Talk:Japanese sword/Archive 4

message: I've moved most of the construction section to its own article. I've also cut rather a lot of detail in the Technique section which I didn't feel was appropriate in this article (as opposed to an article concentrating on swordplay). This has put the article back under 32k. I'm open to commentary on these edits. Chris Cunningham 10:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant shortening 

message: The 'Use' section has sentence, that to me, seems a bit off: "During the Edo period samurai went about on foot unarmored, and with much less combat being fought on horseback in open battlefields the need for an effective close quarter weapon resulted in samurai being armed with daisho." During the Edo period there was no warfare in Japan, unless you count the Shimabara rebellion. And that was fought with guns. As I understood it, the katana was a mostly symbolic weapon, used rarely, in a duel or to kill an unarmed peasant. TRWBW 05:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a few minor rebellions early on.  There were minor skirmishes between daimyo, honor issues, 47 ronin type things, etc.  Also, katana were typically left at the door when visiting or when at home, with just the sho being kept on one's person for protection.  And bandits (and protection from them).  Etc.  jesup 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were katanas ever used? 

message: We're short of an intro image now due to it being removed. I moved most of the rest of the images into a gallery section because they were cluttering the construction section (now removed to its own article). This means we're somewhat uneven in our use of images. Should these be reintegrated? Should the construction / furnishing ones be moved to the other article? Could someone dig out some nice new ones? Chris Cunningham 10:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I don't see any Japanese people contributing, this article is biased towards the white man's viewpoint.
65.97.14.167 20:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surprising, since this is en.wikipedia.org, not jp.wikipedia.org.  A Japanese editor would certainly be welcome, but note that merely copying information from the Japanese page into english will probably not produce a good english encyclopedia page - I'd assume there's too much hidden cultural assumption built into the japanese page, and english readers who don't have that need hooks to help them understand the issue, plus commentary on the intersection of katana with Europeans is relevant in the english version.  Note that a number of contributors here are either (American/etc) koryu students or collectors or both.  Best of both worlds would be to get European collectors who live in Japan like Chris Bowen or Gordon Robeson to contribute, or fluent english-speaking Japanese polishers/collectors such as Kenji Mishina.  Richard Stein's page is quite extensive and authoritative.  jesup 21:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Any specifics you think are biased and need correcting? TRWBW 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of direct translation... it's a bad idea.  Seriously, it would create horrible grammar all over the place.  All Your Base, anyone?  --Luigifan 21:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the Japanese editors of this article? 

message: 72.145.93.244 (I assume it's the same person as 72.145.144.46) is once again re-adding descriptions of someone firing bullets (Japanese TV show) at the edge of a katana, under Comparisons with swords of other cultures.  See Talk:Katana/Archive_3#Bullets.  From that user's response: "I vow to revert any removals. either way that video clip was from a notable jap tv show".  If the youtube clip is almost certainly a copyright violation, and probably will get yanked (~30,000 Japanese TV videos have been pulled from youtube and/or challenged recently).  More importantly, a katana locked in a stand causing bullets to split when they hit it edge on - while amusing (in an odd way), it has no relevance to an encyclopedia article on katana, and even less to "swords of other cultures".   If someone wanted to create a Myths about Japanese Swords page, or something like that, it could go there.  It does not belong in this article.  jesup 14:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not really much point in arguing with anonymous revertistas. They're rarely persistent enough that they win though, so an exponential backoff seems to lure them into leaving for long enough that they forget to come back. Speaking of which, time to revert all the policy violations on The Stone Roses (album) extlinks section again. Chris Cunningham 15:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: ...managed to withstand seven direct hits from an M2 machine gun and its .50 BMG armor-piercing bullets before shattering. In extreme slow-motion footage of this test, some bullets were cut perfectly in half as their path of motion was unchanged.
It is clear that the .50 BMG bullets are not being cut, rather they are eating away at the blade until one gets a dead-on hit which snaps the blade in half.  Was the person who wrote that suggesting that the blade was harder and stronger than armor?  All of this suggest that the person who added the section has lack of knowledge about swords, guns, and steel.  Just silly! Ranp 18:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Not at all in fact if you’ would have watched the video then you would have seen that at least 3 of the bullets are split clearly in half with the remainder of the bullets impacting directly, shattering into fragments, this is far better than any other metallic object would do, especially considering the fact that the muscle velocity of the M2 Browning machine gun is 3,050 feet per sec in other words close to one kilometer per second other objects including WW2 tanks have had holes punched through them by the same weapon, and no single infantry armor including type IV is rated to withstand a M2 shot. The total force of the impact should come at 13,000 foot-pound force, the sword’s durability is all the more surprising considering the fact it is repeatedly struck in the same area but withstands it untull it’s hamon is shatered. Well above any average piece of metal would have withstood. 68.211.220.26 17:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *And how do you know it is well above what an average piece of metal would do?  Are other types of swords tested?  What is there to say a well made butter knife wouldn't behave the same? Unless there is some comparative study, this stunt has no meaning, and should be deleted.  Spejic 09:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The M2 was used in WW2 as an anti tank gun and is still used by helicopter gun ships aparently not even a foot thick steel plate will kep it cloear
I will continue to Revert your deletions166.102.231.101 17:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *So?  It is still a totally meaningless comparison.  The katana doesn't stop the bullet either.  All it's doing is cutting the bullet into two.  Show me that a katana does that better than any other similarly shaped piece of steel.  Can't you see that the point about bullets is totally childish? Spejic 07:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've now requested this. The procedure is discussed on Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Chris Cunningham 13:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Success. Not entirely happy with losing the benefit of constructive edits from anon users, but at least there should be less need to watch this for the time being. Chris Cunningham 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your efforts. Looks like it has already been reverted. This seems to a nonsensical sticking point. - xiliquierntalk 19:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that User:Jacknicholson has already been found to be using SockPuppets which include the same list of IP addresses used in repeatedly inserting the bullets nonsense here.  See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jacknicholson.  I think we may need to report the sockpuppetry and checkuser (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacknicholson again. jesup 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user continues to revert; note that the user has been found to use sockpuppet anon-IPs (the same ones used here) in the past; those IPs are frequently blocked for vandalism.  Also note that at least one of the IPs used is a public-access IP used by a school district.  Probably a HS computer lab.  Oh, and it's more like the 20th time or more (considerably more).  jesup 04:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This user is a general nuisance to WP. Could someone do the needful and get it banned? Thanks. Chris Cunningham 16:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put a request up in the vandalism department. We'll see what happens. - xiliquierntalk 18:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's the result: "blocked "Jacknicholson (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (continued disruption, sockpuppetry)". - xiliquierntalk 19:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You probably took the right action in sprotecting the article, the constant editwaring  of the article over a petty sentence was driving away contributors. Freepsbane 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullets 

message: The second pic's caption reads, in part, "The nakago are well visible."  However, nakago is not defined or even mentioned in the body of the article, and the separate nakago article is about a manga/anime character. 69.80.171.124 23:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the visual glossary disappeared when the article was split up, and construction got its own page. Actually, there's a thought I've been entertaining for a while now: Would it be within reason to have an article dedicated to explaining Japanese blade terminology? A rather big glossary of sorts? CABAL 08:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dare say that belongs in the Construction article? For random pieces of terminology in here parentheses should do if the component doesn't warrant ints own explanatory article. Chris Cunningham 09:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  leaving out sword terminology, espeically for nihon-to, is a bad idea. Construction is one thing, but a katana NEEDS to be clearly defined, and all the parts from the kissaki to the nakago (of which swords only have one! maybe the OP was thinking of mekugi-ana?), the ha to the mune.--Evil.Merlin 04:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see. Boshi, fukura, hamachi, hamon, hasaki, hiraji, iori, kami, kissaki, ko-shinogi, machi, mekugi ana, mitsukado, monouchi, mune, munemachi, munesaki, nakago, nakagojiri, oroshi, shinogi, shinogiji, toshin, yasurime, yokote. Should optional features like horimono and hi be included? CABAL 11:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Piker - that's just a scratch on the surface of terminology!  :-)  Seriously - this page is an encyclopedia article on Katana, not a book on nihonto.  We can explain (in english, in parens) where we need to here, and highlight the link to Stein's nihonto page for further glossary.  We could add some of it to the contruction article.  jesup 13:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a start Piker...--Evil.Merlin 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nakago 

