Talk:Japanese sword/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 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)
thread_title:  Shinkendo 

message: 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)
thread_title: History problem

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: 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)
thread_title: Links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Trimming the historical users list

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nice Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sub-article suggestions