Talk:Japanese sword/Archive 7

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sections to add

We need to add much more detail about katanas if this is to gain good article status again. I propose some additional sections

* Manufacturing of Katanas or Construction or How Katanas are Made
* Legalities (such as which countries prohibit use or ownership)
* Use in Martial Arts (e.g. training)

Drmadskills (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple other sections we should add

* History
* Legalities
* Anatomy

Drmadskills (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

History section needed

This article strongly needs a discussion of the history of the katana. I don't have the knowledge to do it myself. (The reason I came to this article was to get an overview of the history.) --JHP (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? Why are the katana article and the Japanese sword articles pointing to the same discussion page?! How do we specifically discuss the katana article? --JHP (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that. You can go to Talk:Katana to discuss whatever you want to discuss. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Domo Arigato Gozaimasu. --JHP (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you recent edits included changing the history section to katana, while it would be within the scope of this article, it seems like it fits into the Katana article as well. Would it be a good idea to duplicate some of that info to the katana article as a start of help improving it since it got little history section in it? MythSearcher^talk 09:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hadagane-Kawagane

The article makes reference to "hadagane" in the manufacturing section but I believe what is being referred to is actually called "kawagane." Is this a case of different terms used by different smiths? Or is this a misreading of the the characters? -Karl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.154.3.10 (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Lengths

Under Classification of Japanese swords, there is a list of different length spectrums. It is however rather unclear, as it isn't specified whether it is overall length or just blade length. Could someone please fix that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.29.142 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

折り重ねられた片刃の刀の技術が10世紀に中国からもたらされたという記述について

I am sorry, I write in Japanese. If Japanese can be read, Mr. Mythsearcher should be able to read my writing. If someone translates my sentence, I wish to express my gratitude.

日本美術刀剣保存協会のサイトには、「日本の10世紀以前の刀は上古刀（jokoto）と呼ばれ、中国から持ち込まれた直刀（chokuto）であった」と書いてあるだけです。折り重ねられて作られた鍛造の曲がった片刃の刀の出現は、10世紀前半の平将門と藤原純友の乱（承平・天慶の乱）以降であると書いてあります。このサイトには折り重ねられて作られた曲がった片刃の刀が中国の技術によりもたらされたとは書いてありません。日本人の間では常識の事実で、日本刀の技術は太刀（tachi）から現れたものです。--219.107.186.175 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not checking the source before reverting, you are right, the source did not mention about the folding technique. The source was included into the article by me a long time ago, and as I recall now, I did not mention anything about the folding technique at that time, someone else must have changed the sentence in between. I should look clearly before reverting. This is my fault. MythSearcher^talk 10:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Weight

I've added a fact tag to "The weight of a nihontō rarely exceeded 1 kg without the saya." Does anyone have a good reference for this? The only antique daito I've ever seen weighed came in at 1300g, and aluminum-bladed iaito regularly exceed 900g, so I'm suspicious of this figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronodm (talk • contribs) 12:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The average weight of a well-balenced and good sword is never heavier than three lbs, this allowed quick and precise movements for the wielder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.167.115 (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nodachi lenght

Quote: Nodachi: 80 to 90 cm End of quotation.

Isn`t the nodachi above 90 cm in all cases? From what I know, there isn`t a single sword, classified as a nodachi, that is under 91 cm. 80-90 cm is what most will call a Oukatana, or a bigger-than-usual katana, but still one. The nodachi is longer and thicker, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.255.81 (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be. The longest nodachi to date is over 300cm long. MythSearcher^talk 19:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Normal swrods carried by the samuraiwere about 40 inches in length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.167.115 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Origin of nihonto

