Talk:Japanese sword/Archive 4

Significant shortening

I've moved most of the construction section to its own article. I've also cut rather a lot of detail in the Technique section which I didn't feel was appropriate in this article (as opposed to an article concentrating on swordplay). This has put the article back under 32k. I'm open to commentary on these edits. Chris Cunningham 10:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were katanas ever used?

The 'Use' section has sentence, that to me, seems a bit off: "During the Edo period samurai went about on foot unarmored, and with much less combat being fought on horseback in open battlefields the need for an effective close quarter weapon resulted in samurai being armed with daisho." During the Edo period there was no warfare in Japan, unless you count the Shimabara rebellion. And that was fought with guns. As I understood it, the katana was a mostly symbolic weapon, used rarely, in a duel or to kill an unarmed peasant. TRWBW 05:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few minor rebellions early on. There were minor skirmishes between daimyo, honor issues, 47 ronin type things, etc. Also, katana were typically left at the door when visiting or when at home, with just the sho being kept on one's person for protection. And bandits (and protection from them). Etc. jesup 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the katana saw extensive use during the Muromachi period as the primary close quarters weapon, during this time it may have been classified as a Uchigatana. Furthermore the early Eddo period saw significant conflict namely the Osaka-Natsuno-Jin war between Tokugawa Ieyasu and Toyotomi Hideyori. Some battles in this conflict such Battle of Sekigahara were very large in scale, comprising hundreds of thousands of men. Battle of Dōmyōji and The Siege of Osaka that brought the end of the conflict saw mostly close quarter combat, where of course the primary weapon would be the katana. However this was not the only conflict seen in that time even well into the Eddo period there were still circumstances that resulted in the use of the blade; throughout the Eddo period there was always a problem of banditry, and the political situation would often lead to honor duels between different samurai for various reasons. So in short yes the katana was indeed used in combat.Freepsbane 01:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

We're short of an intro image now due to it being removed. I moved most of the rest of the images into a gallery section because they were cluttering the construction section (now removed to its own article). This means we're somewhat uneven in our use of images. Should these be reintegrated? Should the construction / furnishing ones be moved to the other article? Could someone dig out some nice new ones? Chris Cunningham 10:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the Japanese editors of this article?

I don't see any Japanese people contributing, this article is biased towards the white man's viewpoint.

65.97.14.167 20:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising, since this is en.wikipedia.org, not jp.wikipedia.org. A Japanese editor would certainly be welcome, but note that merely copying information from the Japanese page into english will probably not produce a good english encyclopedia page - I'd assume there's too much hidden cultural assumption built into the japanese page, and english readers who don't have that need hooks to help them understand the issue, plus commentary on the intersection of katana with Europeans is relevant in the english version.

Note that a number of contributors here are either (American/etc) koryu students or collectors or both. Best of both worlds would be to get European collectors who live in Japan like Chris Bowen or Gordon Robeson to contribute, or fluent english-speaking Japanese polishers/collectors such as Kenji Mishina. Richard Stein's page is quite extensive and authoritative. jesup 21:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any specifics you think are biased and need correcting? TRWBW 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of direct translation... it's a bad idea. Seriously, it would create horrible grammar all over the place. All Your Base, anyone? --Luigifan 21:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korean influence

Although the japanese people refuse to acknowledge this fact, The single edged japanese sword has had much influence from the korean single edged sword, and that is why they have a striking resemblance, though the japanese version looks to me much more elaborate and beautiful.Odst 06:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure most of the swords in the world are single edged (unsigned anon-IP)

Many are, and many aren't. Many of the single-edged blades are for use from horseback (or descended from them), where thrusting is largely impractical. jesup 14:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korean sabers have had little to no influence on the katana beyond perhaps being developed from the same template of Tang Dynasty saber - if anything, the influence went the other way. Japanese swords were popular export items, and mainlanders were always happy to buy them and copy them. Anyone claiming that Korean swordsmanship had the slightest real influence on Japanese swordsmanship is pushing POV, and I would want to see rock-hard non-Korean sources for any assertions regarding it before allowing it into the article. Kensai Max 15:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its known that the first swords in Japan are the two that were sent as gifts to Himeko from China around 240. Following the delivery of those gifts, China began importing iron swords into Japan. Most historians think forging of the steel sword came around the same time from China and Korea. The specifics unfoturnately are not known, but the similarities with both Chinese and Korean early bladed weapons can see in the 5th century steel swords made in Japan, which were chokuto. I'd like to see rock hard evidenice of either. It IS known that metalurgy in both China and Korea up to the 5th century was far superior to that of Japan. --Evil.Merlin 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets

