Talk:Budō

message: The more I think about it, the more this article bothers me.  For a week or two (ever since I revised it to its present state) I have been considering what exactly I don't like about it.  The difficulty lies in the fact that I think what exists now is an interesting article, is reasonably articulate, and somewhat decently organized.  So I haven't been able to put my finger on exactly what's been bugging me about it.  I've now figured it out - the page isn't actually about budo.  All it's really about is how budo may or may not be something different from bujutsu.  It's interesting, and a worthwhile inquiry, but the article's present state is problematic where currently linking to Japanese martial arts takes you here, to budo, where the reader learns nothing whatsoever about Japanese martial arts except for an esoteric series of points about the possible difference between how different people interpret two Japanese words.
To conclude, here, I wanted to open up for discussion the following questions:
# Is this the information that should be included in an article about "Japanese martial arts"?
# Should "budo" and "Japanese martial arts" be different articles, or interchangable (as they are now)?
# If the current content does not belong here, where does it belong?
If no one is interested in this discussion, I'll start implementing some possible revsions once I have some more time.Bradford44 04:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this article about?

message: "Specifically, dō is derived from the Buddhist Sanskrit mārga (meaning the 'path' to enlightenment)." I know there is a source cited, but at present I have no access to it. However, my study would indicate that dō is in fact the Japanese term for the Chinese Dào, which in terms of both etymology and philosophy is a concept indigenous to China, and largely predates Indian influence. Wouldn't this fact void the statement made in the article at the moment? elvenscout742 21:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology... 

message: Apparently "Budo" was included as a demonstration sport at the Tokyo Olympics in 1964. Has anyone heard of this?! Can anyone find the format of the competition? I think this is important to mention in the Budo article (but not without proper explanation).  Thanks! --Kyuzo2000 (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tokyo Olympics 1964 

message: I have removed several incorrect uses of the word "where" rather than "were". That is all. 0s1r1s (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Grammatical Edit

message: I have to ask this, even if it is a bit silly, but after several searches on the internet I have come up with at least 3 different examples for Budo. Is this because of the different hierarchy status of the term, or is the one you have used a more simplified version of the kanji? The one used on the front page doesn't seem to be the most common one; this is: http://www.budovideos.com/images/covers/9001.jpg
I know it's a noob question but can someone explain please? 0s1r1s (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion over Budo Kanji

message: The reason that the kanji for "Budo" looks so strange is probably because of the style of script that it is written in.  Kanji has about five basic scripts (See the Japanese Calligraphy article, look under "Principles"), and it looks as if the style used in the photo for the Budo article is in a sōsho, or cursive, style, which is much more free-flowing and doesn't always look to be the same as if it were drawn in another script.  The link you provided shows the kanji in a kaisho, or regular, script, which is typically more common and easier read.  It's the same word, simply written differently.  JamesCM (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Confusion over Budo Kanji 

message: This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. This article is supposed to be about budo, and is not supposed to be about the word 'budo.' The article introduction needs to be changed, and the entire section about etymology can be removed. If the article is corrected to omit the dictionary content, it will be much better. --109.189.97.240 (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use/mention error