Talk:Bushido

Chivalry?

The article now has this anti-historical tidbit:

"Nitobe was not the first person to document Japanese chivalry in this way. In his text Feudal and Modern Japan, historian Arthur May Knapp wrote:

   "The samurai of thirty years ago had behind him a thousand years of training in the law of honor, obedience, duty, and self-sacrifice..... It was not needed to create or establish them. As a child he had but to be instructed, as indeed he was from his earliest years, in the etiquette of self-immolation. The fine instinct of honor demanding it was in the very blood..."[3] "

Which is to say, May noted that the warrior class were brought up to be filial and obedient. How does this constitute 'Japanese chivalry,' rather than Confucianism? Especially if the warriors themselves conceived of their loyalty, self-sacrifice etc in Confucian terms? If the the entire language of loyalty is drawn from the Chinese classics? The most this excerpt shows is that other people besides Nitobe were inventing fictitious pasts and "essences of the Japanese spirit." The point remains that "Bushido" (as presented in this article) is a product of late 19th and early 20th century historical imagination.

This article is even spinning off further innacurate articles. If a text depicts warriors, it is now automatically part of the imaginary corpus of "Bushido literature." Talking about it in the Tokugawa period is highly questionable, and downright ridiculous when it starts being ascribed to the Kojiki. Now we have "Japanese chivalry" existing even before the emergence of a warrior class!

Nick Kapur's revision was excellent. I don't see any compelling reason why it has not been adopted. Presumably the page should reflect scholarly consensus, and not the mistaken beliefs of martial arts enthusiasts.

So, why are these changes blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.201.74 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

First sentence: "is a Japanese a phrase". Wtf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.165.11 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"Bushidō" as historical fiction

There is criticism of Nitobe's work as a fabrication, cobbled together from disparate half-truths. See also Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit (https://www.tofugu.com/japan/bushido/, December 8, 2014). How much of our article reflects history, and how much reflects mythology? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To add onto this:

Nitobe's work is generally accepted as historical fabrication within Japan. His writings have no basis in reality, with the writer himself believing he had invented the word "武士道" (bushido), due to a complete lack of research done on his part. His writings were criticised heavily by Inoue Tetsujiro, Uemura Masahisa, and Tsuda Sōkichi. All of whom were significantly more prominent historical writers at the time.

He states this in his own writings:

Inazō Nitobe. Bushido: The Soul of Japan "It is not a written code; at best it consists of a few maxims handed down from mouth to mouth or coming from the pen of some well-known warrior or savant."

He provides no evidence or supporting work to support this quote, and doubles down later in life.

"Some thirty years ago, when I first wrote an essay on the moral code of the Japanese and called it“Bushido”, there was raised a question both in Japan and among some scholars abroad as to the legitimacy of such a term. They had heard of Shido or Budo but never of “Bushido”. Some of them went even further and doubted the existence of such a code. … But the more I think of it, the stronger grows my conviction that we have been under the sway of ideas and opinions unformulated but none the less potent, whose guiding principle was Honor. And as it came to existence during the days of feudalism, it partook the coloring and taste of the period. Since it was made a class morality of the knights, samurai, it laid particular stress on honor; and because it was primarily meant for observance by that class, we may call it Bushido, the Way of the Fighting Knights.”58 

Ōta,Yūzō, Taiheiyō no hashi toshite no Nitobe Inazō, 20-21

Nitobe Inazō. Lectures on Japan, 124-125.

