Talk:Gendai budō

Teaching methods
I'm led to wonder how accurate this is. I've heard it claimed that the opposite is, in a way, true: that koryu is more about individual instruction, as opposed to the large-scale class instruction that is common in gendai budo. --GenkiNeko 04:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style - Japan
Peter made some formatting changes that I'd like to change back so that the article will be consistent with WP:MOS-JP, but wanted to post them here so we can discuss it first.

1. There is a list of martial arts styles under the heading "Scope and Tradition" that include
 * aikido
 * judo
 * jukendō
 * iaidō
 * karate
 * kendo
 * kyudō
 * naginatajutsu
 * shorinji kempo

Accoding to the manual of style, all non-loanwords should be italicized. Now, I can accept that aikido, judo, karate, and kendo are all loanwords, but would argue that all of the rest of the above should be italizized.

2. (Still under the heading "Scope and Tradition") According to the manual of style, Japanese born prior to the first year of Meiji (1868), should be written with their family name first. As such (because he was born in 1860), it should be "Kanō Jigorō", and not "Jigorō Kanō."

Well with respect to 1 - if it is linked no need for italics (suspenders and belt) and 2 - Jigaro Kano is known for what he did in the modern era - the name is consistent with the Judo and biogrphical articles.Peter Rehse 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While I respect the logic of your response, Peter, I still must object on the basis of the WP:MOS and WP:MOS-JP. It just seems to me that there isn't much point to having manuals of style or guidelines if we're not going to make some attempt to follow them.  In this case, the WP:MOS makes no exception for foreign words used in the body of the article that also happen to be internal links.  See WP:MOS.  They should be italicized regardless.  As far as Kano's name, the WP:MOS-JP makes the rule as simple as their birthdate.  That the judo and Jigoro Kano articles deviate from this means that those articles should be changed.  Further, (as a purely intuitive argument), I think that Kano could fairly be called a "historical figure", despite the dates of his historical accomplishments.  For example, I think many people might consider Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965) a historical figure, despite his even more recent birth and activities than Kano.  All that said, this is merely my opinion on how the manuals should be implemented (i.e., fairly strictly unless there is a compelling and non-arbitrary reason not to), and as always, welcome further debate on the subject. Bradford44 17:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I've reverted this article - I'll keep it in mind when checking others.Peter Rehse 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sumo is indeed a gendai budo.
The Japanese usually consider nine specified arts gendai budo, those that are members of Nippon Budo Kyogikai. Sumo is one of these nine. I don't find a reference atm and so I don't change in the article, but compare what it says in the article sumo: "The Japanese consider sumo a gendai budō (a modern Japanese martial art), though the sport has a history spanning many centuries." Considering sumo a gendai budo is hardly wrong. Rather, we should understand that the concept was coined at a specific time and to the Japanese reflects the "modern" arts of the time, i.e. those that don't belong to the old samurai warrior culture. Compare the concept "modernism" in arts etc. // habj (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section
I think the reference for the Criticism section is terrible: "Critics believed that something had been lost in classical budo, that reliance on kata and repetitive practice in training produced shallow technique."

The author of this reference seems unfamiliar with koryu: for example, Kashima Shin-ryū and Shindō Musō-ryū both use kata and kihon as their primary training.

I propose to eliminate the entire Criticism section. jmcw (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed User5802 (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Judo a martial art?
I edited the beginning paragraph as I believe Judo is not a martial art. Judo was developed for physical fitness from jujitsu but made 'safe'. Would welcome discussion.

Merger from Shinbudo as per AfD
I looked and could find nothing from Shinbudo that enhances and can be merged into this article. Any difference seems to support a particular WP:POV. I will leave this a couple of days but suggest a simple Redirect.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)