72.145.93.244 (I assume it's the same person as 72.145.144.46) is once again re-adding descriptions of someone firing bullets (Japanese TV show) at the edge of a katana, under Comparisons with swords of other cultures. See Talk:Katana/Archive_3#Bullets. From that user's response: "I vow to revert any removals. either way that video clip was from a notable jap tv show". If the youtube clip is almost certainly a copyright violation, and probably will get yanked (~30,000 Japanese TV videos have been pulled from youtube and/or challenged recently). More importantly, a katana locked in a stand causing bullets to split when they hit it edge on - while amusing (in an odd way), it has no relevance to an encyclopedia article on katana, and even less to "swords of other cultures". If someone wanted to create a Myths about Japanese Swords page, or something like that, it could go there. It does not belong in this article. jesup 14:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really much point in arguing with anonymous revertistas. They're rarely persistent enough that they win though, so an exponential backoff seems to lure them into leaving for long enough that they forget to come back. Speaking of which, time to revert all the policy violations on The Stone Roses (album) extlinks section again. Chris Cunningham 15:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following line is not only completely false, it is just plain silly.

...managed to withstand seven direct hits from an M2 machine gun and its .50 BMG armor-piercing bullets before shattering. In extreme slow-motion footage of this test, some bullets were cut perfectly in half as their path of motion was unchanged.

It is clear that the .50 BMG bullets are not being cut, rather they are eating away at the blade until one gets a dead-on hit which snaps the blade in half. Was the person who wrote that suggesting that the blade was harder and stronger than armor? All of this suggest that the person who added the section has lack of knowledge about swords, guns, and steel. Just silly! Ranp 18:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all in fact if you’ would have watched the video then you would have seen that at least 3 of the bullets are split clearly in half with the remainder of the bullets impacting directly, shattering into fragments, this is far better than any other metallic object would do, especially considering the fact that the muscle velocity of the M2 Browning machine gun is 3,050 feet per sec in other words close to one kilometer per second other objects including WW2 tanks have had holes punched through them by the same weapon, and no single infantry armor including type IV is rated to withstand a M2 shot. The total force of the impact should come at 13,000 foot-pound force, the sword’s durability is all the more surprising considering the fact it is repeatedly struck in the same area but withstands it untull it’s hamon is shatered. Well above any average piece of metal would have withstood. 68.211.220.26 17:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you know it is well above what an average piece of metal would do? Are other types of swords tested? What is there to say a well made butter knife wouldn't behave the same? Unless there is some comparative study, this stunt has no meaning, and should be deleted. Spejic 09:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The M2 was used in WW2 as an anti tank gun and is still used by helicopter gun ships aparently not even a foot thick steel plate will kep it cloear

I will continue to Revert your deletions166.102.231.101 17:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? It is still a totally meaningless comparison. The katana doesn't stop the bullet either. All it's doing is cutting the bullet into two. Show me that a katana does that better than any other similarly shaped piece of steel. Can't you see that the point about bullets is totally childish? Spejic 07:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, when discussing this subject, we must look primarily at the physics at hand. Unfortunately, I am not terribly skilled in physics, but simply, your comparison of the effects on a katana to the effects armour is really not very valid. There is no doubting that the M2 is a terrifying weapon, but the simply physics of the two comparison are flawed. When a round strikes armour, it expends the entirety of its energy into the broad side of a steel plate. This is much like someone punching through a (or several) wood board(s). The simple arrangement of the materials in different when striking the edge of a katana. That would be the same as trying to punch through a board standing upright, along the grain - something much more difficult to do. In order for the comparison to be similar to a bullet striking the plate armour, the test would have to have shot the bullet at the flat of the katana, not the blade. Similarly, in the test, the katana cut the bullet, meaning much of its energy was not expended into the blade - undoubtedly some of it was, but was the joule transfer the same as it would be on a blunt flat steel plate? I would think it would be considerably lower.

Now, this does not mean that the sword in question is not an exceptional blade - rather, I'm sure it was quite a capable weapon before it was ruined during the test. However, the "experiment" lacks both a control and scientific verifiability, as well as a suitable comparison to other objects. How would a simple razor blade fare? A nice chef's knife? A proper longsword reproduction? A cheaper stainless steel katana? An axe? A piece of tank armour plating turned sideways, giving the same relational physical properties as the katana? Basically, the experiment is a standalone test that has no repeated evidence outside that video (from my understanding, they did not test a variety of objects). Similarly, the comparison of a bullet striking tank armour and a sharpened blade is flawed. Also, it should be noted that, from all I have seen, in the serious sword collection, reproduction, and academic community, this video is treated as little more than a parlor trick. It seems generally agreed within these communities that it is very neat to watch, but that the test provides does not really provide any conclusive evidence. Together, I think, these objections make the video speculative at best, and not encyclopedic information.

