Jump to content

Talk:Bushido

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 610氬 (talk | contribs) at 23:47, 19 October 2021 (→"Contemporary Bushido: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Translations

Can someone please check the translations of the virtues? "Chugi" apparently has a very different meaning than what is listed, for example. 86.136.74.161 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Code of honor

I simply cannot believe this doesn't fall under a Code of Honor WikiProject... TREKphiler 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historicize Bushido

This article is improving gradually, but is still a pretty painful read. We have to remember that ¨Bushido¨ is essentially a modern term. Tokugawa period or medieval warriors simply did not conceive of themselves as following something called ¨Bushido.¨ Yes there are instances of this term in the literature, but they are a conspicuous minority.

Really, this would benefit most by being renamed ¨samurai ethics" or something. The article talks about EVERY reference to warrior ideals or codes of conduct as ¨bushido literature¨ or ¨reference to bushido ideals¨"-- this implies that Japanese warriors had ONE ideal that remained unchanged throughout 1500 years of history. Warriors changed over time as did their ideals. If you want to talk about Bushido, you have to talk about it historically, not as something that has always existed as part of the Japanese genetic makeup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.227.52 (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piecemeal editing can't save this abomination of an article. However I removed a statement that was patently untrue. Something to the effect of "bushido was widely practiced and didn't vary." Since nothing called "bushido" existed in the Edo period, it's impossible that it was widely practiced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.201.74 (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree this article is weak and misleading in establishing the historical context of the evolution of Samurai culture and ethics, and would like to add two points for consideration.

Virtually no mention is made of the influance of Sun Wu (孙武) and his classic 孫子兵法 (commonly know as "The Art of War" in English). That this work significantly influanced Samurai culture is well established and failing to mention it is a major difficency. As close as we come is the passing mention of "Taoist" influance, but how, I must ask, did Samurai recieve this? From 孫子兵法.

Second, I must amplify the point made above that Bushido was a late 19th century work written to distill the essence of Samurai culture and ethics for (then) contemporary readers; there was no single source of a Samurai code before then and suggesting so is misleading. The content of this article appears to walk backward from there to create a frame for the picture. Certianly Samurai culture was the product of Japan, but it is not as esentially uniquely Japanese as the article states, and anyone with at least a general knowledge of Japanese history of the period must be aware of the great influance Chinese culture had on Japan and certianly this applies to Samurai culture as well.

One might question if this article was intended to be a Japanese secondary school textbook - the historical accuracy and perspective meets the requirements of the form.

Politely suggest to mention Sun Wu. Samurai such as Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu were his readers and followers.

Suggested citation if needed:

McNeilly, Mark R. (2001), Sun Tzu and the Art of Modern Warfare, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195133404 ; pp. 6–7.

Xiao-zi (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, be bold and make the changes, as long as you have decent sources! Nuujinn 00:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rewrite (December 29, 2009)

This article is completely lacking in (accurate) historical context, so I am rewriting it. I don't feel much need to go into extreme detail as to why this article needs to be rewritten. Criticism of its numerous flaws are enumerated in detail below and in the archive page, and have sat around for ages, but nobody has done anything about it. I rewrote the entire introduction to the article. As for the rest, I tried to keep as much of it as possible (all the lists of sources, etc), but I felt forced to omit numerous sections which were off topic, not relevant, or otherwise useless. I realize that Wikipedia fetishizes length above all other things, but honestly, nothing of worth is being lost here. Most of what was omitted were facile attempts to show how Bushido is a timeless and ahistorical concept and therefore no attempts at providing historical context are necessary. Nick Kapur (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE (December 30, 2009) - My rewrite was completely reverted in less than 24 hours with no attempt made to integrate my new contributions or even read the talk page and consider why I rewrote the article. I will try restoring my edit one time. After that, I wash my hands of this whole business. If Wikipedia is content to have an extremely lenghty, convoluted, and entirely unhelpful article stand as is with no historicization whatsoever, despite countless criticisms of the article on the talk page and talk page archive, than there's not much I can do about it as a single individual. But I'll ask, just one time - if my rewritten article is inadequate, add to it or improve it. Don't just revert to the old one - that one is far, far worse. It's not just about length people, it has to be about quality in the end. Nick Kapur (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't feel much need to go into extreme detail as to why this article needs to be rewritten." Well, you should. An editor with less than 50 edits over the course of four years should be much less ham-handed especially when there are numerous objections to your clunky edits. Please, wash your hands as you say, and be constructive. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 18:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bushidō → Bushido —

Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH - the English form of this word is Bushido, without the macron.