User:Mythsearcher reverted my edit with an edit summary "if you cannot find an earlier dated use of the word, it is an etymology of the word. It is not nonsense but sourced quote of the early appearance of the word."[1] However what you can say from this source is "according to a Song Dynasty poet, swords which have different characteristics from Chinese swords existed at that time and the poet called them as nihonto (日本刀)". If you say from this primary source, "the word nihonto was originated in China", it is nothing other than your original research, unless secondary source written by etymologist says "the word nihonto is originated in China". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think it is not the etymology of the word, but you cannot find a source that predates it, you can feel free to change it to The word could be dated back to... instead of originated. Your removal of the source with excuses like unnecessary is simply removing legitimate sources without any reasonable rationale since the source showed actual history of the word. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 14:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide the reliable source which proves the poem 日本刀歌(The song of nihonto) is the oldest writing referring to nihonto? Then what is the next old writing? If the poem is a writing you happened to find by googling and you claim it the oldest one, such an original research should not be included in this article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is the oldest writing or not, it is a writing, and it is obviously the only source about the naming in an ancient enough time. It is notable enough to give the history about the naming. If you can find an older source, feel free to add it in, if you cannot, you can either leave it or change it to a less suggestive sentence that removes the originated part of it. Both the Japanese and Chinese article gives the poem credit and it is also historically significant to show an early foreign mention of the Japanese sword and making it notable and encyclopedic. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 15:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

an observation: "nihonto" is a japanese word; it is almost certainly native to the japanese language. assuming that the cited source is correct, & that the poem was in some dialect of chinese, then even if the combination of characters held the same meaning, the word they represented, spoken aloud, would almost certainly not have been "ni-hon-to"; unless it was a loan-word into chinese; which seems moderately unlikely. my best guess is that the intended reading (& meaning) of the characters would have been "japan-sword" (ignoring the semantic breakdown of "ni-hon" into component parts) in whatever language(s) the poem was being read/recited. Lx 121 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And I suppose you do not know Japanese and Chinese? The word nihonto is from the kanji characters 日本刀, in which it is the onyomi of the words, and is borrowed from the Chinese words. You can argue the translation should be The song of Japanese sword(s), yet nihonto itself is also a loan word in English and thus the translation is not incorrect, it is just not the transliteration on this occasion. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it reliable enough? Ja Encarta said the poem was the oldest writing. See this cached page . Oda Mari (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I-beam

On Ripley's believe it or not a samurai was able to slice through halve an I-beam, should we add this? -Babel ious 15:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any samurai anymore (outside of wannabes). Do you have a reference for this? I'm pretty skeptical about spring steel being able to slice through a real I-beam. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You need a source on this, cause it sound impossible (and is) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Ripley's believe it or not is a reliable source, althought it would be verifiable. MythSearcher^talk 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

actualy for the one who does not believe that a well made katana could cut through an I beam this is obvious fact. Part of the issue that created the unique style of the japanese sword is the dichotomous relationship between hardness (and therefore the sharpness of the cutting edge) and the flexibility, and therefore the resiliancy of the steel. The brilliant solution was to make only one side of the blade fully tempered and quenched, which allows the katana to be much sharper than any ordinary blade period, so much so that it will cut through regular steel. the reason it will do that is normaly, since one must balance the dichotomous relationship between hardness and fexibility (if its two hard it will be brittle, if it is too soft it will not be usefull) they are generaly somewhat softer than the steel can be, which means the katana edge, which is as sharp as it is possible to make steel (and if you made a western sword that hard it would be useless because it would break on contact with a target) it will naturaly be able to cleave through naturaly hardened steel (such as an I beam), which is one of the reasons why the samourai stopped using armor even without widespread use of guns. They were simply useless in face of the sharpness of the their swords. so no this does not at all surprise me. Ibeams are generaly extremely soft as far as iron goes, and certainly nowhere near the harness of a nihonto hammon.

that said, this article has some serious drawbacks. Unfortunately the sources I used were taken off the internet, so I can't source them, but it fails to mention things like the nagamaki (the origional horsemans weapon, consisting of a sword blade mounted on top of a polearm, used for mowing at oponents legs. the tachi was more of a side arm used in closer combat and while on foot.) also the shoto used by samourai up until the nobuchenko period were strictly tanto, the precessor to the wakizashi was not invented till then.