If the same weapon firing the same batch number of bullets under similar atmospheric conditions was tested on other materials, a control, and other 'experimental' variables (other swords, razors, knives, steel plates with different rotations, etc) the test would become considerably more useful. However, in its current state, it pretty much only shows that a projectile can be split by a sharp stationary object - the same concept as dropping an orange on to a stationary knife blade. I think any serious scholars (as all that I know of do) discount this test because it is incomplete and shows no basis of comparison. - xiliquiern^talk 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit summaries have hinted at the use of partial protection or semi-protection for this article to prevent constant reverts of this section. Has action been taken to put this into motion? Is a vote required first? How does it work? - xiliquiern^talk 20:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now requested this. The procedure is discussed on Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Chris Cunningham 13:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Success. Not entirely happy with losing the benefit of constructive edits from anon users, but at least there should be less need to watch this for the time being. Chris Cunningham 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts. Looks like it has already been reverted. This seems to a nonsensical sticking point. - xiliquiern^talk 19:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Jacknicholson has already been found to be using SockPuppets which include the same list of IP addresses used in repeatedly inserting the bullets nonsense here. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jacknicholson. I think we may need to report the sockpuppetry and checkuser (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacknicholson again. jesup 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user continues to revert; note that the user has been found to use sockpuppet anon-IPs (the same ones used here) in the past; those IPs are frequently blocked for vandalism. Also note that at least one of the IPs used is a public-access IP used by a school district. Probably a HS computer lab. Oh, and it's more like the 20th time or more (considerably more). jesup 04:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a general nuisance to WP. Could someone do the needful and get it banned? Thanks. Chris Cunningham 16:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a request up in the vandalism department. We'll see what happens. - xiliquiern^talk 18:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the result: "blocked "Jacknicholson (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (continued disruption, sockpuppetry)". - xiliquiern^talk 19:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably took the right action in sprotecting the article, the constant editwaring of the article over a petty sentence was driving away contributors. Freepsbane 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nakago

The second pic's caption reads, in part, "The nakago are well visible." However, nakago is not defined or even mentioned in the body of the article, and the separate nakago article is about a manga/anime character. 69.80.171.124 23:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the visual glossary disappeared when the article was split up, and construction got its own page. Actually, there's a thought I've been entertaining for a while now: Would it be within reason to have an article dedicated to explaining Japanese blade terminology? A rather big glossary of sorts? CABAL 08:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say that belongs in the Construction article? For random pieces of terminology in here parentheses should do if the component doesn't warrant ints own explanatory article. Chris Cunningham 09:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

leaving out sword terminology, espeically for nihon-to, is a bad idea. Construction is one thing, but a katana NEEDS to be clearly defined, and all the parts from the kissaki to the nakago (of which swords only have one! maybe the OP was thinking of mekugi-ana?), the ha to the mune.--Evil.Merlin 04:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. Boshi, fukura, hamachi, hamon, hasaki, hiraji, iori, kami, kissaki, ko-shinogi, machi, mekugi ana, mitsukado, monouchi, mune, munemachi, munesaki, nakago, nakagojiri, oroshi, shinogi, shinogiji, toshin, yasurime, yokote. Should optional features like horimono and hi be included? CABAL 11:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piker - that's just a scratch on the surface of terminology! :-) Seriously - this page is an encyclopedia article on Katana, not a book on nihonto. We can explain (in english, in parens) where we need to here, and highlight the link to Stein's nihonto page for further glossary. We could add some of it to the contruction article. jesup 13:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a start Piker...--Evil.Merlin 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Hand Two Hand

The paragraph I deleted about european vs japanese technique would need WP:RS - it wasn't a neutral description of the differences; it was from the point of view of a japanese sword practitioner, and assumed things not in evidence. I believe such a paragraph could be written, but would require looking into (neutral) sources that compare the two. Otherwise, best to leave it out and avoid flamewars. jesup 22:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Paragraphs

"In time, the need to arm soldiers with swords was perceived again and over the decades at the beginning of the 20th century swordsmiths again found work. These swords, derisively called gunto, were often oil tempered or simply stamped out of steel and given a serial number rather than a chiseled signature. These often look like Western cavalry sabers rather than katana, although most are just like katana, with many mass-produced and in general slightly shorter than blades of the shintō and shinshintō periods."

This needs improvement.

1. Japanese soldiers were armed with swords and trained in their use continuously from 1868 to 1945 - the only "re-perception" involved was a realization that swordsmanship was still useful on the battlefield following the Seinan War against Saigo Takamori in 1877 and the subsequent creation of standardized military styles a la the Toyama-ryu.

2. "Gunto" is not a derigatory term, or at least has only acquired negative connotations among sword collectors over the last sixty years thanks to the relative low quality of mass-produced WWII swords. It means "military sword" - hence any sword a soldier carries is a gunto.

3. If my facts are correct, the only gunto given serial numbers were Type 95 NCO gunto, which were cheap crap probably meant more as a badge of rank than anything else. Officers universally used much better swords.

4. The saber-style of sword that is being referred to here is the kyu-gunto, which was the standard from the ~1870s up to 1934. These varied widely in quality and method of construction, from swords much like Western sabers to katana remounted with a lengthened saber hilt. They seem to have served adequately in Japan's wars during the period. Also, Japanese cavalry retained Western-style sabers even after the rest of the military had switched back to traditional mountings.

"Military swords hand made in the traditional way are often termed as gendaitō. The craft of making swords was kept alive through the efforts of a few individuals, notably Gassan Sadakazu and Gassan Sadakatsu who were employed as Imperial artisans. These smiths produced fine works that stand with the best of the older blades for the Emperor and other high ranking officials. The students of Gassan Sadakatsu went on to be designated Intangible Cultural Assets, "Living National Treasures," as they embodied knowledge that was considered to be fundamentally important to the Japanese identity. In 1934 the Japanese government issued a military specification for the shin gunto (new army sword), the first version of which was the Type 94 Katana, and many machine- and handcrafted swords used in World War II conformed to this and later shin gunto specifications."

This, again, needs improvement.

1. "Gendaito" refers to any sword made between 1877 and 1945, not just military swords.

2. Most military swords of WWII were of the later Type 98 pattern, which was the Type 94 redesigned with input from the Army. The Imperial Navy had their own pattern that more closely resembled the original Type 94 - you can tell it apart by its having two hanger rings instead of one. I've also heard a few rumors that there was some kind of hybrid design running around for the Special Naval Landing Forces, but that was probably more of a one-off variant than anything official.

Kensai Max 15:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gendaito and gunto have specific associations among english-speaking Japanese sword collectors and practitioners; I think those meanings also carry over into Japanese, but I can't say for sure. Gendaito - made after 1877 by (fairly) traditional means; gunto - made after 1877 by non-traditional means. In particular, gunto means not an "art" sword, but only a weapon.

Naval/marines swords also usually had two mekugi-ana.

Serial numbers were definitely only for NCO swords.

There were also western-style straight swords used by some diplomats.

Agree about perception; that gives a somewhat wrong impression. Another reason for a lack of swordsmiths is that there were a LOT of swords available "off-the-shelf". jesup 04:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the "cheap crap" association in Japan is with "Showa-to", swords made during the Showa Emperor's reign (the fellow we in the English-speaking world generally refer to as Hirohito). "Gendai-to" is a neutral term and is generally preferred for artistic swords made during the period. However, it is worth noting that formal sword-judging in Japan explicitly does not take into account the era in which a sword is made, and I've heard one anecdote of an American with a high-quality Showa-era sword throwing the rulebook at a dismissive Japanese appraiser and getting his initial judgement overturned.

Any negative connotations to the term "gunto" are strictly modern, however, and thus don't belong in the historical section. To be asininely precise, "gunto" actually refers to a sword's mounting style, anyways - a sword mounted as a Type 98 would have been referred to as a gunto by actual IJA personnel regardless of whether its blade was hammered out by Masamune in the Kamakura period or by some random swordsmith's apprentice in 1945. The difference between period and modern usage should probably be explained.

Furthermore, the paragraphs are just jumbled and grammatically bad and would need cleanup anyways. Kensai Max 00:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Factory Blades

A quick skim through the article revealed to me that it makes little mention of the large quantities of factory-produced katanas on the market nowadays, ranging from $20 joke swords to highly capable ~$2000 weapons. It's impossible to give a complete overview of the state of the craft in the modern day without mentioning the fairly recent rise of decent factory-produced blades priced within an ordinary person's finances and patience. Kensai Max 00:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. From my understanding, Katana and other japanese swords dominate the "wall-hanger" and "SLO" world of swords and, due to large martial arts interest, the martial purpose market as well. - xiliquiern ^Talk 03:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's a well-developed set of traditional smiths in Japan making shinsakuto. They're often considerably more expensive than average (or above-average) koto blades. jesup 05:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be why most people (looking for a blade that can actually cut) usually seem to end up getting one of the mass-production models made in either Europe or China. Point in case, Paul Chen Hanwei and Paul Cheness. CABAL 12:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken there are pretty strict limitations set on those who can make shinsakuto or "nihonto" including location (I think you have to live in Japan) materials, technique, time, etc. Again, most of this could be unfiltered "samurai are t3h great" stuff that filtered down to the production of modern "useable" swords in Japan. Just though I'd mention it though.-xiliquiern ^Talk 19:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(please sign) Smiths in Japan need to be licensed and do a long apprenticeship, and can only make a small number (around 1 katana/month, or 2? smaller blades). This effectively limits the number of smiths and increases the costs of blades. Young smiths have trouble making enough money to get by given the restrictions on amount produced. Many supplement by making small knives, etc. Non-japanese don't need a license, though it would be interesting to see if one would pass incoming police inspection to be brought into Japan. One non-Japanese was fully licensed; he moved to California and continued to experiment with making steel for blades (though I don't think he sold blades he made). Nobufusa(?). He was murdered a few years ago, however.

