Talk:Tessenjutsu

The warning that was previously placed here about the this art being fictitious has been removed. Simply because a term doesn't show in a dictionary, doesn't mean it's not real. Anyway, searching for tassenjutsu gives plenty of results and a few books, which assures that this is not a fictional martial art, even though it may be in decline.

"SECRETS OF THE SAMURAI" IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. NOR ARE POSTINGS TO DISCUSSON GROUPS AND WEB PAGES BY REENACTORS WHO ARE ATTEMPTING TO USE TESSENJUTSU TO JUSTIFY USING SHIELDS AS JAPANESE REENACTORS IN SIMULATED ARMORED COMBAT.

A -JUTSU NOT APPEARING IN DAIJIRIN IS PRETTY MUCH EQUIVALENT TO THE GATLING GUN NOT APPEARING IN WEBSTERS UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY. DAIJIRIN IS AN OVERSIZED, SMALL PRINT, 2000+ PAGE JAPANESE-JAPANESE DICTIONARY PUBLISHED BY SANSEIDO WHICH IS A MAJOR PUBLISHER OF JAPANESE SCHOLARLY MATERIALS AND REFERENCE WORKS.

FURTHER, A SEARCH FOR TESSENJUTSU USING EITHER KANA OR KANJI AT www.google.co.jp FAILS TO FIND ANY REFERENCES TO TESSENJUTSU APPEARING ON WEB SITES MAINTAINED BY ACADEMIC OR SCHOLARLY ORGANIZATIONS!! FOR THAT MATTER, I DIDN"T EVEN NOTICE ONE ORIGINATING WITH BUDOKAN!!!

FINALLY. THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF A SINGLE DICTIONARY. "TESSENJUTSU" DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE FOLLOWING KOGOJITEN (DICTIONARIES OF ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL JAPANESE): :

Shinsen Kogojiten ISBN: 4-09-501503-9

Kodansha Kogojiten ISBN: 4-06-121009-2

Zenyaku Dokkai Kogojiten ISBN: 4-385-13343-3

Kogorin ISBN: 4-469-02115-6 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrNostrand (talk • contribs).


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Tessenjutsu (鉄扇術) is mentioned on ja: briefly at 武芸一覧.  The short description there is consistent with the article here.  There is also at least one book available listed at Amazon Japan and Kinokuniya, ISBN:480690239X, with the term on the cover that appears to be consistent with the article.  I've never heard of it before, but I'm willing to believe in its existence.  Reading WP:AFD or WP:HOAX would be a better way of dealing with the problem than vandalizing the article.  Thanks! skip (t / c) 06:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)