Oleg Benesch, Bushido : the creation of a martial ethic in late Meiji Japan

Oleg Benesch, Inventing the Way of the Samurai: Nationalism, Internationalism, and Bushido in Modern Japan, First edition

These assertiosn fall into direct conflict with the existence of the following works:

Hishikawa Moronobu " kokon bushido ezukushi"  菱川師宣の「古今武士道絵つくし」（1684）

Ogyū Sorai "Sorai Sensei Tōmonsho"  荻生徂徠『徂来先生答問書』(1725)

「世上に武士道と申習し申候一筋、古之書に之れ有り候。君子の道にもかなひ、人を治むる道にも成り申すべきやの由、御尋ね候。」

Constalation (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Multiple Types of Bushido

The page has improved significantly to explain the multiple Bushido types through history. Such as: Ancient Bushido (Heian-Kamakura, 794-1333), Sengoku Bushido (Sengoku period, 1336-1603), Edo Bushido (Early to late Edo (1603–1868), Meiji Bushido (1868-1945) and Contemporary Bushido (1950–Present): it is still used in various forms such as business, communication, martial arts and a way of life. Each type has distinct features. Bushido was originally focused on valor and later gained morals for attitude and behaviour. "Bushidō (武士道, "the way of the warrior") are regulations for samurai attitudes, behavior and lifestyle." Bushido is best used as an overarching term for all the codes, practices, philosophies and principles of samurai culture. Bushido is by extension the Japanese way of the warrior. Thus Nitobe Inazō's popular book "Bushido: The Soul of Japan (1900)" must not be used as the primary interpretation, because it does not represent all bushido types and interpretations by samurai and important figures. There are earlier works which describe bushido long before Nitobe. The historical development was put in chronological order with additional references. Etymology was expanded with important terminology. Additionally, valuable images were added about Bushido such as: Koyo Gunkan by Kosaka Masanobu (1616), Kashoki (Amusing Notes) by Saito Chikamori (1642) and Book cover of Kokon Bushido Ezukushi (Bushido Through The Ages) by artist Hishikawa Moronobu (1685). Images of the Hagakure and Musashi's Book of Five Rings could be included. - Artanisen (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The "Ancient Bushido" section includes vague information that is uncited and doesn't really make sense: "The old samurai didn't discuss morals of the modern samurai. The exception is feelings of mercy and natural feelings. The focus was overwhelming others by force, governing and protecting the land. The substantive aspect was important. The samurai of this time were terrifying and pure fighters." It is unclear who the "old samurai" or "modern samurai" are, how/why they would be discussing each others' morals in ancient times, what "the exception" is for "mercy and natural feelings" (and what those things even are), what "focus" is being discussed, what "the substantive aspect" means and how it was important, etc. The statement that they were "terrifying and pure fighters" is both extremely vague and a value judgment unsupported by a citation; terrifying according to whom? Pure in what way? This just sounds like someone's opinion that isn't clearly related to any source. 65.144.88.134 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 65.144.88.134 (talk · contribs), the "Ancient bushido" section was poorly presented and not backed up by the references. I have been bold and removed that section. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Styling bushido consistently throughout

Looking through this article, I have found bushido spelled with and without the macron over the o, and both italicized and not, and both capitalized and not.

One of the tenets of good writing is consistent style; that is, except for direct quotations, bushido should be typed the same way every time. I suggest using "bushido" without the macron, in roman (non-italicized) type, and lower-cased.

In 2010, this article was moved from Bushidō to Bushido by community consensus. That is my justification for removing the macron in all references to the term. I think there is sufficient usage of lower-cased "bushido" in the sources used in this article to justify lower-casing it ourselves. However, whether it should be italicized is a closer call.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style instructs us to italicize romanized words that are not in common use in the English language. However, looking at our sources, it seems italicized as often as not, though whether those sources are authorities on whether a word is in common usage in the English language is a separate argument. I asked a linguist her opinion about the commonality of "bushido" and she said she thinks it is common enough in English to use roman type. I think it is common enough, but I know that society at large is not saying "bushido" every day. So I leave it up to community consensus.

Should we italicize bushido? I vote no. — Jarmihi_GOCE (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

How to style the term depends in part on how it's being used.

If it's being used as a Japanese term, then we should keep the macron and italicize. The first sentence in the article lede is one such example, and the caption on the image of the kanji spelling is another.

If it's being used as an English term, then we should lose the macron and not italicize, and also not capitalize. The running text in the Bushido#Origin section is one such example.

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• USS Bunker Hill hit by two Kamikazes.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)