this article needs some serious attention. Yoni 74.128.36.101 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean naginata? MythSearcher^talk 19:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Nagamaki. a naginata is a proper spear, and made completely differently from nagamaki. A naginata is for infantry, Nagamaki is for horsemen. B Naginata is much thicker and spreaded, and generaly lacks a fuller, also it is much shorter, perhaps 12 inches. Nagamaki is shaped like japanses sword, with fuller at the base and closer to 2 1/2 feet. Also nakago of naginata is maybe 3 feet. Nakago of nagamaki is more like 7 inches. Yoni 74.128.36.101 (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but as I frequently refer people to the discussion section of wiki articles for a more complete impression of the quality of an article, I simply cannot let this stand, even if it is two years old. For one thing, the katana was not "fully treated and quenched on only one side", nor was any sword, and I challenge Yoni to explain how such a feat would even be physically possible, and how on earth this would be GOOD for the blade. I can only refer him to the wiki articles to read about how the differential heat treatment was actually done, and the effects it had.

Second, no sword - the katana included - could cut through I-beams. This has never been attempted by anyone with half a brain, much less documented. The closest thing we have is kabuto-wari, or "helmet splitting" - and here we have a record gash of four inches, give or take - no helmet has ever actually been split in these tests.

Third, the katana had absolutely no role in removing armour from the battlefield. This is a particularly odd claim, especially seeing as 1) the katana didn't have a prayer in actually cutting through armour, and 2) the katana was never the main hand-to-hand weapon on the Japanese battlefield - that would be the yari and the naginata.

All in all, everything Yoni has said about the katana is dead wrong. I'm sorry, but that's the truth of it, and people who peek in on this section need to know. --Tsuka (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

References for editors to read

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge: Katana → Japanese sword

Katana should be merged into Japanese sword.

In Japanese, nihonto refers to "Japanese sword," distinguished from katana, the generic Japanese term for "sword." Brought over to English, "katana" no longer is a generic term but refers to Japanese swords. Logic dictates that they refer to the same thing and should be merged. Also of note is that the interwiki links in both articles point to the same ja:日本刀 article. The nihontō - katana merger has already been proposed and performed once[2]. —Tokek (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, katana is a type of sword, not a catch-all word for all swords.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering if you will be making any statements to support your position or to address any of the specific points of concerns that I've raised. Yes, it is true that there is more detail to the definition. According to one Wiktionary definition, it is simply defined as "sword," but of course that is flawed. A more accurate Wiktionary definition here points out that it is single bladed. The reason why katana, in English Wikipedia, doesn't redirect to backsword is because there is a sense that in English, the term takes on a different meaning. To that extent the accuracy of that specific portion of what I initially wrote is irrelevant to the overall argument for a merge. —Tokek (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite right. We don't redirect "katana" to "backsword" not because the word necessarily has a different meaning in and of itself, but because, when we look at it from the perspective of an expert on sword-smithing, "katana" refers is a specific type of backsword. However, the type of sword that "katana" is used to refer to is not by any means the only Japanese sword of interest to us; certainly, both pre-katana styles (e.g. chokutō) and non-"sword" styles (e.g. naginata) require coverage, even if we do not classify katana-like swords further (e.g. separating out the kodachi as a distinct style, etc.).

From an organizational standpoint, however, I think there's a valid argument to be made for some sort of merger; most of the material currently in the katana article is equally applicable to all the later nihontō. Perhaps we ought to collect all of the general material (on forging, mounting, etc.) in this article, and then create a List of Japanese sword types or something along those lines to use as a merge target for the (relatively short) specifics on each individual type. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

oppose; a katana is a specific sub-type of japanese sword, & this article is already quite long. it properly covers the general topic, & the discussion of katanas specifically should be in a separate article, as should discussion of other specific types of blade. there is no way to fit all of that material into this article, without either deleting a great deal of useful information, or make the article here extremely bloated. we might consider improving the name of this article though? "japanese sword" is awkward & nihonto refers specifically to traditional japanese sword-making, or at least strongly implies that as the intended meaning. Lx 121 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

