Talk:Tachi

message: This seems like a fair question.  Why shouldn't the articles about the weapons used to practice certain martial arts be included in the Martial Arts Project?  Additionally, may such articles be in categories for martial arts and martial arts terms and equipment?  It seems to me that Japanese military history, Japanese martial arts, and Japanese weapons are interrelated and overlapping areas. There is no reason to exclude one in favor of another. Am I mistaken? Bradford44 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not sufficiently related to martial arts?

message: The explanation of the difference between a tachi and a katana makes it sound like a matter of fashion. It was not, it was a change of use driven by social changes.  The older swords were intended to by used on horseback in a battlefield. They were long and slung low from the belt so that they could be drawn upwards safely past the horses head.
Later, when swords were worn all the time there were adjusted accordingly.  The became shorter so that they were more managable and were worn edge up inside the belt so that they could be drawn directly towards an enemy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference between Tachi and Katana

message: This article seems to focus on tachi from the Kamakura period onwards. From what I understand, there are also older tachi (spelled 大刀 instead of 太刀) which differ in shape and length from those mentioned in the article. Examples include the kondōsō kantō tachi goshirae (金銅荘環頭大刀拵) from the Kofun period or the kuro urushi hyōmontachi goshirae (黒漆平文大刀拵) from the early Heian period. Should those tachi be mentioned here, or should they get their own article? bamse (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old tachi 

message: It is far from common knowledge what "o-suriage" or "ubu" refers to, nor is it obvious from the context of the mention in this article, so I added a quick clarification to give the sentence some meaning. --Tsuka (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Added minor clarification of terms

message: "a sword is called a tachi when hung from the obi (belt or sash) with the edge down, and the same sword becomes a katana when worn edge up and thrust through the girdle"
Not only is this inaccurate, for reasons others have pointed out, but the terminology used in the quote is misleading. As others have said, the Tachi and the Katana are not the same sword worn differently; conversely, the "obi (belt or sash)" and the "girdle" are the same thing, though the quote could lead readers to believe they are different items.
I haven't read the source for this quote, but based upon this one sentence, I question their authority. IMO it would be best to strike this quote completely, as the effect of including it is to mislead and confuse the reader. --R0nin Two (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert on Japanese swords, but from what I read I fully agree with you: tachi and katana are two different types of swords. I also wonder what reference "Gilbertson, Oscar Ratti, and Adele Westbrook" is. I can't see it referenced in the "References" section of the article. Reference 1 (in Japanese) does not seem to mention these names. bamse (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Possibly this is the reference (Ratti and Westbrook, page 258). They cite Gilbertson as reference for their statement. Also have a look at page 259 where they combine tachi and katana into one box. I did not know about this book before and don't remember ever seeing the two sword types combined, so I agree that the sentence should be removed/reworded. bamse (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Obi" and "Girdle" are not different items 

message: I tweaked the opening sentence of the article in accordance with Wikipedia:MOSJ#Using_Japanese_in_the_article_body, and was almost immediately revert by User:Darkness walks with the claim that I had "removed referenced text".
DW, could you please read the guideline I linked to? We don't include the Japanese for words that are peripherally related to this article: we link to the article on Japanese swords, where the Japanese name is included.
Additionally, if your "sourced statements" are the implication that samurai still exist in modern Japan and that they continue to carry these and other types of "Nihonto", then I am going to have to reject your sources. Please read WP:EXCEPTIONAL: if you want to make an exceptional claim like that, you are going to need some much better, more reputable sources than a complete idiot's guide to mythology (what does this article have to do with mythology anyway?) and the title of a linguistics journal with no indication what its relevance to the statement is. If the journal's content is in fact exceptional, I would appreciate you elaborating this for me here.
Konjakupoet (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the kanji for "tachi" and addition of the word "Nihonto" (''sic'') 

message: I am under the impression that, as well as being used to specifically refer to the type of sword that preceded the weapons commonly known as uchigatana and katana, the term is also used to refer to swords (or perhaps Japanese swords) in general, especially within the context of martial arts (and even more especially within the koryu). Within the practice of many koryu martial arts, the term seems to be used to refer to both swords in general, and more specifically to a daito sized weapon (i.e. what most people consider to be a tachi or katana). Furthermore, the term odachi also seems to be used in this context as wells, when tachi is used for swords in general, kodachi specifies the shoto-sized swords and odachi the daito-sized swords. Thoughts, comments? 109.152.222.175 (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tachi as a general term for sword 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tachi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120204081704/http://home.earthlink.net/%7Esteinrl/nihonto.htm to http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/nihonto.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "how they were worn when sheathed, the latter depending on the location of the mei, or signature, on the tang."
The article about the katana says the location of the signature was changed because Samurai began wearing their sword edge upwards. This article seems to say (oddly) that they began wearing it edge upwards because the location of the signature had already changed. Which came first?
Also, it doesn't make sense to me that a curved sword with the edge upwards would be easier to draw than one with the edge downwards. (Compare a straight western sword with a curved sabre.) Granted, having the edge downwards would make drawing and first stroke two steps. Would Samurai have twisted the sword by 90° in the act of drawing? An illustration would be useful. Dare we hope for a video demonstration? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which changed first, the signature or the manner of wearing?