words in Wikipedia.

As to why there aren't such buttons... why would there be? In Wiktionary such a thing would make a lot more sense. Wiktionary tends to have phonetic transcriptions (using IPA) of words and, where possible, an audio clip. In Wikipedia, there is no real reason to have phonetic transcriptions, much less audio clips.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre denial that Kendo is a sport

It seems that some people refuse to accept Kendo being referred to as a sport. Looking at any definition of the term "sport", it qualifies. This is confirmed by wiktionary, dictionary.com, the OED, the Merriam-Webster dictionary ...and no doubt any other dictionary you would like to read (I thought I'd limit it to a few).
Also Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica and, no doubt, any other encyclopaedia you'd care to read.

Many organizations recognize Kendo as a sport. For a few examples: http://www.recsports.ufl.edu/sport-clubs/sport-club-directory/kendo http://www.yamasa.org/acjs/network/english/newsletter/things_japanese_39.html http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Resources/List-of-International-Federations/ http://www.sportaccord.com/en/members/ http://www.sportaccord.com/en/members/definition-of-sport/

Many Kendo organizations are part of many sports organizations. For example the Swedish Budo-and Martial Arts Federation (which should be a decent translation of Svenska Budo- och Kampsportsförbundet, of which all Kendo organizations in Sweden are a part) are a part of the Swedish Sports Confederation

I could find tons more of examples, on ALL of the above points, if I cared to do so.
The quick google I did (aside from the Swedish Federation, which I already knew about and didn't need to google), should be enough.
What possible reason could there be, to deny that Kendo is a sport?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, while do not wish to get into an argument about this. I would contribute two things.

Because a kendo organisation is a member of a larger sport organisation, such as SportAccord, or recognised/registered by a government sport control or promotion agency, that is not a valid argument to define it as a sport. Martial arts organisations join such larger sport organisations for insurance, accreditation and funding availabilty reasons. Additionally, there are no similar and valid umbrella martial art 'only' organisations.

Secondly, kendo is not an activity that is entirely competitive. Unlike say, football or baseball. A kendo person can go to training for years and not necessarily enter a competition. Sure, they test their skills against an opponent in some of their training sessions, but it's not necessarily to win a competition. Competition in kendo is important as it provides an opportunity to test your skills and many like to win as well, but it is not the reason that the majority train in kendo. If you read the entire wikipedia definition, then there is a bit more to defining a sport.

Cheers Kendo 66 06:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that you have already gotten into the argument, even before this section of the talk page was made, as evidenced here.

To be a member of a sport organization, the activity you are engaged in has to actually be a sport, so your claims that memberships to such organizations as SportAccord should not count, is invalid.

Your claim that kendo is not a sport, because it is not entirely competitive (on the basis that not all practitioners enter competitions) is ridiculous. Most people who play football, don't enter any football competitions. Ever. Indeed there is practically no sport, where the majority of people who preform it, actually enter competitions, as far as I know. There is no sport that is entirely competitive. At least not as you define it. Thus kendo is not in any way different, in that regard.

Your claim that there is more necessary, according to "the wikipedia definition", is wrong in multiple ways:

• It's not wikipedia's definition (wikipedia describes what is said by other sources. Wikipedia makes no claims of its own. Where that is the case, the editors have gone against the policy/guidelines of wikipedia)
• No it doesn't. To be precise, it does not provide any iron-clad definition, but in the section "Definition", it does include SportAccord's definition, which kendo qualifies as. (it has competitions, it does not harm living creatures, it does not rely on equipment by a single supplier and has no elements of luck specifically built into it). That aside, it points out that there are more general, loose, definitions ...which, of course, kendo qualifies under, even more easily.
• You are ignoring the other encyclopaedias and dictionaries, which all agree on criteria, all of which kendo fulfils. (it has rules, it has competitions... that alone makes it qualify. Please note that chess is a sport. Also bowling and Formula 1 ...and Counter-Strike)

So... Can you please explain, in what way kendo is different from other sports? Can you explain how it isn't done in accordance to certain rules, does not contain competitions and/or is mainly based on luck? If you cannot explain any of those things, how can you claim that it is not a sport?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

ZarlanThe Green, do you do kendo?Kendo 66 04:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

Whether or not I do has no bearing on anything we are discussing. Wikipedia article talk pages are for discussing the article and changes to it, not chit chat.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

...and to go back to the topic: Can you please explain, in what way kendo is different from other sports? Can you explain in what way it cannot be called a sport?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We need to beware of WP:SYNTHESIS here. Making the claim that as a Kendo organisation is a member of a a larger sport organisation implies Kendo is a sport is synthesis. Looking through the sport accord members we also see the International Life Saving Federation is a member.[2] I'm not sure we need to explicitly say anything just saying Kendo is a martial art which has a competitive aspect is enough. This follows most the the governing bodies of Kendo whose websites don't mention the word sport.[3][4]--Salix (talk): 06:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I accept your point on WP:SYNTHESIS. I take back my mention of SportAccord. Every other point I made still stands, however. Including all the larger sport organisation I mention, where your arguments don't seem to apply. Kendo is a sport, by every single definition.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

DNBK and IMAF

Why are they constantly removed? Could someone explain the nature of these organizations, and why or why not, they should be included here?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that they do not have the same status as the FIK: they are not specifically for Kendo, they don't organize the championships, or gradings or keep lists of members, or anything like that. IMAF in particular is very minor, I have done Kendo for decades in several countries without ever hearing of it. DNBK is of course a very respected and central organization in Japanese martial arts, and organizes many great activities, not just for Kendo. I have tried to make the section more balanced --- I hope everyone can be happy with this. Francis Bond (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The current DNBK is not an incorporated foundation, but an incorporated association, just a private entity. The article at ja:WP says the current DNBK has nothing to do with the former DNBK except the name, no matter what the entity says. I don't think it's appropriate to include the current DNBK. Oda Mari (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that. Thanks for pointing it out. Someone needs to rewrite the English page, not me in the near future I'm afraid, although I will add a note. Francis Bond (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you know, off the top of your head, which organization issues shogi (Hanshi, Kyoshi, Renshi)? Those ranks are not from ZNKR, I don't believe, and I was under the impression that it is DNBK that issues those. If that's the case, then maybe DNBK needs to be mentioned.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good. Thanks for the explanation.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I can answer in part, the above question posed by Urokugaeshi. In the FIK/AJKF/ZNKR world of kendo, the shogo titles are usually awarded by the AJKF. A successful completion of increasingly difficult examination is required for each level. Some regional/national kendo org's (like Korea and possibly USA) may also do similar. Kendo 66 23:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

Bogu vs Kendogu

While Kendogu is a more accurate and precise term, the usual term is Bogu. Thus it is the one that should be used here, on Wikipedia. Now would you both please stop edit warring.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again ZarlanTheGreen. Well if kendo-gu is the accurate and precise term, why would Wikipedia not include the accurate and precise term? Kendo 66 04:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

Because bogu is the more common term. See Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable#Avoid overly technical language. Also WP:COMMONNAME reflects the principle rather well, though it concerns article names. Besides, while kendogu may be more precise, bogu is by no means wrong or inaccurate.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, so a minor edit to include both in a sensible manner could be the way. Are you OK with that proposal? Kendo 66 06:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

ZarlanTheGreen, there is another thing. This year fall there was a memo to all the ZNKR dojos (it is on ZNKR web site, http://www.kendo.or.jp/information/2013/09/002102.html ), that is percolating to the FIK dojos in other countries as well. One of the points that our illustrious leaders are unhappy about, is incorrect terminology. Basically, for Kendo, one should use the official terminology from ‘Kendo shidoyoryo’ 「剣道指導要領」 manual or else.