agree with that, "japanese sword" comes as a literal translation from "nihon-to" which is the Japanese term in use. Nihonto embraces several types of swords (tachi, nodachi, kodachi, handachi, katana, wakizashi, ken, katate-uchi) and casually encompasses and overlaps into knives (tanto, and a class of large tanto that go into wakizashi length, sunnobi tanto) as well as polearms (naginata, yari and their various subtypes). Blurring lines even further, a tachi can be shortened and used as a katana, and a naginata into a naginata naoshi by shortening and some reshaping, which is then used as a sword. Katana is thus not synonymous with Japanese Sword, if anything is a subtype and a subsection, and since the subsection would be suitably large to make its own article, the current structure is probably the ideal one for expressing things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.46.23 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Saburabi sword

Japan's 1st monarch was from Baekje a Korean nation and Koreans still called Japan Wae Nara (water nation) and not Japan a colony of Baekje. During the three Kingdoms era when Shilla bribed the Tang Dynasty to overthrow Koguryo and thus unifying Korea. Remnants of Koguryo unified to become Balhae which is in present day North East China(Yenbien)/Russia(Vladistovok) See^^ and Baek je which comprised the other Kingdom which is presently in the southern west part of the Korean peninsula were forced to leave Korea by Shilla-Tang forces and intergrate with Wae Nara (Japan). Even during this period Koreans called it the Il-Baekje Shide which means Japan-Baekje Period which was prefeudal era Japan introducing many new technologies such as metallurgy, pottery, textile making, and Korean cuisine to the less developed Japan advancing their culture to the modern Japan you see today. Including the "Saburabi" which was a Baekje Sword and sounds a lot like samurai, it was curved but less than the Samurai Sword you see today with the exception that it had no guard. Korean swords did not have a guard because the psychology was suicidal. It is a kill or be killed mentality because without a guard you must pierce(direct attack) as opposed to slashing(evade attack). Nevertheless the codes of the samurai are founded on Baekje martial arts principles. And the samurai sword is a later model to the "Saburabi" and the baek je sword is the true origin of the Japanese samurai sword. It is not only just a sword but the technology, philosophy, and psychology of Korean martial arts that would give birth to the most decorated and symbolic era of Japan that the world has come to acknowledge all originated from Baekje Culture which was a Korean dynasty that branched out from Koguryo. The founder of Koguryo was Jumong and one of his sons later founded Baekje. Koguryo became advanced in metal work and it was at this time that they leveled up to the iron stage when China still lingered at the copper stage. This and many other reasons powered up Koguryo as a territorial kingdom thus reposessesing much of the land China took back earlier and destroying the four commanderies to further increase Koguryo's territory. China denies Koguryo's presence and existence in the region for obvious reasons and they have taken measures to eliminate evidence, however, through websites like wikipedia any reader in the world can light the truth in the darkness. Anyways, Jumong's son early interest and devotion to metal work aided him in advancements in this technology and established Baekje as a regional military power to the south of Koguryo(present day North East China) and west of Shilla(South-Eastern half of Korean peninsula). The capital of Baekje was called "sabi" and sword was called "saburabi" and as you can see the code of martial arts is very much inherent in the culture through the words being utilized. And as stated earlier "samurai" is almost identical to "saburabi" only it was adopted and reworded into japanese text hundreds of years later to resemble that particular style of warfare. Back to the main point, through these examples when stating present day borders with their significant geographical locations we can clearly see that it is easier for the present day reader to visualize and understand it in the present day context and most of all it is proper because Jilin province in China is not under Korean rule by imperial Koguryo. -[comment by User:Koguryo18 moved here from another page, where it was posted 22:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)]

You, sir, are delusional. What a crock of sh*t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.107.243.159 (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Naginata

I removed all mention of naginata as being a Japanese sword, but 12.208.109.2 seems to insist it is. Thus it is clear that this issue needs to be discussed.
My case for why the naginata isn't a sword:

It is a polearm. A polearm is not a sword.
Naginata blades are never hilted as swords, nor do any swords have any blade that is remotely similar to it.
Glaives, Voulges and other similar polearms, are not swords. Yet they are almost identical to naginata.

