Talk:Manriki-gusari

I propose merging the entries on the following weapons:

---Manriki

---Manriki-gusari (or Manrikigusari)

---Kusari-fundo (or Kusarifundo)

and perhaps ---Surujin as well

=
==== I believe the Manriki and Manriki-gusari should be merged and the others should be related via See Also links at least, if not merged. The problem with merger is that there is an offense to each culture to have to refer to it by another culture's name. P.S. don't forget the Meteor Hammer. TonyTheTiger 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with mergers, and you can see it with Manriki, Manriki-gusari and Kusari-fundo is that details get omitted in order to simplify things. The Manriki-gusari, as was correctly pointed out when it had an article of it's own, at times had a knife attached to one end instead of a weight. Granted, the difference is small, but it's still enough to warrant putting in. Notice that the article now doesn't have it. If you merged Meteor Hammer as well, then details that are unique to that weapon would be removed. End of the day it's a Flail, object attached to flexible link attached to object. But there's still enough difference between them to warrant a very careful merger lest you mislead people. An example with Meteor Hammer is a practitioners ability to place a liquid fuel in the ends and light them, making for an extraordinary display of skill at night. You can't do that with a Manriki-gusari, but you can't stab someone with a Meteor Hammer


 * Simply calling them different names is bad enough, but removing details to make it fit is very, very bad.
 * It's not so much an offense btw, it's more.. Say your name is TonyTheTiger and I called you TCube, Tic for short. Or we call an M4 a Kalash. They're both guns, but they're both very different guns. Make a series of flexible weapons and put in Flail, Manriki-Gusari, Meteor Hammer, Linked Staff, etc, but don't put them on the same page. That way lies doctoring of information. Chrissd21 (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A chain weapon with a knife is not a manriki, manriki-gusari, or kusari fundo. It would have its own name and could simply have a section called "similar weapons" etc  or it could have its own article.  Read some of the books referenced in the article and you will see that there is no difference between the three common names used.  The use of three articles for what is really the same chain weapon with weights on each end was confusing and redundant.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of the books? There's only two cited, and conveniently, the pages needed to verify your point are unavailable in the links used. The former article cited a page where it said the manriki-gusari used either a weight or a knife at one end and a weight at the other. A while since I visited the page, but that's now missing. So was the other page a fraud or is this one? Chrissd21 (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue the point because quite frankly I've got better things to do than debate on a reference that's not even a legal reference in primary school. So here's my last comment.


 * "The Manrikigusari (万力鎖) or Kusarifundo is a traditional Japanese chain weapon with two steel-weights on the ends designed to strike, ensnare or trap an opponent. One tactic was to bunch the chain in a fist and fling one weighted end into the face, groin or solar plexus of an opponent, quickly and discreetly disabling or even killing them. Typical Manrikigusaris are approximately three feet long. These weapons are one of the traditional weapons of Ninjutsu. The manriki gusari could also be thrown before drawing another weapon, thus possibly confusing, or surprising your enemy. Many forms taught to hit directly with only one swing, so that your opponent would not expect the blow.


 * Additional applications include the composite use of a stabbing weapon ("spike and chain") in conjunction with the chain weapon. In this usage, the chain component is typically of longer length (circa 6-10 feet) weighted at both ends, either of which can be used individually or both of which may be applied simultaneously, when the user applies a center grip on the chain. When applied in conjunction with the spike (or knife, e.g., "tonfa") there is often applied a complex, circular, swinging/ensaring approach to the application of the weighted chain coupled with capturing and drawing the opponent into stabbing range. This composite use of "spike and chain" relies on the speed and reach (longer chain) to keep the opponent out of close range contact until either a controlling capture with the chain is accomplished or the opponent is disabled and, in either case, the spike (or knife) can then be applied to deliver a killing stroke. This application offers the advantage of highly concealable weapons of very different capacities that can be used against opponents at short and medium ranges. Its light weight allows ease of usage."


 * That's the entirety of the former article, now compare that to the Kusari fundo article. The person who "merged" them, took one picture book and rewrote the articles to fit into their definition. That's information manipulation and last I checked wasn't legal on wiki. I could be wrong, too much politics so I don't keep up to date with the latest bits and pieces but that's just how I see it. Chrissd21 (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There were no inline references on any of the 3 articles, the references that are there now can be verified by anyone who wants to obtain a copy of the reference, references do not necessarily have to have a link directly to a page to be a valid reference. The link can easily be removed leaving the reference information. Anyone can get a copy of the book that is used as a reference and verify or challenge the articles text. The book that is used as a reference is not a "picture book" by any means, it fits the criteria for being a valid reference. Taking information from a valid reference and validating or removing unreferenced text from an article is not validating a point of view, its the first step in fixing an unreferenced mess.

The articles were tagged with reference needed tags and no one bothered to add references. If you or anyone has a valid reference then by all means add any additional information that will help the article and add the reference or references. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)