Talk:Bushido

message: The article now has this anti-historical tidbit:
"Nitobe was not the first person to document Japanese chivalry in this way. In his text Feudal and Modern Japan, historian  Arthur May Knapp wrote:
    "The samurai of thirty years ago had behind him a thousand years of training in the law of honor, obedience, duty, and self-sacrifice..... It was not needed to create or establish them. As a child he had but to be instructed, as indeed he was from his earliest years, in the etiquette of self-immolation. The fine instinct of honor demanding it was in the very blood..."[3] "
Which is to say, May noted that the warrior class were brought up to be filial and obedient.  How does this constitute 'Japanese chivalry,' rather than Confucianism?  Especially if the warriors themselves conceived of their loyalty, self-sacrifice etc in Confucian terms?  If the the entire language of loyalty is drawn from the Chinese classics?  The most this excerpt shows is that other people besides Nitobe were inventing fictitious pasts and "essences of the Japanese spirit."  The point remains that "Bushido" (as presented in this article) is a product of late 19th and early 20th century historical imagination.
This article is even spinning off further innacurate articles.  If a text depicts warriors, it is now automatically part of the imaginary corpus of "Bushido literature."  Talking about it in the Tokugawa period is highly questionable, and downright ridiculous when it starts being ascribed to the Kojiki.  Now we have "Japanese chivalry" existing even before the emergence of a warrior class!
Nick Kapur's revision was excellent.  I don't see any compelling reason why it has not been adopted.  Presumably the page should reflect scholarly consensus, and not the mistaken beliefs of martial arts enthusiasts.
So, why are these changes blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.201.74 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chivalry? 

message: First sentence: "is a Japanese a phrase". Wtf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.165.11 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: There is criticism of Nitobe's work as a fabrication, cobbled together from disparate half-truths.  See also Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit (https://www.tofugu.com/japan/bushido/, December 8, 2014).  How much of our article reflects history, and how much reflects mythology?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bushidō" as historical fiction 

message: The page has improved significantly to explain the multiple Bushido types through history. Such as: Ancient Bushido (Heian-Kamakura, 794-1333), Sengoku Bushido (Sengoku period, 1336-1603), Edo Bushido (Early to late Edo (1603–1868), Meiji Bushido (1868-1945) and Contemporary Bushido (1950–Present): it is still used in various forms such as business, communication, martial arts and a way of life. Each type has distinct features. Bushido was originally focused on valor and later gained morals for attitude and behaviour. "Bushidō (武士道, "the way of the warrior") are regulations for samurai attitudes, behavior and lifestyle." Bushido is best used as an overarching term for all the codes, practices, philosophies and principles of samurai culture. Bushido is by extension the Japanese way of the warrior. Thus Nitobe Inazō's popular book "Bushido: The Soul of Japan (1900)" must not be used as the primary interpretation, because it does not represent all bushido types and interpretations by samurai and important figures. There are earlier works which describe bushido long before Nitobe. The historical development was put in chronological order with additional references. Etymology was expanded with important terminology. Additionally, valuable images were added about Bushido such as: Koyo Gunkan by Kosaka Masanobu (1616), Kashoki (Amusing Notes) by Saito Chikamori (1642) and Book cover of Kokon Bushido Ezukushi (Bushido Through The Ages) by artist Hishikawa Moronobu (1685). Images of the Hagakure and Musashi's Book of Five Rings could be included. - Artanisen (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with , the "Ancient bushido" section was poorly presented and not backed up by the references.  I have been bold and removed that section.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Types of Bushido

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion