Talk:Miyamoto Musashi/Archive 1

message: Is there any historical basis for the statement that Musashi killed Sasaki Kojiro using an oar (rather than a sword), or is it only because of the statement in the twentieth-century fiction by Yoshikawa Eiji? May 9, 2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.117.22.148 (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Killing Kojiro with an oar

message: The statement "In 1634 he settled in Ogura with his stepson Iori." should probably read "... Kokura ... ." Kokura is a different reading of the same kanji as Ogura and was the castle town of the daimyo Ogasawara (next sentence in the article). Ogura is a place name in Kyoto. 
The Japanese page is very different from the English, and calls into question some of the statements in the English, including whether Munisai was Musashi's father, and whether Musashi defeated the Yoshioka school, stating that factual information is not known (to the author of the Japanese page?). It omits many of the details that are in the English, making no mention of Musashi's mother or stepmother, and adding that Musashi was the subject of kabuki, joruri and kodan fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.1.54.253 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between the Japanese and English pages 

message: :"These are obviously stories and its not too difficult to separate fact from fiction considering that the medical term eczema was not known in the 1600's and that baths were not readily available to the masses. More like a wash in a stream was be more available in these times."
I have removed this section, because it is quite frankly ridiculous.  People more qualified than I am are welcome to reinstate its arguments, but they should consider doing so in a semi-literate fashion, preferably supporting their arguments with something.
Particular criticisms:
#Medical terms are invented to describe symptoms, not discovered. Is whoever wrote that claiming that 16th century Japanese people didn't notice the symptoms of eczema, or were unable to describe them?!  Besides, the question of whether the term eczema was "known" (whatever that's meant to mean) is nonsensical - it's an English word for heaven's sake, what possible relevance does it have to Japanese history?
#Baths not readily available to the masses in C16th? Strange, then, that the Japanese love of bathing, and the frequency with which they did it, was one of the things that the first Europeans to visit Japan were most amazed by. Mm, could that have been in the 16th century by any chance? Why, I do believe it was!   
=== "People more qualified than you?"...Surely you jest! ===
                                                              
#It is my understanding that the author's use of the term eczema to describe the undoubtedly advanced symptoms of Phenylketonuria, by the way discovered by Dr. Asbjørn Følling: Norway, 1934 was to ensure the reader make the obvious connections. Those being of course that given the times and Miyamoto' position, coupled with appearing ill or to be exhibiting any weakness at all would invite challenges by those hoping to gain the advantage.
#Regarding your thoughts pertaining to the Japanese demonstrating a love of bathing and the subsequent realization of this fact by the Europeans, whom we know were for the most part unwashed and over perfumed, did they really have any choice other than to marvel at it's concept?  Added to which you comment does nothing in the way of convincing any other than yourself that there are any parallels to be drawn between bathing in a stream and bathing in a steamroom , in a tub of hot water that is continually being ladled across your back and head  by the same beautiful woman whose  hands rarely leave your body for the entire time you take your bath! So  let us now reconsider whether the commoner was in fact able to enjoy the same lavish extravagance  as the ruling class. Hmm, I think not but thanks for illuminating us all to the stream  as a historical component . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.147.60 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-19 10:29 UTC.
=== Travelers... ===
Musashi spent a great deal of time walking from place to place.  All monetary and class implications aside, you don't see too many steam baths sitting around in the wilderness.
--TR 20:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating Fact from Fiction

message: Musashi spent a great deal of time walking from place to place.  All monetary and class implications aside, you don't see too many steam baths sitting around in the wilderness.
--TR 20:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Travelers... 

message: I'm planning on adding a section about the art Musashi produced, loosely based on The Lone Samurai and some online sources. Where in this article would be a good place to put this, which will probably add up to a couple of paragraphs? My first thought was 1.4, last under the bio-topic, but other suggestions are welcome. --Jacob no. 9 20:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to be in the midst of a report on him, and in Miyamoto Musashi's Article I found in Encyclopædia Britannica, the first paragraph on him ends with "...famous Japanese soldier-artist of the early Tokugawa period." The rest of the article mainly focuses on his skills as an artist, with only the last two sentences commenting on his swordsmanship. That's just a little something to take note of in considering what to do for the details of him as an artist... --TerraGamerX 03:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musashi as an artist 

message: I own a book titled The Lone Samurai, which acts as a biography of Musashi. The ISBN of it is 4-7700-2942-X. It was printed in 2004, the publishing company is Kodansha International, and it was distributed in the U.S. by Kodansha America. It is written by William Scott Wilson, and details Musashi's life excellently. It even lists its sources in a bibliography at the end of the book. --NeoChrono Ryu 03:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Reference

