Talk:Jutsu

Naruto jutsu

So it's perfectly okay for the non-Naruto Ninjutsu and Taijutsu to have their own articles, while Jutsu is a redirect to the Naruto jutsu? --Alexie 03:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Convert to redirect

As it currently appears, the article contains only impermissible content. The list of links violates WP:DAB#Lists, and once the list is removed, the dictionary definition violates WP:NOT#DICT. Only the English dubbed version of Naruto uses the term "jutsu" as a noun or stand-alone term, it is usually only used the suffix for other words. Because it means "practical art" (or something like that), an article could be written about the "Practical arts of Japan", but that might be too broad (lots of things unrelated to martial arts also use the suffix jutsu) - members of such a class should probably each have their own article, and at any rate such an article should not be titled "Jutsu", but should have an English title, such as "Practical arts of Japan", per WP:Use English. I've preserved the page's former text below:

"{{wiktionary|術}} '''Jutsu''' is the Japanese term for "technique, method, skill". In martial arts, a "jutsu" differs from a "do" (as in [[jujutsu]]/[[judo]]) in that the former is a fighting method unrelated to sport competition, while the latter relates to the sport aspect of the art. *[[Kenjutsu]] *[[Battojutsu]] *[[Jujutsu]] *[[Ninjutsu]] *[[Taijutsu]] *see [[Jutsu (Naruto)]] for usage of the term in the ''[[Naruto]]'' series {{disambig}} [[pl:Jutsu]] " Bradford44 14:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I object per our "use common sense" policy. --dab (𒁳) 16:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, and stand by my earlier assertions. Therefore, it seems to me that the most sensible course is to AfD the article, and allow uninvolved editors to give their opinions. Bradford44 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Unref tag

Just a note in response to the hidden comment on the main page; The article had been signifinactly changed since the additon of the template... --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"no consensus"

An edit conflict hindered my addition of this comment to the AfD:

• Questions/comments. But first a preamble. As I've said, I think the article is very dodgy. As I haven't said, I strongly disagree with the "Similar crap exists" argument for "keep". So, now that's out of the way: What do you people think of this lot? Are they unencyclopedic too, or are they OK because they're English? ¶ What does really puzzle me is the tolerance for stuff like "Jutsu (Naruto)", a hybrid between (a) prolix lexicography about terms in some fictional language, and (b) "in-universe" trivia/fancruft material. Should en:WP be so much more concerned with the language of a few fictional Japanese people than with that of millions of real Japanese people? -- ~~~~

And then it turned out that the other edit was the non-conclusion of the AfD.

(What a boring outcome. I'd hoped for an elegantly and persuasively argued conclusion, one way or another.) -- Hoary 14:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Notes, legibility of

This article has notes via <references />. These are easier to read than the same thing in the miniaturizing template. There's little chance that they'll be misread as something other than notes, because (i) they are numbered, (ii) their content is the kind of thing that's typical for notes, and (iii) they're under the heading "Notes". -- Hoary 07:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability / dicdef

It's claimed that jutsu is a notable morpheme thanks to its wide use. I wonder. Without actually looking in any reference book, I'd guess that it's no more widely used than are a very large number of other morphemes.

And even if it were tremendously widely used (cf. the English morphemes un- [hello hello, no article], or dis-), it's not obvious how morphemes are more encyclopedic (and less merely lexicographic) than are words. -- Hoary 07:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're the major contributor of content to the article, and you seem to be trying to get rid of it. Explain to me the logic of that? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable question. I'm not trying to get rid of it; I'm wondering whether it should go.

Here's the "article" as I first found it. Horrible.

I didn't like some of what I read in its AfD, either in the proposal or in some early votes. Though my own first comment there is barely comprehensible, its main point was and is something like "Articles about real-world phenomena of some concern to a huge number of people shouldn't be redirected to unintentionally misleading articles on aspects of fiction of concern to much fewer people." (If I understand right, "jutsu" only pop up in the English translations of Naruto.) That was one reason why I rewrote the article, but rewriting it was also a pleasant diversion for me.

WP:DICT. But to my amazement there were and are lots of articles on suffixes. Many of these are lexicographic. I'm very puzzled by this. Why should morphemes be treated more leniently than words? (The treatment of words is odd in other ways too: it seems that speech acts such as kuwabara kuwabara and [excuse me!] fuck are OK, but I've never encountered any explanation for this.)

The occasional AfD results in a reasoned decision. I was disappointed that this one resulted in a cop-out.

Although I don't intend to nominate this for a second AfD, I'd be happy if somebody else did. I'd then read the arguments with considerable interest, before voting either keep or delete. -- Hoary 10:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The original article was horrendous. What we have now is better, but I agree notability has not been clearly established. As a Japanese loan morphemes it is slightly unusual, it is also frequently tagged on to English, other language loan words,(sholin-jutsu etc.) or made up words to give a 'martial/oriental sounding term in fiction and marketing (see Bullshido/McDojo) so an explanation of origins is reasonable. However i still wonder if it would be better on wikitonary.--Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, you've lost me. It's just a regular Sino-Japanese morpheme, isn't it? I can't see anything unusual about it. I'm not familiar with "sholin-jutsu", which I hazily infer is the romanized rendering of a merge with a truncation of the Sino-Japanese Shōrinji, so all remains Sino-Japanese, though perhaps anachronistically so. Well, it's a productive suffix; again nothing unusual about that. Or maybe you're instead saying that within English, speakers have quaintly japonified "Shaolin" [was it?] to "Sholin" and further japonified it with this Japanese suffix. If the latter, of course I've no objection (other than in totalitarian states, speakers are welcome to coin whatever words they wish) but this really does seem extraordinarily trivial: Let the journal American Speech deal with it, and a few years later let it either die out or make it into the dictionaries. -- Hoary 10:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry what I meant was; how many Japanese morphemes are in common usage in English? If lots then the rest is pretty irrelevant.

Shaolin-jutsu (typo'd) is a nonsense word I made up as an example of how it has been used in pseudo-oriental martial arts. I have a bit of a bugbare with people who make up a name as false advertising, hence the reference to bullshido. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 12:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Just had a thought would a peer review help? --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. But how about this? -- Hoary 10:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Idea. I'll put it on my watch list. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProjects

I think this should be part of the followinfg WikiProject! Akira-otomo (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• WikiProject for the Correction of Japanese Related Articles - a WikiProject that is based aruond Correcting Japanese Related Articles.

More than just martial arts...

I accidentally stumbled across this article while trying understand if (and how) it is constructive (honestly I was curious why 絵文字 (emoji) > 絵文術 is not a thing). But I could not but note that this list only contains only martial arts (plus equestrian). Whereas there are plenty more:wikt:Category:Japanese_terms_spelled_with_術_read_as_じゅつ, such as: 呪う (jou, spell) > 呪術 (jujutsu, black magic) 魔女 (majo, witch) > 魔術 (majutsu, witchcraft) 戦争 (sensou, war) > 戦術 (senjutsu, tactics)

"術" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 術 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 24 § 術 until a consensus is reached. Remsense诉 03:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)