You can read a translation of the memo here: http://kenshi247.net/blog/2013/09/03/a-note-to-all-those-concerned/

However, here is a relevant snippet:

4. Use of the correct kendo terminology.

The ZNKR has published its uniform terminology in the ‘Kendo shidoyoryo’ manual. Please re-check with this manual and teach the correct terms.

Examples:

* Correct: shiai-jo; incorrect: court

* Correct: nafuda; incorrect: zekken, tare-namu

* Correct: nakayui; incorrect: nakajime

* Correct: kendogi; incorrect: keikogi

* Correct: kendogu; incorrect: bogu (the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology may use the term ‘bogu’)

So, according to ZNKR, naginata and jukendo folks wear bogu (and call it whatever they want). Kendo folks wear kendogu. If someone is not familiar with one term, chances are pretty high that s/he is not familiar with the other term either, so I am not sure that technical jargon point applies.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The term 'bōgu' is using to describe the equipment used in kendō according to Japanese-English Dictionary of Kendo published by All Japan Kendo Federation, 2000. The term 'kendogu' is NOT more correct. It is not necessary to change the term 'bogu' since the term 'kendogu' is not more correct. For your information we have used the term 'bogu' since 2003: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kendo&oldid=1821831 - Kontoreg (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

- Kontoreg, there have been two editions published since 2000, both thave kendo-gu as the preferred term. --Kendo 66 23:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

Your point? It's 2013, and ZNKR says that the correct term is "kendogu". I'll remind you, that Kendo is ZNKR's baby, and, according to 「剣道指導要領」 and ZNKR web site, you have been using incorrect terminology. Do you have any official references that are newer then September 2013 that use the term "bogu"?

Urokugaeshi (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is one organization that could be called the head of Kendo, it's FIK ...to which ZNKR belongs. They are under FIK. If Kendo is anyone's baby, it's FIK's, not ZNKR's.

Now as to the memo from ZNKR... I would remind you that it's the more common term, not the most correct one, that should be used (a mention of the more accurate term can be made, but it's the more common one that must be the main one used). Thus the memo is utterly irrelevant. Also it should be pointed out that it's written in Japanese, and is directed at Japanese Kendo judges and trainers. This is the English Wikipedia. Thus the terms used in the English language, are the only ones that are relevant. Any mention of terminology use, in Japanese, is completely irrelevant. Thus the memo is completely irrelevant in two ways.

As to the claim that someone who is familiar with the term kendogu, wouldn't be familiar with the term bogu... on what do you base that? Besides, it's irrelevant, for the above stated reasons.

Also, whatever ZNKR says, I'd say that bogu is actually more accurate than kendogu. After all, it's the same exact gear as is used in naginata and jukendo (except for the added leg protection for naginata), so using a different term is just silly. This last point is, however, my personal opinion, which should not affect what term is to be used here.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

ZarlanTheGreen, While I don't have a horse in this race, and simply provided, what I felt, additional and relevant information, I do encourage you to read what I write. I specifically stated, that your point about technical jargon is not valid, because if one knows what kendogu is, probability is very high that one knows what bogu is, and vice versa. However, if one doesn't know what bogu is, chances are pretty high that one doesn't know what kendogu is either, and, again, vice versa. Nowhere did I state that one is likely to know one term, and not the other. Common sense being, if one is a practitioner, after a few weeks of practice, one knows both terms. If one is not practitioner, where would one learn the term 'bogu'?

And as for the term being Japanese and not applying to English speakers? For now you might be correct (got stats on what term is in more common usage?) However, are you certain, that in a year or two, after a few seminars with Japanese instructors (who will not be permitted to go overseas and teach least FIK feels that they are good examples of correct everything), and a few new English translations get published, English speakers will not be using kendogu as well? We can wait and see. *shrug*

Urokugaeshi (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I misunderstood what you were trying to say, then. Still, I see no reason to believe that someone who knows the term bogu, is necessarily likely to know the term kendogu. Besides, the article is not made for kendoka, but for the common reader ...and the term bogu is more common in the various sources.