message: In the second paragraph of the section on Birth, it says Musashi was raised by his uncle from the age of seven, when his father died. However, the first paragraph of the section on Upbringing says it was his mother who died when he was seven, and that his father's role is unknown. I'm not familiar with Musashi's history (I was reading this article to find out), so can't make the call as to which is correct. Thanks. --Zelphar 08:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded it starting with "The details of Miyamoto Musashi's early life are difficult to verify; though many documents claim to describe his early life, the sources conflict." -- JHunterJ 13:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth/Upbringing discrepancy 

message: I altered a quote. If it is a direct quotation, it should be reverted, and a source should be provided (for all quotations) so that people will not edit it. --Fg2 10:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: I think that the entire section in this article concerning the fight with Arima Kihei should be eliminated and melded with the Arima Kihei article. --NeoChrono Ryu 06:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on the fight with Arima Kihei

message: It is said in the introduction to Wilson's translation of the "Book of Five Rings" that Musashi died on May 19, due to thoracic cancer.  Since Wilson's translation is frequently cited in this article, I believe it would be appropriate to change the date and include cause of death.  Also, it is obvious from the Wilson translation that Musashi preferred the family name Shinmen, not Miyamoto, so I believe this should also be addressed. --Skywalkert65b 02:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause and date of death, also, his name. 

message: I edited the article and removed the macron from the title of Musashi's most famous book. A user asked me for additional information so I wrote this.
The word "sho" is the last kanji 書　meaning "writing" or "book." Its pronunciation has a short vowel, not a long one. 
You can see an entry for 書 in any Japanese kanji dictionary, including Wiktionary. You can copy and paste the kanji right from this window into Wiktionary's search box (not just for this kanji but for any kanji, although of course Wiktionary doesn't have them all) but this link should take you directly to the article. Look at the Japanese section and you'll see しょ (two hiragana symbols), not しょう (three hiragana), as well as sho not shō. For contrast, look at another kanji. This one has the pronunciation しょう (three hiragana) or shō. You can see the difference. --Fg2 20:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No macron for Gorin no sho 

message: I agree with the remarks in the peer review about the lead paragraph, and it was so clear to me what was needed that I moved the naming issue to the section on his training in swordsmanship and changed the first paragraph to this:
::Miyamoto Musashi (宮本 武蔵 Miyamoto Musashi, c.1584 - May 19, 1645), prior to adulthood known as Miyamoto Benosuke, was a famous Japanese swordsman, who is claimed to have been one of the most skilled swordsmen in the history of Japan.  Musashi, as he is often simply known, became legendary by triumphing in numerous duels, even from a very young age.  He invented and developed the Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu style of swordsmanship and he wrote The Book of Five Rings, an enigmatic book of strategy, tactics, and philosophy that is much studied by businesspeople and others even today.
I think this gives the reader solid reasons for his fame and I trust it is a smooth invitation to read further. --Hu 10:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph 

message: The only reference listed (A book called "The Lone Samurai") actually disagrees with a large amount of the information presented in the article. Should this remain a reference if this is the case. I am not aware of any information from the book that is actually used by the article. (This unsigned comment was by User:NeoChrono Ryu 22:16 UTC, 12 December 2005).
:You removed the book from the references because you claimed the article and the book are not in agreement.  Which do you think is better?  The article or the book?  By removing the book reference, it seems you think the article is more accurate than the book. --Hu 01:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if it seemed that I was pointing out the article as a better resource that the book. I think the book is better by far, but I do not think that it should be cited if it is not used as a resource. I think that the entire article needs a complete rewrite, using this book as a main reference, since it is one of the first of its kind, to give a complete and thorough biography of Musashi. I simply do not have the time to devote myself to such a project right now, but if the article is still in need of correction, perhaps this summer I will attempt a total rewrite. --NeoChrono Ryu 01:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response.  No apology needed, I was just trying to sort things out.  My inclination would be to leave the book in the list of references because it is good.  That way an interested party is more likely to track it down and fix the discrepancies without requiring you to rewrite the article. --Hu 01:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References?