12.208.109.2 has argued that an image on this article lists naginata as a Japanese sword (I have since edited the image text, to replace the word "sword", with "blade"). This is a misunderstandings of language, IMO. Naginata are an example of a "nihontō", but it is not a "Japanese sword". You may thing that "nihontō"="Japanese sword", but that is not the case. Tō (刀) is often used to mean sword, and is generally translated as such ...but while it is more common to use that meaning, in modern times, it is not the only meaning. Especially in the past, and for old terms "tō" more accurately means "blade" (generally a one edged blade). A swords is a sub-type of blade. All swords are blades, but there are many blades that aren't swords. Thus "Tō" is used for a multitude of non-sword blades. Here are a few examples:

Razor (剃刀, kamisori)
Tantō (短刀)
Scissors (剪刀, hasami/sentō)
Butcher's knife/chef's knife (牛刀, gyūtō)
Carving with a knife (小刀細工, kogatanazaiku)[1]

I could go on. Please note, also, that I have only included words that are still used (As I've explained, in the past "Tō" was even more commonly used, for non-sword blades).
Thus a naginata is a nihontō, but that merely means that it is a Japanese blade, not sword. This article is about Japanese swords, not nihontō. Thus naginata should not be included.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Zarlan, you do know that "nihinto" is redirected to this article, and that the image did specifically show a naginata as being a type of Japanese sword before you changed to description of the image, so the edit which added the naginata to the list of Japanese swords was appropriate. All of the books that I have seen that are specifically about Japanese swords always include naginata, what exactly is classified as a "Japanese sword" is a grey line and it depends on who you talk to. Japanese sword collectors from what I see seem to classify naginata as sword blades mounted in a pole instead of a tsuka. I think a good compromise would be to add an additional section directly below the "Types" section, maybe "Related types of Japanese blades" or something similar which would include naginata and yari. Other wise someone could conceivably create a "Nihonto" article to include all traditionally made Japanese bladed weapons and not just what some people think of as being a sword.2A00:8C40:40:0:0:0:70E9:7B27 (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Nihontou redirect here, true. The image did not show naginata as being a Japanese sword. If it did, any change I made to the description wouldn't change that. It was the description of the image, which declared it to be a Japanese sword. Wrongly. It is a nihontou (Japanese blade), a tou (one edged blade), but not a sword. All of the books that you have seen that are specifically about Japanese swords always include naginata ...because their sources are Japanese craftsmen, martial artists, smiths and academics, as well as Japanese books. All these speak of "nihontou", rather than "Japanese swords". Thus, due to thinking of tou as meaning sword, they mistakenly mix up the two concepts of nihontou and Japanese sword. It's a problem of mistaken translation. Naginata are not sword blades. If they were, then you would be able to see the same (or at least similar) blades in sword hilts ...and you never do.

Your suggested compromise sounds rather good, however. Very good indeed.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea as well, why not implement it and see what happens.70.164.32.72 (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Done.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Production Periods Spam Across Japanese Sword Types Cat

The phrase "The production of swords in Japan is divided into specific time periods: ... " has been spammed onto a lot of other pages in category:Japanese sword types (eg katana, Tantō) where it does not appear to be particularly relevant or appropriate (ie, those articles immediately reference time periods that are not in the list). The tachi page does refer to the Koto period, but it doesn't really seem relevant to give the entire list when only one is being contextually referenced. Is there any particular reason why it has been copied there (without resorting to wikiblame for summaries)? Why is it not being transcluded from somewhere rather than copied-and-pasted? Thanks in advance, Techhead7890 (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)