As to the claim that kendogu might become more common in Japanese, with time, and that this may make the term more common in English... Yeah, sure. That may well happen. But the point is, that when that happens, the term in this article should change to reflect that, but until that has happens, it should stay as bogu. Wikipedia uses currently common terminology. It does not try to predict, determine or affect, what is common terminology in the future.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not clear, BTW, why the article can't satisfy both camps, and say something along the lines of "... and wears protective armor, known as bogu or kendogu...". Not like either term is incorrect, and not like 10 characters will make a huge difference to reader, yet it will, hopefully, result in a compromise. No?

Urokugaeshi (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Naturally, that would be fine. Bogu should be the main term used, but adding kendogu as well, is perfectly good. Though saying "bogu or kendogu" in several places would be superfluous and overly lengthy, so it would be best to only say that once. Preferably in the section on equipment (i.e. the main bit that deals with bogu).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears that at least three of the kendo articles regular editors now agree that the use of both terms is OK. Something like that suggested above by Urokugaeshi "... and wears protective armour, known as bogu or kendogu..." Kendo 66 23:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

According to Japanese-English Dictionary of Kendo published by All Japan Kendo Federation, 2000, both the term 'bogu' and 'kendogu' are the correct terminology for the kendo armour or kendo equipment. - Kontoreg (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

According to Japanese-English Dictionary of Kendo, published by All Japan Kendo Federation, 2011 (blue cover), only term 'kendogu' is correct for kendo armor or kendo equipment.

Just sayin'.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

So in other words: Bogu has been an accepted term by all and only recently, have the top leaders of the All Japan Kendo Federation decided that it is wrong and they also reflect this in their English language material.

This might effect common usage in the future, but it does not change what is common usage, at them moment. Urokugaeshi's suggested compromise is good, and indeed improves the article. (though it should only be used in the section talking about kendo equipment, for the reasons I explained above. The bit in the history section, e.g., which talks of "introduced the use of bogu", should not say "bogu or kendogu")--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

-ise vs -ize in words such are realise, militarisation,

Since in English both -ise and -ize are correct (and -ize seems to be considered an Americanism), is there consensus on correct usage?

I use an article called Militarization, but another one called Militarisation of space. Additionally, I see an opinion that both 'realize' and 'realise' are correct: http://grammarist.com/spelling/realise-realize/

Either works, what standard should we follow? Urokugaeshi (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

See this. As far as I know, most of the Japan-related articles use American English. Oda Mari (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that the english style of English (s not z) should be used in such cases. That is what has been used in the main, in the kendo article over the years. Not all speakers of English are from the USA. Kendo 66 23:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

So, the article's been blanked. -76.126.243.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kendo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323074952/http://www.kendo-world.com/articles.php?article%5Bid%5D=21&article%5Bpage%5D=2 to http://www.kendo-world.com/articles.php?article%5Bid%5D=21&article%5Bpage%5D=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825221423/http://www.kendo.or.jp/column/250.html to http://www.kendo.or.jp/column/250.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719150631/http://www.dnbk.org/ to http://www.dnbk.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

well-sprung wooden floor

"well-sprung wooden floor" - what does that mean? Googling 'well-sprung' didn't help. Dlabtot (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Try "spring floor". Or this thing called Wikipedia: [[5]]

Kortoso (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

High amounts of untranslated jargon

I've made some efforts to make the page more readable. I get the impression that a lot of this article was translated from the Japanese one, and thus it has a lot of highly specific Japanese jargon may not be very comprehensible to the average reader. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Kortoso (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

See alsos

I am aware that the "See also" section is a useful Wikipedia tool for continuing research, but it seems here that this article has attracted links to every single martial art involving a stick. Can this article be improved with a more focused "See also" section?

Kortoso (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Adults do 1st Dan as their first exam?

Currently, there are no sources provided for the part under the 'Grades' section that says that the first grading that adults go for in Japan is for 1st Dan. Can anyone provide any sources? If not, at the very least, can anyone verify whether or not this is true? -- Sentimex (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)