I'd be leary of putting non-traditional katana on here other than to discuss that many reproductions and forgeries are made currently, of varying quality. Most are for display only, and only a few are meant and built for actual cutting. Many fakes are sold as "antique" Japanese swords. jesup 19:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not in Japan you can do whatever you want. There are a few American smiths pounding out katana that can hold up to swords from Japan. I'm not sure what the status on getting sword papers to bring your weapon into Japan is, but I doubt you'd have trouble if you had a quality sword.

"Most" is not "all". There are a great many ultra-cheap display swords being cranked out yearly, but the vast majority of serious martial artists have neither the time nor the money to have something forged traditionally in Japan. If they have a lot of money, they either buy an antique or get something forged in America, and if they don't have a lot of money they buy a factory blade like one of the ones available from Bugei (particularly nice Hanwei blades) or the guys over at swordstore.com. I own one of Swordstore's iaito myself. There's nothing "non-traditional" about it besides the production methods and the zinc/aluminum blade for safer practice, but they also have steel cutting swords available.

These things work. The guys at Bugei use the swords they sell to do some of their 10+ mat cutting stunts with. Kensai Max 23:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True but Bugei uses methods similar to traditional Japanese forging so wouldn’t that place them in the Shinken category.Freepsbane 01:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marshalbannana

Reported. jesup 19:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

liar! you've shown no willingnes to compromise, or discus. - User:Marshalbannana

Actually, he left you a few notes on your talk page, one of which you responded to (in a crude manner) so I know you've seen them. I would think that such notes would be invitation enough for you, the individual inserting material considered to be unfit for the article, to bring it before discussion here on the talk page. Of course, it already has been discussed here, and has been found not suitable by consensus of editors. Please stop inserting it. - xiliquiern ^Talk 21:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. It's a shame to eliminate all of that intriguing information. I think that the more detailed version should stay; in other words, I happen to agree with that Army banana guy. If that information turns out to be false, please let me know, because, otherwise, I see no reason to keep it out. This unsigned comment was made by Luigifan

Your recent edit to the Katana article is somewhat questionable, as is its reasoning. The inclusion of the videos into the article does not add any 'encyclopaedic' information. It shows a single unsubstantiated and misconstrued experiment. You may see other information of the talk page of the article. I would ask you to retract that edit, as it has been discussed and ultimately found to be unsuitable, unscientific, uninformative, and unencyclopaedic. - xiliquiern ^Talk 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, where is that discussion? I'd like to see it before I accept the "proof." --Luigifan 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(And, yes, Xiliquiern, I did copy that comment you made from my talk page. --Luigifan 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion I referenced can be found on this page, under the subtitle "Bullets". - xiliquiern ^Talk 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

xiliquiern is right; I though Luigifan was referring to the warnings given Marshalbannana, as opposed to the discussion here about why this edit is inappropriate. jesup 22:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I have to say that Luigifan brought up some good points on this topic; there is no hard evidence connecting User:Marshalbannana and unless CheckUser says otherwise we should act in a less confrontational manner and assume good faith. As for the bullets I am going to have to jump-ship on my original position; the video while it does not show any comparisons with other blades (and as such does not truly belong in the comparison section) it is fully sourced and does clearly show the blades resilience. Perhaps modifying the paragraph and reinserting it in a more appropriate manner would be a good way to compromise and put an end to this relentless editwarring.Freepsbane 21:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luigifan: the discussion mentioned was on User talk:Marshalbannana. When the page was sprotected, Jacknicholson switched to his user account (the IPs used for edit-warring here were mostly the same ones used in Jacknicholson's previous sockpuppet case from a couple of months ago). When Jacknicholson got blocked, Marshalbannana shows up exactly 4 days after the request to block Jacknicholson was made (4 days is the minimum time for a new user before they can edit an sprotect page), and immediately started editing this article. His last re-insertion before reporting him was summarized as a minor edit: "m (sourced, looks better)", which does not appear to be a good-faith summary.
As for the bullets - unless there's some comparison to other objects, or unless cutting a stream of bullets was in some way an expected use of a katana, it doesn't even come close to be encyclopedic. Should we link to videos of watermelon cutting? (They exist. They're silly. They're just not relevant to an encyclopedia.) It's basically fanboy-ism. If a link to a video should be here, it should be to someone wielding a katana in tameshigiri or kata. I have video (copyrighted I'm afraid) of a tameshigiri competition with someone cutting 6, 8, even >10 rolled-up tatami in one cut. Now that is impressive and actually might show something useful to the reader of an encyclopedia. jesup 22:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although i do not have a video, i have been using a sword (practically, in martial arts) for some ten years now. I cannot make a video as i have no video camera, but i would be willing to do a simple kata as a kind of video stills section, where each picture shows each move of the kata. If i did this, i would be very happy to open source it, in the hope it would add to the article. If anyone would like that, could you please let me know on this discussion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.34.254.143 (talk)