message: This page is RIDDLED with factual inaccuracies, blatant ones. The same things are repeated multiple times, with different facts for each part. Please put a warning about this page.
but notably:
:"In 1634 he settled in Kokura with his step-son Iori, and later entered the service of daimyo Ogasawara Tadazane, taking a major role in the Shimabara Rebellion. Iori served with excellence in putting down the rebellion and gradually rose to the rank of karo - a position equal to a minister. Musashi, however was reputedly injured by a thrown rock while scouting in the front line, and was thus unable to accrue any form of merit."
Death
Six years later, in 1633
1634+6=1633?
Musashi did not go to edo he went to KYOTO.
MOTHER did not die FATHER did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.34.171 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 23 December 2005, UTC.
:Killerclaw adds; don't mean to be an ass... But if it's wrong perhaps someone should fix it?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killerclaw (talk • contribs) 02:00, 11 Jan., 2006.
::Virtually anything written about Musashi will have factual inaccuracies; the man has as much legend written about him as fact (and he wrote some of the legend himself, of course). --128.226.230.77 02:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, but the article should either state the most probable scenario(s), or all of them. Not contradict itself. Editors must read (and, if sure, change) the corresponding parts of the article before adding or changing facts. --Jacob no. 9 20:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning 

message: Hmm, as a student of the Japanese language, and having been to Japan over the last summer, I do believe that I have the right to say that the name "Bennosuke" is perfectly reasonable and realistic.  It simply affects how long it takes the say the name.
Now, I have a question referring to the origin of Miyamoto's adopted name "Musashi": Musashibou Benkei.  I do believe that the page on Musashi has been edited since the last time I checked, because I recall reading that Benkei was a legendary swordsman who was credited with the feat of wielding nine swords into battle.  Normally I would say this improbable, but there has been a character in the Japanese fighting series Samurai Spirits (or Samurai Showdown, as it's known in the US) that wields seven swords of varying lengths, including a deadly nodachi.  If Benkei really was accredited with wielding nine blades, then he would be a reasonable and logical source of inspiration.
Anyways, to my question: did Benkei really wield nine swords into battle?  Or was that just a fictionalized image of him?  Or maybe I'm thinking of someone else?  Please respond and destroy my ignorance.
--Direkliancliff 21:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nine swords? Well I agree with the legend that Benkei was a very skilled warrior-monk, (sohei), but the notion that he used nine swords sounds like a distortion of the tale that Benkei carried eight to eleven (depending on tradition) different weapons on his person into battle. Of course that too may just be another exaggeration though. If its not either one of those examples than maybe the tale you heard was about Benkei fighting with, and breaking, nine swords in one battle one after the other. I remember another tale from the same period about another monk who engaged in a battle so fiercely that all his weapons broke one by one until he had only his small dagger left after which he retired in one piece(!). Anyways, hope that answers your question. --Fred26 15:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps "wielding nine swords" is an allegory?  A reference to a school of thought, or philosophy? --Pjanini1 18:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfectly reasonable. Just to illustrate: I think the Chinese had a very nasty execution method in its pre-Communism days called "death by a thousand cuts"..I'm pretty sure they didn't actually administer a thousand cuts to the unfortunate victim. Anyways, Cliff doesn't mention&qoute any sources word-for-word. But if he can find it and qoute it than perhaps we can make a better assessment.   Fred26 12:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah...that's one scenario, although it would be the first time I've heard of it. :) Carrying nine swords just doesn't seem reasonable to me..especially not since the Japanese sword hadn't really become the popular weapon as it was in the later period. In those days, late 12th century, it was the "Way of the Horse and Bow", and monks like Benkei usually carried the naginata as the main weapon anyways. You know this whole "nine-swords" thing is kinda interesting. I'm gonna try and dig up what I can from whatever I can find. --Fred26 19:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hm 

message: I've taken this out from the lead: "He also had an apprentice, Jōtōrō. His life is portrayed in the novel Musashi." - The lead paragraph needs to be concise, and these sentences seem rather out of place. The apprentice thing would better be dealt with somewhere in the timeline section, perhaps. The novel is already covered in Miyamoto Musashi in fiction. --BorgQueen 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apprentice 

message: Anyone want to try a peer review again, and maybe if that goes well a FAC? Peer review's main concern was addressed, and I think I greatly improved the article regardless. It'd be nice to see it as an FA. --maru   (talk)  contribs 07:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've trudged through all the moving and formatting, and it's up. Comment at will. --maru   (talk)  contribs 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review again 

message: I don't know much about Japanese swords and how to use them but I once heard on TV that he had an advantage because he was left-handed and had the surprise factor, but reading the article it seems that he just used the sword where it fitted best. Anyone knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.158.168 (talk • contribs) 
:Hard to say. No source really mentions him not being right-handed, but on the other hand, from what I understand of Tokitsu's work, there's some interesting evidence that his style's stances and grips would have allowed him to throw his short sword really effectively (as he was supposed to be able to do) if he was left-handed. --maru   (talk)  contribs 02:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was he left-handed? 

