This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 134.174.169.43 (talk) at 20:48, 13 January 2010 (→Requested move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:48, 13 January 2010 by 134.174.169.43 (talk) (→Requested move)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bushido article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
Code of honor
I simply cannot believe this doesn't fall under a Code of Honor WikiProject... TREKphiler 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- "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)
Requested move
 | The request to rename this article to Bushido has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag. |
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)
- Comment: Britannica has it with the macro; the Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't. Both sources use diacritics in some cases but not others (cf. "Mexico" in Britannica and "Bogotá" in Columbia), and so are useful for adjudicating the matter at hand. Sources linked to in the references section, as far as I can tell, either strip diacritics indiscriminately or keep them for all Japanese words, and so are of no help.--Atemperman (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Except that this word is commonly used in fiction, where it is almost invariably written without a macron, such as in WWII fiction. A google book search shows the predominance of the macronless form. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: You should also move the archive of this page.--Oneiros (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Merriam-Webster and both the Random House and American Heritage dictionaries have the term coming from the Japanese "bushidō" with the macron. armagebedar (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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". --134.174.169.43 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Japan-related articles
- Mid-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- C-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- C-Class Martial arts articles
- Requested moves