Thanks, but kata video would be more appropriate for a martial-arts page than the katana page. The only video I could see linking to here would be some type of (real) cutting. jesup 16:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article no longer sprotected; anon-IP re-adding of the same edit has begun again. A search back shows that almost all anon-IP edits with this text are dynamic IPs owned by BellSouth and used for DSL, plus one or two from a frequently-blocked school IP addr. jesup 04:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

semiprotection re-requested. I hate persistent trolls. Chris Cunningham 11:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And granted. Assuming Marshalbannana doesn't back down it may be a good idea to bring attention to the sockpuppetry case. Chris Cunningham 15:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection requested until this is resolved. Bah. Chris Cunningham 12:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And granted. let's see if we can move somewhere with the user problem now, so we can get this thing rolling again ASAP. Chris Cunningham 14:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folded steel

I would like to ask if anyone has any evidence for folding decreasing the katana's strength. Although i agree that a weld creates a weak point in the metal, it only is weak if you either try to pull the layers apart or split it by going with the grain, both of which would never happen to a sword. Unless it specifically has a detrimental effect on the steel itself, i can see it benefiting the strength of the sword the same way the layers in ply wood make that far stronger than similar wood with no layers. Those of you who argue that wood and steel are very different, in this instant the same mathematical principle's are used to calculate the effect. If no evidence can be submitted, i feel it is necessary to change the language so that it is not denying a reputed positive effect, as there would be no evidence for this!

I think you must take into account what the article says. Too much folding can be a bad thing for the steel, just as too much of a good thing in almost every circumstance is a bad thing. Several smiths I've read discussing the technique have said that too much folding just becomes useless (diminishing returns) and increases the chance for error, incorporating air bubbles or working out all of the desired impurities (i.e. carbon) that benefit the weapon. I don't have any sort of published dialogue about this, however. Simply put: it was done the way it was done for a reason - that was the best they could do. If simply folding the steel more would have made a decidedly better or better steel, it would have been done. But really, it wasn't. There is little doubt that the folded steel production is very beneficial in some cases, such as working with historic Japanese ore quality. However, as the article says, over-processing it could serve to reduce the beneficial effect of the previous folds or weaken it. Someone with more metallurgical experience could probably explain this with more detail and clarity. -- xiliquiern ^Talk 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of book sources (and currently working smiths) that say that too much folding is bad. Probably the primary reason is increased loss of carbon, with secondary being loss of other alloying elements, and simple waste of time and steel. With each fold, the steel loses several percent (5?) of it's carbon, and also several percent of the steel. It also becomes more homogeneous, which is good because it starts out very heterogeneous. But at some point, it's homogeneous enough that additional folding doesn't help, and you keep losing carbon and steel and perhaps other elements. Air bubbles/bad welds/etc aren't as big an issue, since each fold makes any of them smaller or makes them go away - you reach a rough steady-state as far as that is concerned. Smiths can add carbon (to a degree) -- oroshigane, but it's mostly on the outside of the steel. It's used before making the initial billets on the little pieces of steel to adjust the initial carbon level of each billet, but it's not normally used to re-add carbon lost to too much folding. jesup 22:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a direct quote from the article

"the belief that the layered structure provides enhanced mechanical properties of the steel is false, as layers act as weld points which can only serve to weaken the integrity of the blade."

After this it goes on to say that continued folding is detrimental to the blade quality, which i agree is true as i have seen it written by experts and have seen the effects myself. But the one line is very misleading if that is all that it is saying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.34.254.143 (talk)

