Jump to content

Talk:Bō

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Undue Precision

[edit]

As the article also states, the traditional length of a bō is 6 shaku, while a jō is typically 4 shaku. Giving measurements to the millimeter (1.818m/1.212m) in the lede/image seems pointless from a historical perspective. The article makes no clarification that these standards were ever sufficiently rigorous to warrant millimeter-precision conversions. MOS:CONVERSIONS --Vilding1 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty elevenths of a metre?! What the actual hell?! That's ridiculous. Gregory j (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"These were hard to make and were often unreliable." -- Making a staff is not hard. EdPeggJr (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added History

[edit]

When I tested for my black belt in kobudo (martial arts weaponry), I was required to write a research paper on a topic of my choice. I chose to do extensive research and write about the rokushakubo, or bo staff. When I went to look at this Wikipedia article, I saw that there was very little information about the bo, and that the article had no references whatsoever. I want to contribute some of the research that I found while providing many of the resources I had so that people have a more complete understanding of the bo staff, including bo staff technique and the bo's origins. More information such as internal linking to other Wikipedia articles could be added in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alissab09 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can help with this, I remember reading somewhere that bo and sai where the two main weapons used by the policing class, bo by lower level sai by a higher level (more expensive). THis is why bo and sai make up the majority of the kata that date back any length of time, "civilian" weapons where not as structured in there training. Buggered if I can remember where though or much details. Canadian Ninja 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia (pop culture)

[edit]

I have moved the trivial list of fictional bo references here per WP:TRIV. The mere fact that "random character from obscure anime uses a bo" is arguably not interesting, and definitely not notable. Unless these references actually enhance the readers understanding of the history or function of the bo itself, they belong in the article for the referenced piece of fiction or trivia, not here. Bradford44 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Surely the use of the bō by Donatello is sufficiently notable to warrant mention in the article. The page for the guideline you cite says: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.114.72 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All Staff Articles?

[edit]

There may be numerous names for a long stick but regardless, it's still a long stick. So, I suggest all the staff articles be merged into one article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C5%8D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_%28staff%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%8D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staff_%28stick%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarterstaff

MastaFighta (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose They have distinctly different fighting styles, histories and etymologies associated with them. Merging all of the pertinent information would create an unwieldy article, that either went into unnecessary detail about differences between the two or completely lacked any real detail. Additionally, there are many more articles that would be merged under your proposal. See Stick fighting#See also. There is no way to merge that content into a single article and not screw the entire thing up. EvilCouch (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why? Bad, bad idea. They are different weapons with different styles of fighting , a group article call Staff weapons (if it isnt' already a Stargate one) could be usefull to summarise the types and link but a merge wouldn't work. For example the Gun and Bo are different in that the gun was commonly more flexible and made of wax wood, where as the bo is oak and rigid. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why? Because "bō" just means "stick," dudes. As proof: The Japanese article linked to here has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. There is no Japanese article for "bō", because a "bō" is just a stick. It's not the name of a particular kind of Japanese weapon. "Bōjutsu", on the other hand, is a method of fighting with a stick or staff--of any kind. This article seems to have been created and sustained by people who are into the whole "mystical Oriental martial arts" thing, but don't actually know anything about Japan or Japanese. Since the Japanese article linked to is about an obscure genre of Japanese storytelling, and has nothing to do with the martial arts whatsoever, I am removing the link. This is an article about an imaginary weapon. It should not exist. The article on bōjutsu should suffice. Matt Thorn (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Actually a jo is a shorter stick... this is like saying merge all the car articles because they are all just vehicles, plain daft. Yes they are all related & should be cross linked accordingly. It would take no account of the differences in use or specifics such as the materials, flexibility or shape of the different staffs (. A parent 'Staff weapons' article (not Stargate) that contrasts them could be of benefit but merging them will necessitate information loss to make a sensible sized article. --Natet/c 07:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that if you are really interested in the subject of Bō and related weapons you should do some reading on the subject before editing, I see almost no inline references added to this article which means that the people who are adding information to this article are not following the proper procedures of wiki. How can anyone trust the information of an article if they can not look up the reference and see for themselves if the facts are true or not? I have listed some references, please learn something about the subject you are editing and post usable references to the information you are adding to this article. Reading some or all of the references will answer most or all of the questions being raised in this discussion.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 08:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pvc

[edit]

Ive seen people use pvc to make bo staffs; if i could get a source for it could it be a feasible idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.14.63 (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Home Depot 73.223.76.117 (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References for editors to read

[edit]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuraiantiqueworld (talk • contribs) 07:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent histories

[edit]

This article's history section seems to be inconsistent with the history section on Okinawan kobudō#History, regarding whether or not the use of the weapon arose due to weapons restrictions placed on peasants by the samurai. Both assertions are unfortunately unsourced.

208.190.202.32 (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture used for Bo and Jo staves

[edit]

This image is used twice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_bo.JPG Is used on this page to describe a Bo staff, and is also used on the Jo staff page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_(weapon)). It's actually a cropped version of the image used here but is clearly taken from the same image. 27.33.230.172 (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)LogiC[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bō. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous wording about commonness of the staff woods

[edit]

This sentence sounded ambiguous to me:

"The bō is usually made with hard wood or a flexible wood, such as red or white oak, although bamboo and pine wood have been used, more common still is rattan wood for its flexibility."

What are we actually saying is the most common staff wood here? Rattan? Or oak? If it's oak then I think we should use a full stop or a semicolon after "oak" instead of a comma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.50.146 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed pop culture section

[edit]

I am one who thinks an article can have a decent pop-cult/in fiction or whatever section. But.

First, completely unsourced. Now, if there are reliable sources on the topic of bo that bothers to mention something about pop-cult/fiction, those could be used for an ok-ish section. Need not be a list, could be something like "...is often seen in martial art and action films and comics, such as x, y and z." The End.

Second, IMO the topic makes a pop-cult section a bad match, it's to basic/big. It's like having a pop-cult section in katana, gladius or Volvo, there's too much for editors to pick their favorites from. Again, a good book about Bo that mentions pop-cult could be used, but are there any? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bō&oldid=1246145267"