message: The paragraph I deleted about european vs japanese technique would need WP:RS - it wasn't a neutral description of the differences; it was from the point of view of a japanese sword practitioner, and assumed things not in evidence.  I believe such a paragraph could be written, but would require looking into (neutral) sources that compare the two.  Otherwise, best to leave it out and avoid flamewars.  jesup 22:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Hand Two Hand 

message: I'm going to create a working copy for us to get ready for when the main page is unprotected or for an admin to swap in once we're ready for an update.
Here's the place to work on a new edit: Talk:Katana/Draft
jesup 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reference to the 'Comparison to swords of other cultures' section: I think that this should be rewritten or at least heavily revised. It seems very broken and reads somewhat like an arguement: statement; rebuttal - statement; rebuttal - statement; rebuttal instead of an encyclopedic article: information; support - information; support - information; support. I don't think this section was meant to be an argument over which sword was better, or to contain "excuses" (they read a little like that to me) for why one could/n't do something that the other could/n't. What do you all think? --xiliquiernTalk 14:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the contrary, it used to be worse than it is. But yes, it needs either rewritten or removed. The article on apples does not contain a section comparing them to oranges. Chris Cunningham 15:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be willing to vote for removal. I had thought the same thing: if someone wants to know about western swords, they can go look at the western sword articles. - xiliquiernTalk 15:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but an section on McIntosh apples might compare them to Red Delicious.  I think a very short section may be in order, especially since this is one of the most susceptible to POV insertion.  jesup 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but the Longsword section doesn't even mention Katanas. --Ratwar 23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I don't really think it should as the two evolved entirely independently of each other. I think the only reason it arose here is to address the sometimes greatly enhanced perception katana cutting ability, especially in relation to the "low-quality, heavy, and dull" european weapons. Instead of a comparison to european weapons, I would much prefer to see a section on katana capability stand on its own merit, without involving a comparison of the two. This would also be a great place to mention the tameshigiri and the "helmet-cutting" events. Or maybe a section on "Myths and Misconceptions" to dispell myths, but without involving the uninvolved European counterpart?. -xiliquiernTalk 01:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working copy 

message: As i recall katana is japanese for katana, and i read that the japanese for sword was ken. And i think i read something about there being a sword before the katana, which means that the word katana didn't exist when the sword before it was being used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.61.214.242 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly: The kanji for 'sword' is 刀, read "ken". However, it could also have been meant "katana". Often times in Japanese a single kanji character can have multiple readings. For example: 月 means both 'moon' and 'month' and can be read "ge-tsu" or "tsu-ki". It is also possible that, as in Europe, the term 'sword' was sometimes used generically to refer to what we have more recently specifically named "longswords", "bastard-swords", and "greatswords". Someone more gifted than I in Japanese may be able to shed more light on this, but I think that's the situation. -xiliquiernTalk 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Japanese has a variety of words for swords and blades, as does English: katana, ken, tachi, tsurugi are examples. More at :wiktionary:katana. Katana is a kun'yomi (a native Japanese way of pronouncing a kanji) for the kanji 刀 (the same kanji has the on'yomi tō). In contrast, ken is an on'yomi (a way of reading a kanji based on a pronunciation that originated in China but has changed as time passed) for the kanji 剣 (the same kanji has the kun'yomi tsurugi). An umbrella term, tōkenrui (刀剣類), encompasses various kinds of swords, and an even broader term, hamono (刃物), means "things with blades" (ranging from fruit knives on up). Fg2 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very insightful! Thank you! -xiliquiernTalk 03:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ancient blades are categorized as jokoto, the precursor of the nihonto class and which predated the mid-Heian period (The jokoto era, so to speak). There were many types; for instance the chokuto which were straight-bodied blades over 60 cm in length. Although known nominally as tachi, they are written as 大刀 (literally 'big blade') and not the more familiar 太刀. Shorter variants are pronounced in the same manner but written using two different kanji notations. CABAL 12:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katana means sword?