message: In the description of the first picture it says that the creature Mushashi is fighting is a "nue". According to the description we have in Wikipedia, that is not a nue since it doesnt have any of the Chimera-like features. Am i missing something here?
:A "Nue", especially during Edo period, typically referred to what we today consider as a "monster" or "creature". Since you perceived it as a "creature" and not an "animal", it's a nue.--Revth 03:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nue? 

message: I undid the edits of "Go Rin No Sho" -> "Gorin No Sho" and standardized on capitalizing each word in the title.  This is the way it appeared in the New York Times (November 14, 1982, Section 3, Page 25, Column 1, "The Nine Lives of a Book of Five Rings"), and "gorin" is not a word in my Japanese dictionary (Sanseido's New Concise Japanese-English Dictionary).  Anyone know of any style guide comments that would apply here? --JHunterJ 12:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) is a good place to ask. Also, "no" is a minor word, and might be better with a lowercase letter.  --Fg2 12:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, like Fujiwara no Teika, for example. --maru   (talk)  contribs 13:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently not. The Japanese Wikipedia article also does not have "no" (visit the English Wikipedia's article on the book, and click the link to the Japanese Wikipedia to see it). In present-day Japanese an author writing a book with "no" in the title would write it, but it wasn't necessarily written in previous centuries. It looks like Musashi did not. Various external links in the English and Japanese WP articles also omit "no" from the Japanese title. Fg2 09:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go Rin No Sho 

message: Can anyone provide more information about the name "Musana"? For example, kanji, and a reference to a suitable source? I was unable to locate it in the Japanese Wikipedia. Thanks. --Fg2 05:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Musana in; I got it from the Tokitsu book listed in the refs, but I don't remember seeing any kanji or kana or anything. --maru   (talk)  contribs 13:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It's reassuring that it came from a published source. Kanji would make it easier to locate on the Web, butI'll try other methods. Fg2 00:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musana? 

message: This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Only one reference is provided and the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 13:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: The Arima Kihei article should be merged to the Miyamoto Musashi#First duel section. Kihei has no importance on his own, and the Kihei article says little if anything besides what is already stated in the Musashi article. 24.126.199.129 01:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another good thing about the merge is that it brings another inline reference to this article, which sorely needs it! I added it and some details from Kihei's page. I believe we are ready to make Kihei's page a redirect and complete te merge Renmiri 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I spanned it of to a new page. The timeline is full of disputed information as the subsequent Biography section makes clear. Also, that large white space, particularly at the beginning of a page makes the page hard to read. I almost skipped the bottom part entirely! Renmiri 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whether we should even have the timeline. Things aren't too disputed for Musashi's later life, but for the early 0-30 portion, any timeline is an exercise in speculation or buying into particular theories. --maru   (talk)  contribs 23:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, I agree with you. But I saved it to a new page: Miyamoto Musashi's life Timeline just in case others disagree Renmiri 23:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: *agree merge back here. Chris 07:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: timeline merge

message: can someone please expand on this and add a photo. also if there is an archive of his works, they can be added to wikicommons. --AlexOvShaolin 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  as an artist 

message: At the very least, the absolute statement that he was the greatest anything of all time should be removed unless it can be cited to. Saying "one of the greatest" is probably more fair.  It's also a little problematic to call him a samurai at all, much less the best one ever, as was discussed a long time ago (see top of this page). In fact, I'm aware of some historians referring to Minamoto Yoshiie as the greatest samurai of all time, and he predates Musashi by 600 years. Even saying he is the most famous is a problem, because while he might be the most famous in Western society, there are many other famous swordsman whom stories and legends developed around.  For example, Yagyu Jubei has been widely incorporated into Japanese tales and legends over the last 400 years or so. It would be more neutral to say that Musashi was a great swordsman, and one of the most famous in Japanese history. Bradford44 20:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim in the article does not say he was the greatest; it says he is considered to have been one of (stricken Fg2) the greatest. A citation of a person who made that assessment (someone who is knowledgeable on the subject) is what's necessary here. Wikipedia does not make value judgments about samurai or anything else, but if authoritative assessments have been published by reputable publishers, Wikipedia can report them. Lacking such a citation, we should state, as Bradford44 says, that he was one of the most famous swordsmen in Japanese history. Fg2 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Musashi the greatest?