76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the entry in both M-W and AH is for the macronless spelling. Both dictionaries also have "Bogotá" rather than "Bogota", so it seems that so far for sources that recognize the use of diacritics in English in some cases but not others, it's 3-to-1 in favor of "bushido". --Atemperman (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Format edits, minor wording changes

  • Removed some self-important verbage used in quoting some of the sources ("a lifetime of research").
  • Added an "origins" section, and re-structured the information to not give the appearance that Wikipedia editors are having a public battle about how far back in history the term "bushido" can be traced. The evidence is presented, and a disclaimer is added at the bottom of the section, keeping the sources intact.
  • Fleshed out the "Wilson, 1982" reference, by researching an edition on Google scholar.
  • Added a source for the Nitobe Inazō quotes.
  • Found 2 additional pictures on Wikimedia commons to use in the article.
  • Removed the "all caps" table with excessive space.
  • Removed some excess verbage in the "see also" section, to create a 2 column table.
  • Added "main article" links to Bushido literature and Virtue. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Add

Added link in the See More section. I added Scout Law as it contains many common themes, not a lot really, but some. it gives another culture's perspective to the aricle and is a small link. Thought it might be good to have. Take it out as you wish. Thanks for the article! I really enjoyed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.172.42 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Scout Law has nothing to do with Bushido. I've reverted your addition. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chivalry?

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?

Missing Talk section

It seems that when this Talk page was last archived, a several-page chunk of it was inadvertedly deleted. Would someone be able to recover it and properly archive it? Cool. --DrHacky (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


SPANISH Legion

The article don´t say taht the spanish legion was founded by Millán Astray and their "Credo" was based in the Samurai's Bushido —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.148.27 (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


reference 25 "excerpt from Samurai: The World of the Warrior by Stephen Turnbull" links to a junk site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qube0 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Pernikoff

There appears to be no WikiPedia article on the book "Bushido" written by Alexandre Pernikoff (1943, Liveright Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA). Desertphile (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

I removed the etymology added by a user Parkmcgraw last September.[7] The edit only explained how the Chinese words 武, 士 and 道 were respectively derived from in China without any relation to the bushido. All the sources appended describe nothing about the bushido. Furthermore an irrelevant word 周髀 (Gnomon) is written as if it has anything to do with the bushido. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Charity" Principle

It seems to me that the best english translation to 仁　would be to Benevolence, and not charity, which is very different concept, but I am not an expert. Then it should point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren_(Confucianism) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.219.15.167 (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

First sentence: "is a Japanese a phrase". Wtf?

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bushido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fiction that is bushidō

It's remarkable how totally uncritical this article is of the near complete fiction that is the concept of "bushidō". This article should be rewritten from scratch, taking into account sources such as the following:

Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is a shit piece full of unreferenced and outright personal opinion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bushido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yagyu Jubei

is not only part of fiction but of history.--PadmaPhala (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bushido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell?: " Prisoners of war denied being mistreated and declared that they were being well-treated by virtue of bushidō generosity" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bushido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese war crime white washing

I don't see how the following sentence belongs in this article.

"Prisoners of war denied being mistreated and declared that they were being well-treated by virtue of bushidō generosity.[27] Broadcast interviews with prisoners were also described as being not propaganda but out of sympathy with the enemy, such sympathy as only bushidō could inspire.[28]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.91.147 (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment It doesn't. The previous version started the sentence off by "Denials of mistreatment of prisoners of war" which meant that Japanese war crime deniers declared that bushido code meant that Japanese prisoners were treated well. This post-edit sentence completely changes the meaning to prisoners themselves saying that they were treated well. The reference for that sentence says nothing of the sort. The sentence should start off with "Deniers of the mistreatment of prisoners of war" but my revision has been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heftystoragesolutions (talk • contribs) 16:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I have added some info, particularly in the Historical Development section. I have also provided sources to some statements that are labeled lacking citations. In my research, I found sources tracing the warrior code as early as the Kamakura period. Perhaps people who have more knowledge of this aspect could help clarify. Darwin Naz (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Bushidō" as historical fiction