I'll try some alternative language after I do some (non-original :-)) research in my reference library. jesup 16:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folding of the steel (actually to be specific the tamahagane)was used ONLY to purify the steel (IE control the Carbon content). Yes, too many folds does actually make for a poor blade, as it has reduced the carbon content too much. Oroshigane is NOT a type of metal, it is the refining of tamahagane (IE adjusting the carbon content). With today's purer steels, it is not required to fold the steel to make an effective katana/waki/tanto etc. However most people who collect "art sword" are most assuredly looking for the look only hada can give. You know it's rather shocking to see the lack of knowledge on the subject around here, and the main article itself contains MANY innacuracies and outright myths... I won't even get into the almost total lack of terminology for the various subjects listed. For the most part a DECENT antique nihon-to will cost about $1000-$5000. I own several blades forged before 1400 AD, while some are not in perfect shape, others are, and have been papered. I've been studing the JSA Kenjutsu (Kashima Shin-ryu), Kendo and shodokan for nearly 20 years... And now we lock the topic due to a bunch of anime fools talking about M2's? Ugh--Evil.Merlin 06:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unhappy with the article being locked as well, but it's been an uphill struggle simply removing enough cruft to make this article workable so far. When the sockpuppet issue is finally sorted out it would be nice to have some immediate improvements ready. If there's any particular section you think could do with a rewrite, post the new version in here and we'll work to get it corrected as soon as the article is unprotected. Chris Cunningham 11:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will work up something over the next couple of days. --Evil.Merlin 19:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folding was not used "only" to control carbon content. Raw tamahagane is extremely heterogenous, and not just in carbon content, since it never fully melts. (You can examine or even sit on a huge block of it outside the NBTHK Japanese Sword Museum in Tokyo.) It's also full of inclusions and other impurities which get redistributed and/or eliminated by folding. In addition, folding reduces the grain size of the steel (up to a point), which supposedly has some benefit. You're right, I was using a bit of shorthand technically incorrectly with 'oroshigane'; that is a process, though I know multiple people (and perhaps some books) who use it as a noun (in english) to refer to steel that has been through the process (often when talking about WWII-era gendaito made without tamahagane). I agree completely that with modern steels, a smith would not need to fold the steel to produce a quite effective weapon; but producing an artwork would be another matter. My apologies for not getting to this section earlier, I've been busy trying to deal with our favorite bullet-cutter... jesup 20:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first line where I said purify the steel. Control carbon content was mentioned as it was the topic on hand. I have a lump of usable tamahagane sitting right here on my table as a paperweight. Technically folding wasn't used to reduce the grain size of the steel, that was the heating and the reheading of the "billet" during the folding process. So yeah, I guess in part, the folding or rather the heating and reheading used in the folding process was/is responsible for the grain size reduction. You should also note that tamahagane covers the full range of the steel from the first smelt when the tagahagane is little more than statetsu to the kera, to the first fold of the new blade. Also tagahagane is typically between .6% and 1.5% carbon. Most smiths today typically stick to the higher end if possible due to the lost of carbon during the folding process. I don't know where you got the info on loosing several percentage points of carbon per fold... with typical tagahamgane the loss is around .03% per fold... In all honesty there seems to be a good basis for a damn fine article for Wiki from the people posting in the discussion... The average nihon-to is folded 8-15 times--Evil.Merlin 02:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, I think folding (really the hammering out) reduces grain size, heating (from what I've read) increases grain size, with the amount of increase depending on the temperature and time it remains there. I'll have to review my library to verify the other info. I'll pull some of it up for doing ref's to as well. I have an entire bookcase devoted to nihonto and related subjects, including Nihon-to, the Japanese Sword, by Hakusui (tough to find; one of the first comprehensive books in english, though mostly surpassed now). As for carbon percentages - I think we're actually in agreement; I meant a few percent of the carbon, so a 0.03% loss per fold would be a roughly 3% loss of the carbon for a 1% carbon billet. My memory is that jacket steel tends to be 8-20 times, edge steel (if different than jacket) may be 10-20 times, and core steel 6-12 times (and lower carbon usually). jesup 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are most welcome. I too will have to double check, but I think with iron and steel that heating and cooling repeatedly, lowers the grain size. I'm not 100% sure but will check. Honestly the Japanese Sword by Hakusui was OK for its day (as you said), but since better access to nihon-to is now available, as well as better scientific research, its a bit dated. The good news is that a lot of the terms and definitions are very much valid. Two books I rather think are on the right path are those by Yoshindo Yoshihara, Leon Kapp, and Hiroko Kapp. They just released one on togi. Another good book is The Art of the Japanese Sword: As Taught by the Experts by Kunihira Kawachi. I'm a big fan of The Connoisseurs Book of Japanese Swords by Kokan Nagayama, which is the first real step to understanding nihon-to and making the next steps. Remember each school (Yamashiro-den, Yamoto-den, Bizen-den, Soshu-den and Mino-den are considered the "big" names in swordsmithing "schools", there were lots of schools within each) had very defined folding to produce the hada each was accustomed to. Heck look at the Tadayoshi school, they went a bit nuts with folding and the jigane is well inspiring to say the least.... ugh I could go on and on...--Evil.Merlin 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the re-write: I have found that if you cite sources as you go it makes the job a lot easier. And cite everything that you can - if it's used as a reference, include it. If the reference won't hold up to WP:V, then look for another reference before just submitting the text or even ask on here to see if someone happens to have small library on the matter. I'm not certain how this article made it to GA status with only 7 sources (1 about western swordsmanship), but I'd certainly like to see the next version (v3.0?) contain more citations. I don't mean this to be a slap on the wrist to any of you (I'm probably preaching to the choir), but I'd really like to see a proper well-sourced katana article. - xiliquiern ^Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got over 70 books in my nihon-to knowledge library. Siting resources is NOT going to be a problem...--Evil.Merlin 22:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that may have been the case. I wish I had the same sort of collection for the western swords - I'm working on it. You will undoubtedly be an excellent resource for this article in particular. Thanks for dropping in. -xiliquiern ^Talk 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything I can do to help!--Evil.Merlin 01:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was not my original request. It says that the folds are welds and therefore a weak point. However, with the physics involved, this staement is not relevant, as it would make it weaker if it were being pulled apart. I would hazard a guess that those who keep saying this are thinking the tensile strength of steel, not relevant to the swords strength at cutting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.34.254.143 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Working copy