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)[reply]


To add onto this:

Nitobe's work is generally accepted as historical fabrication within Japan. His writings have no basis in reality, with the writer himself believing he had invented the word "武士道" (bushido), due to a complete lack of research done on his part. His writings were criticised heavily by Inoue Tetsujiro, Uemura Masahisa, and Tsuda Sōkichi. All of whom were significantly more prominent historical writers at the time.

He states this in his own writings:

Inazō Nitobe. Bushido: The Soul of Japan "It is not a written code; at best it consists of a few maxims handed down from mouth to mouth or coming from the pen of some well-known warrior or savant."

He provides no evidence or supporting work to support this quote, and doubles down later in life. 

"Some thirty years ago, when I first wrote an essay on the moral code of the Japanese and called it“Bushido”, there was raised a question both in Japan and among some scholars abroad as to the legitimacy of such a term. They had heard of Shido or Budo but never of “Bushido”. Some of them went even further and doubted the existence of such a code. … But the more I think of it, the stronger grows my conviction that we have been under the sway of ideas and opinions unformulated but none the less potent, whose guiding principle was Honor. And as it came to existence during the days of feudalism, it partook the coloring and taste of the period. Since it was made a class morality of the knights, samurai, it laid particular stress on honor; and because it was primarily meant for observance by that class, we may call it Bushido, the Way of the Fighting Knights.”58

Ōta,Yūzō, Taiheiyō no hashi toshite no Nitobe Inazō, 20-21

Nitobe Inazō. Lectures on Japan, 124-125.

Oleg Benesch, Bushido : the creation of a martial ethic in late Meiji Japan

Oleg Benesch, Inventing the Way of the Samurai: Nationalism, Internationalism, and Bushido in Modern Japan, First edition

These assertiosn fall into direct conflict with the existence of the following works: 

Hishikawa Moronobu " kokon bushido ezukushi"  菱川師宣の「古今武士道絵つくし」（1684）

Ogyū Sorai "Sorai Sensei Tōmonsho"  荻生徂徠『徂来先生答問書』(1725)

「世上に武士道と申習し申候一筋、古之書に之れ有り候。君子の道にもかなひ、人を治むる道にも成り申すべきやの由、御尋ね候。」 

Constalation (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Types of Bushido

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)[reply]

Styling bushido consistently throughout

Looking through this article, I have found bushido spelled with and without the macron over the o, and both italicized and not, and both capitalized and not.

One of the tenets of good writing is consistent style; that is, except for direct quotations, bushido should be typed the same way every time. I suggest using "bushido" without the macron, in roman (non-italicized) type, and lower-cased.

In 2010, this article was moved from Bushidō to Bushido by community consensus. That is my justification for removing the macron in all references to the term. I think there is sufficient usage of lower-cased "bushido" in the sources used in this article to justify lower-casing it ourselves. However, whether it should be italicized is a closer call.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style instructs us to italicize romanized words that are not in common use in the English language. However, looking at our sources, it seems italicized as often as not, though whether those sources are authorities on whether a word is in common usage in the English language is a separate argument. I asked a linguist her opinion about the commonality of "bushido" and she said she thinks it is common enough in English to use roman type. I think it is common enough, but I know that society at large is not saying "bushido" every day. So I leave it up to community consensus.

Should we italicize bushido? I vote no. — JarmihiGOCE (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to style the term depends in part on how it's being used.
If it's being used as a Japanese term, then we should keep the macron and italicize. The first sentence in the article lede is one such example, and the caption on the image of the kanji spelling is another.
If it's being used as an English term, then we should lose the macron and not italicize, and also not capitalize. The running text in the Bushido#Origin section is one such example.
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Contemporary Bushido

Most of this entire article reads as deluded nationalism, but specifically the

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bushido&oldid=1050799972"