I'm going to create a working copy for us to get ready for when the main page is unprotected or for an admin to swap in once we're ready for an update.

Here's the place to work on a new edit: Talk:Katana/Draft

jesup 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the 'Comparison to swords of other cultures' section: I think that this should be rewritten or at least heavily revised. It seems very broken and reads somewhat like an arguement: statement; rebuttal - statement; rebuttal - statement; rebuttal instead of an encyclopedic article: information; support - information; support - information; support. I don't think this section was meant to be an argument over which sword was better, or to contain "excuses" (they read a little like that to me) for why one could/n't do something that the other could/n't. What do you all think? --xiliquiern ^Talk 14:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it used to be worse than it is. But yes, it needs either rewritten or removed. The article on apples does not contain a section comparing them to oranges. Chris Cunningham 15:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to vote for removal. I had thought the same thing: if someone wants to know about western swords, they can go look at the western sword articles. - xiliquiern ^Talk 15:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but an section on McIntosh apples might compare them to Red Delicious. I think a very short section may be in order, especially since this is one of the most susceptible to POV insertion. jesup 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the Longsword section doesn't even mention Katanas. --Ratwar 23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I don't really think it should as the two evolved entirely independently of each other. I think the only reason it arose here is to address the sometimes greatly enhanced perception katana cutting ability, especially in relation to the "low-quality, heavy, and dull" european weapons. Instead of a comparison to european weapons, I would much prefer to see a section on katana capability stand on its own merit, without involving a comparison of the two. This would also be a great place to mention the tameshigiri and the "helmet-cutting" events. Or maybe a section on "Myths and Misconceptions" to dispell myths, but without involving the uninvolved European counterpart?. -xiliquiern ^Talk 01:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katana means sword?

As i recall katana is japanese for katana, and i read that the japanese for sword was ken. And i think i read something about there being a sword before the katana, which means that the word katana didn't exist when the sword before it was being used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.61.214.242 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

If I recall correctly: The kanji for 'sword' is 刀, read "ken". However, it could also have been meant "katana". Often times in Japanese a single kanji character can have multiple readings. For example: 月 means both 'moon' and 'month' and can be read "ge-tsu" or "tsu-ki". It is also possible that, as in Europe, the term 'sword' was sometimes used generically to refer to what we have more recently specifically named "longswords", "bastard-swords", and "greatswords". Someone more gifted than I in Japanese may be able to shed more light on this, but I think that's the situation. -xiliquiern ^Talk 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese has a variety of words for swords and blades, as does English: katana, ken, tachi, tsurugi are examples. More at wiktionary:katana. Katana is a kun'yomi (a native Japanese way of pronouncing a kanji) for the kanji 刀 (the same kanji has the on'yomi tō). In contrast, ken is an on'yomi (a way of reading a kanji based on a pronunciation that originated in China but has changed as time passed) for the kanji 剣 (the same kanji has the kun'yomi tsurugi). An umbrella term, tōkenrui (刀剣類), encompasses various kinds of swords, and an even broader term, hamono (刃物), means "things with blades" (ranging from fruit knives on up). Fg2 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very insightful! Thank you! -xiliquiern ^Talk 03:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient blades are categorized as jokoto, the precursor of the nihonto class and which predated the mid-Heian period (The jokoto era, so to speak). There were many types; for instance the chokuto which were straight-bodied blades over 60 cm in length. Although known nominally as tachi, they are written as 大刀 (literally 'big blade') and not the more familiar 太刀. Shorter variants are pronounced in the same manner but written using two different kanji notations. CABAL 12:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The generic term for sword is tsurugi. For example, western swords used in European fencing are generally called tsurugi (the Zelda franchise of computer games are called "Zeruda no tsurugi" in Japanese). Ken generally connotes a smaller blade, such as a dagger. A katana is a katana. If I had to translate it directly, I would probably call it a sabre, since a katana is essentially a cavalry sabre. This fact, along with the reality that samurai were horsemen who were loath to fight on foot is something that seems to have escaped this article somewhere.Mamuchanmai 12:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes its not like japanes people call a German broad sword a katana.